4 ms·

>So long as you can raise an army at some future point in time should the need arise, this issue seems moot. By the time you could cobble together an army any

>So long as you can raise an army at some future point in time should the need arise, this issue seems moot. By the time you could cobble together an army any modern military would have already conquered you, especially if you have super strict civilian firearm laws like Costa Rica that make putting together defensive militias much, much harder.

jjk166 5y ago
But no one else has a standing army in this scenario so there is no such modern military that can conquer you before you can remilitarize. The moment one country starts militarizing in a world without militaries, you know their intentions and can start remilitarizing to counter. But let's say Costa Rica had a standing army - are they going to stop that modern military from conquering them? Probably not, so why waste money on a half assed defense?
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Germany, between WWI & WWII, officially has no military to worry about. Was able to create a Europe-conquering army very quickly.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    So would you describe the Maginot line as a good investment?
    - ctdonath 5y ago
      Obviously not. Germany noticed lines have ends, and just went around.
      - jjk166 5y ago
        So you're saying that a nation without a large standing army can build a new force well suited to exploiting weaknesses of its adversaries who spend substantially on maintaining investments in defense which contain those exploitable weaknesses? One might go so far as to say that not having a strong standing army for an extended period of time actually proved militarily advantageous for the Germans in 1940 when their new army outmaneuvered an obsolete one.
        HideousKojima 5y ago
        The Brits abd French actually drastically cut military spending between WWI and WWII
        ctdonath 5y ago
        I was responding to “The moment one country starts militarizing in a world without militaries, you know their intentions and can start remilitarizing to counter.” Lack of a military is quite a weakness to exploit.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Also, they went around it using, in large part, Czech armor they took when they invaded Sudetenland.
- bufferoverflow 5y ago
  No, in this scenario someone made an army and conquered you, and now they own you and your resources.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    > but what happens if nobody has a standing army? The moment someone has a standing army, we are, by definition, no longer in a situation where nobody has a standing army. If someone can magically instantaneously create an army, then Costa Rica should just do that the moment they're threatened.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      The issue is that while someone is building an army, the rest of the world might stand by and do nothing in hopes that the army won't be used, via appeasement and negotiation, particularly if the world's culture is strongly set against having armies. At least until the aggressor starts conquering. That's how it tends to play out historically, so countries and kingdoms go to the trouble and expense of having standing armies, or being able to call them up quickly enough. Because there's always potentially someone who gains power that wants more, and plenty of people willing to follow.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        > particularly if the world's culture is strongly set against having armies. If the world's culture is strongly set against having armies, and one country effectively threatens them by breaking that taboo, then I would at least expect the world to instantly cease all trade and transport links with the arming country. That may not be enough on its own to force the taboo-breaking country to disarm, but I don't see any contradiction in a world culture which is against having armies while also ruthlessly dedicated to temporarily re-arming and exterminating the first country that breaks the taboo. There are hard coordination and rule of law / presumption of innocence questions to solve there, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that this world culture will stand idly by while their enemy works to undo the very thing that defines the culture.
yongjik 5y ago
> especially if you have super strict civilian firearm laws like Costa Rica that make putting together defensive militias much, much harder. Not refuting the larger point, but this part sounds questionable. For a country, rifles are easy to provision: just buy enough and keep them in well-guarded armories in strategic locations. Trained soldiers are much harder to come by. South Korea has relatively strict gun laws and very few people own one at home. But almost every male goes through two years of military service. In case of a foreign invasion, it won't take 24 hours to summon millions of civilians, just throw each one a rifle, and there's your army.

jjk166 5y ago

But no one else has a standing army in this scenario so there is no such modern military that can conquer you before you can remilitarize. The moment one country starts militarizing in a world without militaries, you know their intentions and can start remilitarizing to counter. But let's say Costa Rica had a standing army - are they going to stop that modern military from conquering them? Probably not, so why waste money on a half assed defense?

ctdonath 5y ago
Germany, between WWI & WWII, officially has no military to worry about. Was able to create a Europe-conquering army very quickly.
- jjk166 5y ago
  So would you describe the Maginot line as a good investment?
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    Obviously not. Germany noticed lines have ends, and just went around.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      So you're saying that a nation without a large standing army can build a new force well suited to exploiting weaknesses of its adversaries who spend substantially on maintaining investments in defense which contain those exploitable weaknesses? One might go so far as to say that not having a strong standing army for an extended period of time actually proved militarily advantageous for the Germans in 1940 when their new army outmaneuvered an obsolete one.
      - HideousKojima 5y ago
        The Brits abd French actually drastically cut military spending between WWI and WWII
      - ctdonath 5y ago
        I was responding to “The moment one country starts militarizing in a world without militaries, you know their intentions and can start remilitarizing to counter.” Lack of a military is quite a weakness to exploit.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Also, they went around it using, in large part, Czech armor they took when they invaded Sudetenland.
bufferoverflow 5y ago
No, in this scenario someone made an army and conquered you, and now they own you and your resources.
- jjk166 5y ago
  > but what happens if nobody has a standing army? The moment someone has a standing army, we are, by definition, no longer in a situation where nobody has a standing army. If someone can magically instantaneously create an army, then Costa Rica should just do that the moment they're threatened.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    The issue is that while someone is building an army, the rest of the world might stand by and do nothing in hopes that the army won't be used, via appeasement and negotiation, particularly if the world's culture is strongly set against having armies. At least until the aggressor starts conquering. That's how it tends to play out historically, so countries and kingdoms go to the trouble and expense of having standing armies, or being able to call them up quickly enough. Because there's always potentially someone who gains power that wants more, and plenty of people willing to follow.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > particularly if the world's culture is strongly set against having armies. If the world's culture is strongly set against having armies, and one country effectively threatens them by breaking that taboo, then I would at least expect the world to instantly cease all trade and transport links with the arming country. That may not be enough on its own to force the taboo-breaking country to disarm, but I don't see any contradiction in a world culture which is against having armies while also ruthlessly dedicated to temporarily re-arming and exterminating the first country that breaks the taboo. There are hard coordination and rule of law / presumption of innocence questions to solve there, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that this world culture will stand idly by while their enemy works to undo the very thing that defines the culture.

yongjik 5y ago

> especially if you have super strict civilian firearm laws like Costa Rica that make putting together defensive militias much, much harder. Not refuting the larger point, but this part sounds questionable. For a country, rifles are easy to provision: just buy enough and keep them in well-guarded armories in strategic locations. Trained soldiers are much harder to come by. South Korea has relatively strict gun laws and very few people own one at home. But almost every male goes through two years of military service. In case of a foreign invasion, it won't take 24 hours to summon millions of civilians, just throw each one a rifle, and there's your army.