Nietzsche observed that every country claim to have a military in order to prevent invasion by another country's military. — darthbarracuda

The saddest part of this truth is that so many of the countries that spend great quantities of money on military build ups instead of education and health have nothing that anyone would want to invade them for, and no neighbors capable of invasion.

The major powers now have so much invested in war preparation that it would be a financial disaster to have to close all of the research, and production centers.

With today's technology it is possible to detect any kind of force planning an invasion of any of the major countries in the world, so a surprise "Red Dawn" invasion is extremely doubtful. Knowing this and knowing that the people of the good old US of A are armed to the teeth, who the hell would risk sending troops in?

Until someone finds a way of decimating whole armies with blood big death rays from space there are going to be people that insist on spending money for soldiers to do their bidding and die doing it. And maybe even then the race will continue to find ways of make bigger ray guns that can eliminate the other guys.

If you want to stop wars I say that we should just shoot all of the politicians so that there will be no one to start them.

If you want to stop wars I say that we should just shoot all of the politicians so that there will be no one to start them. — Sir2u

:lol: I was thinking along the same lines.

Those in power can only maintain their power if they successfully dupe their subordinates into fighting each other. If the king tells the lord to go to war, and the lord refuses, the king will threaten to send his other lords' armies on him. Yet what if these lords refuse?

It seems as though the only reason we may need militaries, or political states in general, is because we had militaries and political states in the past and that permanently fucked everything up.

Nietzsche observed that every country claim to have a military in order to prevent invasion by another country's military. Is this a vicious circular logic, or are militaries a "necessary evil"? Is this not akin to the prisoner's dilemma?

If a nation's social contract includes a clause about providing and maintaining security then I think it's completely moral and in right business for the nation to have a military in that interest. And having a military doesn't necessarily imply the country ever intends to use force. Switzerland, for example, has mandatory military conscription for its citizens but has not really ever engaged in any combative exercise since the 19th century. I think irresponsible or excessive use of military force has more to do with the governing administration rather than the fact of there being a military.

we should just shoot all of the politicians so that there will be no one to start them — Sir2u

Except the military. You would then have a military state. Good luck with that.

Except the military. You would then have a military state. Good luck with that. — Bitter Crank

Hell no we gotta shoot dem too.

I have spent far more time thinking about how to justify pacifism than how to justify military action. Short of the second coming, I don't see any reason for nations to do away with their military establishments in the near future.

For one, military power is sometimes needed to quell internal dissent. Were a home-grown fascist terrorist organization attack from within, the military (army, marines, or state national guard) would probably be needed to destroy such a group.

For two, the military is an on-call personnel pool in times of emergency. Should the Really Big Quake happen in California or off the coast of WA, OR, and CA, the resulting severe and widespread damage would exhaust local emergency resources almost immediately. The Army/National Guard would need to be deployed as rescue and recovery workers, in addition to FEMA (for whatever they are worth).

For three, many individual countries could find themselves with dysfunctional states on next door. In order to defend themselves from disorder, if not military attack, a functioning military is required. We have problems now with people crossing our border illegally; what if Mexico became even more dysfunctional. The military would be needed to help manage the situation (however you care to define "manage").

War is the conduct of diplomacy by other means. That is likely to remain true for some time into the future. Sometimes you can't solve issues with negotiation. You need to just shoot the problem.

Plain old-fashioned war is likely to break out again in the near future somewhere for some reason. Those who can resist with force of arms will fare better than those who depend on prayer and fasting.

During WWII peaceful neutral Switzerland had to accept some fairly distasteful business dealings with the Third Reich in exchange for its continued neutral existence. If Sweden didn't supply the Third Reich with steel and high quality iron ore, I rather doubt that their neutrality would have been worth much.

I think irresponsible or excessive use of military force has more to do with the governing administration rather than the fact of there being a military. — aporiap

I think that is quite often true.

Hell no we gotta shoot dem too. — Sir2u

Yes but... they got guns too -- big ones, and they practice.

For one, military power is sometimes needed to quell internal dissent. — Bitter Crank

This is happening here where I live and it is not a nice experience. They do dress them up as military police though before they tell them to shoot civilians.

For two, the military is an on-call personnel pool in times of emergency. — Bitter Crank

Less money would probably be spent by having properly trained personnel for the job than maintaining thousands of soldiers and all of their equipment.

For three, many individual countries could find themselves with dysfunctional states on next door. In order to defend themselves from disorder, if not military attack, a functioning military is required. — Bitter Crank

That does not seem to be working anywhere around the world. The armies are not stopping the hordes of refugees from reaching the places they want to go to. Again, better trained border guards would probably be more functional.

Yes but... they got guns too -- big ones, and they practice. — Bitter Crank

So? Should we just get bigger ones or tell the politicians to cut off their money before we shoot them?

For one, military power is sometimes needed to quell internal dissent. Were a home-grown fascist terrorist organization attack from within, the military (army, marines, or state national guard) would probably be needed to destroy such a group. — Bitter Crank

Fascism breeds in certain environments which may not exist in an anarchistic society.

This is similar to why is does not make sense to argue that the state is necessary in order to quell crime. Obviously the state isn't doing a very good job if it has to quell crime! How do we know that crime would exist without a state?

For two, the military is an on-call personnel pool in times of emergency. Should the Really Big Quake happen in California or off the coast of WA, OR, and CA, the resulting severe and widespread damage would exhaust local emergency resources almost immediately. The Army/National Guard would need to be deployed as rescue and recovery workers, in addition to FEMA (for whatever they are worth). — Bitter Crank

But why does it need to be a military?

For three, many individual countries could find themselves with dysfunctional states on next door. In order to defend themselves from disorder, if not military attack, a functioning military is required. We have problems now with people crossing our border illegally; what if Mexico became even more dysfunctional. The military would be needed to help manage the situation (however you care to define "manage"). — Bitter Crank

Yes, however I think this is still absurd. If we didn't have states, we wouldn't have militaries. But since we already have states, we may not be able to ever get rid of them. We're stuck - the wheels of revolution that were meant to lead to an anarchist and socialist future are broken. The opportunity seems largely to be gone, thanks to technology.

Fascism breeds in certain environments which may not exist in an anarchistic society.

This is similar to why is does not make sense to argue that the state is necessary in order to quell crime. — darthbarracuda

These are interesting questions, but perhaps another thread? Never mind.

Fascism requires certain political conditions to gain power; they could exist in an dysfunctional anarchist society. It isn't "anarchism" that works against fascism, its a society in working order that protects against fascism, be it anarchist or parliamentarian.

Crime exists where there are opportunists willing to fuck over other people, state or no state. There is nothing about a stateless society which would prevent ruthless opportunists from arising among the population to prey on others.

Just remember, some people are sons of bitches and just don't play nice with others.

Just remember, some people are sons of bitches and just don't play nice with others. — Bitter Crank

Can we just shot them too and be done with it?

Military is wrong on so any levels I cannot imagine how any one could want to join. By the way, not everyone wants to join. Some are signed up and some use it as a way to get away. A lot of the ones that d join willingly are people with a death wish or just want to do other people harm and get away with it.

I disagree. States are necessary for militaries, we know this from history. The Roman Empire had the most sophisticated armed forces of the ancient world and after its fall (at least, the Western half), the European political scene changed drastically. There were no standing armies anymore, there were small militias here and there to protect against bandits and raiders, and the king would call on his lords to conscript men in times of war.

It is with the advent of the industrial state that standing armies (militaries) became more common. Industrial states tend to be capitalistic and are viciously competitive with each other. Militaries are what protect one state's means of production from another state. World War I saw the clash of old-school warfare with new technology and it was horrible. World War II saw similar, although the strategies were beginning to change. But WWII brought something even more terrifying: the nuclear bomb, which immediately launched the Cold War before WWII even ended.

Now that terrorists can get their hands on nuclear warheads, it is difficult to see what other alternatives there are to stopping them apart from the use of states. Unfortunately, many of the terrorists the West is fighting today cropped up because of the meddling affairs of states. We got ourselves into this mess in the first place by having states that fought each other in total war and produced nuclear bombs!

States -or politicians- are not, and never were, necessary for military or wars. If tomorrow all militaries and states ceased to be, there would be a bloodshed on a global scale (a bloodshed bigger than the one that is taking place right now). — Πετροκότσυφας

People would band together and become mini states for their own protection. Once this happened others would band together to try to steal what they have, then there would be 2 mini states. The bad guys and the good guys would need leaders to guide them so there would be ranks, therefore military. They would need people to negotiate and manage the internal affairs, therefore there would be politicians.

Yes, it is a necessarily evil. If you don't have one then the other sides that do take you out. So basically the prisoner's dilemma. The death penalties instituted within the military are mainly done to keep morale and to prevent desertion within the ranks.

If you don't have one then the other sides that do take you out. — yatagarasu

But why do they have a military? It is a prisoner's dilemma, a rat race, a constant fight to one-up each other out of fear and masculine pride.

How do we stop this? How do we convince the members of the militaries of the world to stop listening to their superiors and lay down their arms?

"Si vis pacem, para bellum."

That old aphorism has stood the test for many centuries. I don't see a change coming any time soon, unless AI puts every single last one of us up against a wall and does the right thing.

But why do they have a military? It is a prisoner's dilemma, a rat race, a constant fight to one-up each other out of fear and masculine pride.

How do we stop this? How do we convince the members of the militaries of the world to stop listening to their superiors and lay down their arms? — darthbarracuda

Yes, it is a prisoner's dilemma, which makes it difficult to go for an armistice even with the most rational agents on both sides. I don't think that has much to do with pride let alone why it is masculine. It is just necessary. It's beyond disappointing but humans were not created to understand out groups. There is way too much to lose to be the one caught trusting a little bit too much.

Either we make it that fighting a war is much worse than not doing it (which we have gotten closer to with nuclear arms) or we develop telepathy. Who knows, we might evolve in some way that allows us to tap into our more sympathetic prefrontal cortex. Even with these disappointing parts of human nature I always try and live by one motto, a motto I wish more would take seriously: "If you are courageous enough to fight in a war, perhaps you can muster the same courage to not engage in one." War has always seemed like the easy way out for me.

The problem is simply that predation, free-riding, exploitation, etc., are always options, and to guard against that you need rules, and ultimately the backing of force.

IOW, it would be nice if everyone was nice, but everyone isn't nice, so you always have to be prepared to fight to defend yourself against strong and weak forms of exploitation.

Perhaps the 'easier' way out is more correct if you mean there are only two choices. There is appeasement, or capitulation, in addition to negotiated settlement and war. I would place the first two well ahead of war on a continuum of ease, a position apparently shared by J. S. Mill.


What if, in a failure of earnest negotiations, you run up against capitulation or retaining your values and ways of living? You would be correct in saying that the easier way would be to give in with what you still take for rectitude as your basis. What is not at all clear is if that choice is the correct one.