5 ms·

That would be an interesting experiment to conduct, although I fear the outcome slightly. It would truly suck to not have any army should the need for one prop

That would be an interesting experiment to conduct, although I fear the outcome slightly. It would truly suck to not have any army should the need for one properly arise. As well, culture must lose in some form without galleries for art and dance, for instance. Wonder how long it would take to set up a web app to test the theory...

ph0rque 18y ago
eh negotiation works ~15x better than war (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670918 http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...)
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  Does it work when one side has no leverage because they defunded their military into extinction?
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 18y ago
    You can always hire mercenaries.
    - likpok 18y ago
      I seem to recall that the reason mercenaries (at least in the US) are viable is because they hire ex-military. So most/all of the expensive training is done. Furthermore, mercenaries are not so good at things like air forces and carrier groups and artillery (v. large capital investments that lack adaptability to smaller situations).
      - eru 18y ago
        Tell your senator to vote against subsidizing mercenaries with tax payers money!
  - helveticaman 18y ago
    They still have people and can buy weapons with their superior economy.
    - patio11 18y ago
      I think states which pursue this strategy will find that with an aggressive enemy "just buy a competent military" is not something that you can accomplish in less than a generation. How many European nations could "buy weapons" and then pull off a minor shooting war against a local tinpot dictator whose military budget would be lost in Toyota's R&D expenditures? (e.g. Save Kosovo... without calling the US.) I think the answer to the rhetorical question is "exactly one", although I can name two others which would actually have the capability of showing up in time to drop a bomb or two, to no strategic effect. The others are universally incapable of even getting to the theatre. And if Russia decided to get frisky and send in the tanks? Most nations in Europe would fold about as fast as Georgia did -- their sole means of defense is not being "acceptable, if regrettable, losses" in Washington.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  That's a perfect example of the type of thinking I would worry about.
- ensignavenger 18y ago
  As George Washington said, "to secure peace, we must always be prepared for war." We all want peace, but to achieve it, we must be prepared for war- a well regulated militia and armed private citizens can go a long way toward this (and is essential), but a professional military is an important element,too.
- ensignavenger 18y ago
  As George Washington said, "to secure peace, we must always be prepared for war." We all want peace, but to achieve it, we must be prepared for war- a well regulated militia and armed private citizens can go a long way toward this (and is essential), but a professional military is an important element,too.

ph0rque 18y ago

eh negotiation works ~15x better than war (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670918 http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cf...)

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
Does it work when one side has no leverage because they defunded their military into extinction?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 18y ago
  You can always hire mercenaries.
  - likpok 18y ago
    I seem to recall that the reason mercenaries (at least in the US) are viable is because they hire ex-military. So most/all of the expensive training is done. Furthermore, mercenaries are not so good at things like air forces and carrier groups and artillery (v. large capital investments that lack adaptability to smaller situations).
    - eru 18y ago
      Tell your senator to vote against subsidizing mercenaries with tax payers money!
- helveticaman 18y ago
  They still have people and can buy weapons with their superior economy.
  - patio11 18y ago
    I think states which pursue this strategy will find that with an aggressive enemy "just buy a competent military" is not something that you can accomplish in less than a generation. How many European nations could "buy weapons" and then pull off a minor shooting war against a local tinpot dictator whose military budget would be lost in Toyota's R&D expenditures? (e.g. Save Kosovo... without calling the US.) I think the answer to the rhetorical question is "exactly one", although I can name two others which would actually have the capability of showing up in time to drop a bomb or two, to no strategic effect. The others are universally incapable of even getting to the theatre. And if Russia decided to get frisky and send in the tanks? Most nations in Europe would fold about as fast as Georgia did -- their sole means of defense is not being "acceptable, if regrettable, losses" in Washington.
run4yourlives 18y ago
That's a perfect example of the type of thinking I would worry about.
ensignavenger 18y ago
As George Washington said, "to secure peace, we must always be prepared for war." We all want peace, but to achieve it, we must be prepared for war- a well regulated militia and armed private citizens can go a long way toward this (and is essential), but a professional military is an important element,too.
ensignavenger 18y ago
As George Washington said, "to secure peace, we must always be prepared for war." We all want peace, but to achieve it, we must be prepared for war- a well regulated militia and armed private citizens can go a long way toward this (and is essential), but a professional military is an important element,too.