It's suicidally naive not to pursue military supremacy. Your enemies will.
What are you going to do when they appear on your shores to begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape, and pillaging? Write an angry letter? Start an online petition?
Can't really understand if this is the boutade of a 13 years old COD player, but: lots of countries don't have military supremacy nor enslavement and pillaging on their shores. There are LOTS of shades in between which you obviously don't get.
Although I upvoted you, it's a variable that you control only to some extent. At some point you will have an enemy that is irrational, power-hungry and unwilling to negotiate.
This is true, which is why Europe is now back to spending on defense, but you also have to consider the incentives here. Power-hungry people can use threats only if their populace can be whipped up by them. The fact that its largely impossible to gain approval in France by threatening Germany with invasion is a large part in why peace in Europe is so persistent.
This is hardly historically true. What actually happened was Europe was devastated by two industrial total wars which is what led to this circumstance.
And then in the aftermath faced a Russia which promptly seized a whole bunch of Baltic states.
Or to put it another way: up till this year Canada was not planning it's strategic defence strategy with the US as a possible threat actor.
The ones doing what you are describing here especially lately are the western powers with millions and millions of dead each decade in wars over resources not ideology or safety. It’s about money and power resulting in thousands of dead children, women and civilians - lately in palestine via israel. It’s creating terrorism not safety - so your argument is backwards - it’s the military industrial complex keeping the war going. And to use the ‘it’s for safety’ is extremely sinister and has been debunked continuously by everyone with even the slightest interest in geopolitics.
I think it's not about the truth in that message, but rather how the message is delivered, and how the kernel of truth is planted into what context.
For example, the same message could be told by referring to respect instead of fear.
"I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology so much that earns the respect of your adversaries. If they don't respect you, if they don’t respect the might that your army can summon, you. Instead of going along with you, they will attack you at the next opportunity"
The issue is that by introducing hyperbole, the meaning changes completely. Take the two statements:
1. I want peace.
2. a) Therefore I need to be strong enough to deter any attack.
2. b) Therefore I need to be so strong that all my enemies fear me.
2. a) is sound. Nobody attacks if they believe the cost is higher than benefit. ("Believe" is doing heavy lifting here, most wars start when countries belief about cost/value is misaligned)
2. b) is incompatible with 1. Either you believe that a stronger party does not necessarily attack weaker parties, thus peace could also be maintained without supremacy, or you believe supremacy leads to wars, but then your own goal of supremacy cannot be in the name of peace.
Unless, of course, you're a race supremacist, who believes you're so much wiser and more moral than anyone else that only you can be trusted with unchecked power. An idiotic and immoral position to take.
Wrong. 2b is compatible with 1. You can have peace without military supremacy, for a time at least. But you can guarantee peace with military supremacy. That's the difference.
You are at your enemy's mercy without it. They may conquer you on a whim, and there's not a thing you can do about it.
I would much prefer that military supremacy in the hands of the wise and moral, there's nothing idiotic or immoral about that (indeed, the opposite is idiotic and arguably immoral).
Although I agree with you in principle, after having seen what Putin is doing in Ukraine, I believe the original message would reach the target better than yours.
To add to the confusion, you can have military intelligence assess your potential target and still fail miserably just like Putin failed in his blitzkrieg. So a little bit of saber-rattling might serve a purpose, I guess.
Out of curiosity, which country in the world is going to "begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape and pillaging" of:
- The country already having the largest army in the world, whose internal military branches are larger than most armies in the world ?
- The country that has a ocean to ocean control of its land, with east and west being fundamentally impossible to attack ?
- The country that is surrounded north and south by either allies, or third world countries struggling to even maintain peace within their own borders ?
- The country that is already going down some of the fastest descent into fascism history has seen ?
And how exactly that relates to Palantir, whose goal is not to provide vision algorithms for bombing brown people in the middle east, but to straight up build a file about their own citizens that would have made the Gestapo drool ?
The vast majority of countries that can afford a solid military already do, and neither is at threat of whatever bullshit you're making up here. Even local tensions like Pakistan and India, Thailand and Cambodia are being handled with incredibly small portions of their militaries, despite some pretty deep hatred. The countries that cannot, either have agreements with other powers in the region, or indeed get attacked by a military so overwhelmingly strong for them that even putting 100% of their GDP into it would not suffice.
I'll tell you what "pursuing military supremacy" does though: as it stands, the vast majority of the world sees the United States as a threat, with ever renewed imperialistic needs and aspirations. The United States is always just a single dip towards madness away from being the greatest danger that currently exists in the world. And now, they are suppressing internal protesters. But hey, if you're looking to rediscover how 9/11 was like and why it happened, pop off I guess.
might as well use it then right? I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe. I mean we would still need to use the military equipment on the people. Anything else but absolute control over everyone would be suicidally naive.
1 country in the world won't make you safe from wars. There's a reason why military was and is separated from police. Just think what's going to happen when your soldiers start to kill citizens.
1 country in the world tend to degrade to dystopian regime, and it was researched by multiple books authors, and actually a modern day USA is a good example of a regime on the path to dystopia.
> I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe.
This is the logic behind the old-style Jihad. Also the Chinese emperors used the same argument when conquering smaller kingdoms.
Unfortunately, what happens in practice is that even in one Islamic country Sunni vs Shia terrorists attacks happen. And in the case of China, the price you pay for superficial peace are Uighur concentration camps, Tibetan self-immolations and so on.
You then have that option, yes. Usually it's not worth it - even the "winners" of a war suffer massive short-term loss of soldiers and resources, and create long-term enemies - but it's a nice option to have.
There are stickers everywhere in my city against NATO. They say "food not weapons". As though the Ukrainians could defeat the Russians with pickles and ham. Left-wing idealism is grounded in denial of reality.
There's a right-wing (or rather far-right) anti-NATO but it's much more confidential. Anti-NATO in Europe is typically found in communist and revolutionary movements.