i dont know about you guys, but when i say army, i mean the navy, airforce and whatever that could be considered…eh, in the army.
us humans have always found the need to battle each other, using whatever means we can think of. so if there was no army that would propably mean that we dont want to kill each other. or it could mean that we have found new ways to accomplish that, but i dont want to think about that possibility.
what i do want is the boot in em american army asses that are staying here in iceland. i dont ever want to see an armyman(navy, airforce…whatever)in this country. i dont ever want to see a army device(bombs, fighters etc…)in this country.
its real simple. the army is a tool for war, i dont want war. i sure hope you dont want war. i hope nobody wants war.
That’s it, I’m calling our PM as we speak. We’re invading Iceland tonight. Not to inhabit it, but to make it sink and go away for good.
bj0rn, you don’t want “american army asses” and subsequent material on your home soil, why were you then boasting about Iceland getting a huge NATO fee just for allowing the Yankees to use your lava rock as a training ground a few days a year ?
Furthermore: only a few armies these days create wars or instigate them. Most are for defensive purposes. Example: The Netherlands is not likely to be invaded by anyone, but we still couldn’t sleep safely without an army with the relatively recent memory of WWII in our heads… And of course, in day-to-day life our army is mainly deployed in UN Peace Keeping activities, such as Kosovo. Nothing wrong with that now, is there ? But carrying an Uzi sure comes in handy when 300 angry Serbs are approaching your checkpoint with pitch forks and spades (if you’re lucky).
I’m sorry, but losing the weapons would be like creating a second “Doctors without Frontiers”.
So I say: Armies, Navies and the like are OK in my book if functioning as above.
Unless this thread was really about computer programming, in which case: “HUH ?”
coldfire: i wasnt boasting, it was a statement.
if there were no armies in the world you wouldnt need an army for defence cause you like…wouldnt have an army
seriously though, the point isnt that armys start wars and such, they are tool of war, “peacekeeping” and defence. what are they defending? a country from an invasion by what? another army! as with “peacekeeping” there is always some army involved, same for war naturally.
peacekeeping because some other army is being used as a tool to wreck havoc? defence as in the gulf war?? whoever said offence is the best defence eh?
ok thats an awful lot of questions. the army is an illusion of safety. but if thats what it takes to make you sleep well at nights…
peacekeeping because some other army is being used as a tool to wreck havoc?
If havoc is wrecked, neatness remains. But I think you meant the opposite, so: the answer is YES, since no country or person controls the world as a whole, ‘neutral’ armies can best be deployed as peace keeping forces between the parties that show enough stupidity to actually fight.
Quote:
defence as in the gulf war??
Well… touchy subject there bj0rn. I’m sure some Americans will hate me for this, but the main objective in the Gulf War was not defending Kuwait, but it was defending Middle East Oil Fields. Obviously, the raids on Baghdad were not defensive, but offensive. And quite rightfully so, if you ask me. Even if the stakes ARE oil. Hey I gotta fill up that tank too, you know
Quote:
whoever said offence is the best defence eh?
Dunno, but it certainly wasn’t me. Must have been Hulk Hogan, or something.
Let’s take a historical example from your own neck of the woods, Bjorn. Back in the 1930’s, Germany was obviously preparing for a series of aggressive real estate aquisitions. Other European countries were worried about this and made various plans. Sweden’s plan was to begin building up an armed force and planning for the defense of its territory. Norway, however, figured that Sweden lay between Germany and Norway so they were safe as long as Sweden was ready to defend itself so they had no need to increase their military. Undoubtedly they were greatly surprised when Germany decided to bypass Sweden and invade Norway by an amphibious assault.
The point of all this is that you can’t simply assume that if you refuse to defend yourself nobody will attack you. There are plenty of countries that have armies and are willing to use them. These countries will generally choose to use them against countries without armies if they can.
Holland had one (1!) tank going into WWII. It failed to stop the 3000 tanks rolling across our borders when Germany attacked. We were caught off guard too, and I’m sure we never will again.
We’ve got quite a few tanks now…
BTW Mike, although Iceland is technically Europe, it might even be closer to New York than it is to Amsterdam…
Better check that now. Amsterdam - Reykjavik 2022 km. New York - Reykjavik 4215 km. Huh. Guess I was wrong I just remembered it being awfully close to Greenland, you know, the patch of land that makes Denmark the largest European Country.
I’m a nice old-fashioned girl. I think you ought to be able to say it FORTAN or LISP.
That said, note that it doesn’t take a modern army to make life hell for the non-combatants. Read about the civil war in Sierra Leone. The rebel forces have the charming practice of entering villages and chopping off the limbs of the residents with machetes. The accounts I’ve read (NYT) seem to suggest that neither side has much in the way of armaments. Nevertheless, two machete chops = no hands.
Anyway, I don’t think peace would last in this situation. The world would be in an unstable equilibrium.
It would take only a group of disgruntled citizens to realize that the country was vulnerable and organize a revolt. Other groups, who preferred the government, might try to stop it, resulting in violence. I don’t think groups could be classified as armies in a traditional sense although some internal organization might develop.
there are several countries in the world where there is no need for an army, that is to prevent a revolt and stuff like that. in some countries people dont get violent when protesting, so i simply ask; why cant it be like that everywhere?
bj0rn, I understood what you are saying I just feel it isn’t possible. Armies exist because people want them to exist. Let’s say that by magic tomorrow morning every soldier on Earth disappeared. Within a matter of hours, most of the countries on Earth would be recruiting new soldiers to replace them and forming new armies. As long as the preconditions exist in human society that make having armies possible and desirable, armies will exist. The question you seem to be reaching for is not “how would society be different if there were no armies?” but “how would society have to be different in order for there to be no armies?”
