Governments are preparing for war because they want one. Cut the military budget to 0 and drive off lunatic politicians before it’s to late.
Don’t forget the postcard to Russia inviting them over for tea
You must have confused me for a german politician
Its almost like the west tried to be cordial with Russia before Russia decided to be an expansionist imperialistic power…
That pic is obviously of a much younger Putin and Merkle.
More recently you have this instead … https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/merkel-putin-eyeroll-gif-9164919
You chickenhawks are always so loud and self-righteous, until someone wants to force you or your kid to actually go fight in the war.
On the contrary, I would rather NOT go to war. You know what’s the best way to get that to happen? Have a strong enough military that bullies like Putin and Xinnie will think very very carefully before launching a ‘special military operation’ into your country.
Unfortunately a strong military is necessary to maintain peace
It might sound contradictory at first but you should consider that people will always disagree. And if you and your neighboring country disagree and they have 20x more military power than you, they might be inclined to use force to solve your differences
The only thing that allows you to have a civil and diplomatic discussion is the assurance that war is the worst of the options. As we see today, strong military nations are not afraid to abuse weaker military powers.
I understand the hate towards the production of weapons, and I’m with you. But defunding the military is a simplistic, utopian argument that unfortunately would not work in the present time
Unfortunately a strong military is necessary to maintain peace
Peace is maintain by seeking peace and avoid conflict not by spending billions of dollars in weapons that in most cases are designed to attack and kill other people.
they might be inclined to use force to solve your differences
And that’s why you want to cut the military budget to 0 so that there’s no leverage to use force against others. According to your logic people will always disagree? So ban nukes and weapons before everyone kill each others, putting a gun in everyone hands is going to lead to a bloodbath not to peace.
As we see today, strong military nations are not afraid to abuse weaker military powers.
Again cut the military budget to 0 so that your nation doesn’t abuse weaker military powers.
I understand the hate towards the production of weapons, and I’m with you. But defunding the military is a simplistic, utopian argument that unfortunately would not work in the present time
You sound like you are making an apology to war and authoritarian nations. You are not with me and you are not with the human race, you are against it. What’s utopian is to believe that you can achieve peace by spending Trillions of dollars in war. What’s simplistic is to believe that you can’t do without a government tossing billions of public money into military weapons.
I’m very curious as to what your suggested course of action would be if you were to “cut the military budget to 0”, and then another nation with a strong military uses their military to abuse or murder the citizens of your nation because they disagree with your nation in some way…
Brother, I respect your principles but you’re not understanding the issue with having no military.
First you would have to convince all countries in the world to cut all military budgets. Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.
And once all countries have 0 military, there is an incentive for aggressive leaders to produce weapons since it would be easy to win a war against an unarmed country
Disarming a country is an impossible mission because it only works if the entire world agrees to it, and because it makes everyone vulnerable once someone decides to break the agreement.
I hope you can see it clearly now. Unless you have a proposal that fixes the two points above, your 0 military plan would not work
I’m happy to discuss more if you’d like
"people take anti-cancer drugs because they want war-with-cancer:
simply by stopping all war-with-cancer, & stopping all the anti-cancer-drugs,
then everybody won’t having malignant-tumors killing them!"
False reasoning.
WHEN there are truly-rabid people with armies,
THEN defense is a SANE investment, if the truly-rabid could affect one’s country’s life.
Lethal-self-defense is exercised within your body by your own immune-system, all the time.
Whatever health you’ve got, it’s because of that!
Countries are the same as individual-organisms, in terms of being killable-by-pathogens & killable-by-cancer.
Destroy both, & live healthy.
You CANNOT give your body to pathogens/cancer & be healthy: that’s just delusion.
_ /\ _
There’s some truth to this. One does need a military, but you don’t need one that costs 2T a year. Canada and Mexico, combined, spend around 35 billion a year on war material, and both have universal health care.
I’m Canuck, so this issue is of central concern for us, ongoingly…
The reason we’re able to spend so-little on military, per GDP,
is because of the excessive expenditure by the US.
Pretending that these expenditures are “independent” of the US’s expenditure, is intellectually-dishonest.
I’m not saying that was your intent, I’m saying that’s what the result misrepresentation is…
_ /\ _
Here are the recommended dosages for potassium iodide tablets from the New York State government website.
https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/radiological/potassium_iodide/information_for_the_public.htm #
Without looking at posters history, he is kinda right (about the gas guzzling, not fear mongering)
EU had years to start to diversify/start goverment run energy supply from a) polluting and b) “come on, look what laws they were implementing at home” Russia.
Could have put two and two together and realise that funding Putin might not be the best idea…
But no, let’s just keep buying things from obvious dictators…
Norway also advises residents to stock up on essential medicines – including iodine tablets, in case of a nuclear incident – and, like Sweden, recommends that people have several bank cards and keep a ready supply of cash at home.
Iodine is something that’s hard to get in modern diets, which is why salt is iodized.
Our body uses it in our thyroid, and atomic weapons send out a shit ton of fallout. A significant amount is radioactive iodine, which is going to be hanging around for a while.
If your body picks it up, you now have a radioactive element accumulating in your throat, which is a pretty bad place to store a radioactive mass.
If you don’t have iodine tablet, eat a crazy amount of iodized salt. You want to make sure if your body runs into radioactive iodine, it’s already full up and can’t hold anymore.
If you have enough radiation to ever need iodine tablets, there’s probably a hundred other reasons that threaten your livelihood.
That’s not true at all. Fallout can be carried by wind over very long distances. And even a small amount of radioactive iodine accumulative in the body can be an issue.
It’s more the fact that a war situation where nuclear weapons are used so frequently that the average person will need tablets will also see shortages of food, water and created large flows of refugees.
Basically every bit of modern infrastructure would collapse, which would be far more impactful and urgent than iodine pills.
Wonder if there’s a way to extract the iodine to avoid getting high blood pressure from eating fistfuls of salt
You could just buy iodine tablets now…
But the high blood pressure from salt might kill you decades later.
A radioactive thyroid would make you wish for death as your lower jaw rots away and eventually falls off.
Don’t half ass it because of a fear of heart disease. A large dose kills cells in your thyroid (still terrible) a moderate dose wouldn’t kill the cells but almost guarantee rapid onset cancer.
It’s why the tablets aren’t “enough that your body needs” they’re “a literal insane amount”. Like take your daily requirement times 3-5 years level of crazy.
Also, I’m pretty sure they have an expiration date. If it’s life or death, I would not trust them very far past that date. I don’t think they’d be harmful, just less effective.
Should be noted that in Norway it is not just for war, but rather any emergency like natural disasters or someone takes out critical infrastructure in a digital attack etc.
You can see all the information that is sent out here: https://www.sikkerhverdag.no/en/
Should be noted that in Norway it is not just for war, but rather any emergency like natural disasters or someone takes out critical infrastructure in a digital attack etc.
A digital attack would be an act of war, though, so…
No, digital attacks happen all the time, nobody will go to war over it.
Example of only one type of attack in real time: https://www.digitalattackmap.com/#anim=1&color=0&country=ALL&list=0&time=18763&view=map
Not necessarily.
It could be something as simple as “oops, someone downloaded a file they shouldn’t have, and now all the systems of the power grid in a quarter of the country has been encrypted by ransomware”
If the July 19th Crowdstrike incident had affected Linux rather than Windows, the impact would have been orders of magnitude worse.
People have so little awareness of how fragile the systems we rely on are - it’s not a matter of “if” - it’s a matter of “when” we’ll see a widespread incident that goes well beyond a mild inconvenience for most.
Same in sweden!
And as expected, Finland
