3 ms·
I find your rationale too simple. It is reasonable to assume that it would have been at the same time unacceptable for the population and perceived as a threat
by xcambar 5y ago
I find your rationale too simple. It is reasonable to assume that it would have been at the same time unacceptable for the population and perceived as a threat by other nations, should that have been done proactively.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ejb999 5y agoWhat exactly is 'too simple' about planning for the future? Do you also start shopping for homeowners insurance once the house catches on fire? Last few decades have been 'relatively' peaceful for many parts of Europe, but given the almost 2 thousand year history of on and off warfare in Europe, nobody should have been surprised for the need for a country to defend itself or its neighbors. What is 'simple' is assuming that because it is peaceful today, it will always be peaceful.
- xcambar 5y agoSince you're comparing a house to a country, resp. a fire to war, and resp. an insurance to diplomatic relationships, then I stand strongly by my initial comment. Your comment is overly simplistic as it ignores a ton of the signals that nations and leaders emit by doing one thing or the other. Think of the nuclear treaties: they're here to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, actually adding to the global security. Si, yes, not beefing up your military can be beneficial to everyone.