3 ms·
This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense. TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I
by skylanh 4y ago
This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense.
TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0
Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm
"Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm
- kashkhan 4y agoA government needs to wage war at some level to exist. To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
- phillc73 4y agoDispense with the government?
- int_19h 4y agoGovernments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoUnless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago"Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things" I'd go further and say that unless you achieve the perception of global equality in all things it is futile. The grass is always perceived as greener, even when it actually isn't.