If Europeans don’t make weapons of war, someone will eventually conquer them.
And y’know, we have yet to see open, full-scale war between atomic powers. Nuclear deterrence seems to work (for now).
I’m not opposed to Europe responding but America proves if there is stock on the shelf it will find a home.
War, it’s a nasty business.
Surely, this is a this-is-why-we-can’t-have-nice-things situation. Fuck Putin
-
USA isn’t Europe.
-
Being conquered is nasty business, too. Ask the inhabitants of Bucha if you find any.
Again, not trying to discourage Europeans but instead just make the general population aware of what the future entails.
The future entails being invaded by Russia if we don’t arm ourselves.
-
America’s weapons would probably have expired on the shelf if they weren’t used in Ukraine.
Just here to remind everyone that this includes nukes.
Donald Trump backed us out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, making it much more likely for Iran to develop nukes. And now that Trump will most likely abandon Ukraine, Europe will be looking to increase their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against Russia.
So there’s about to be a whole lot more nukes in a much more volatile world.
All thanks to an anti-democratic felon rapist who America can’t seem to put in the rear-view mirror. Great country!!!
If Russia stopped the invasion there would be no need for using the weapons of war. Right now Russia is the one ensuring weapons of war are needed and used.
Weapons of war are already being used. And not only against soldiers but also civilians. They are used against the people of europe by russia. We shall not let us be slaughtered.
If we let those, that use weapons of war and terror to conquer the world by force, win then it will be those that exist and rule in the future, just like in natural selection we wont have less tyrants with weapons of war, terror and supressiom but more, consequentelly they will be used more.
Additionally, if you want to talk about nuclear weapons then those already exist and again russia who seems to have no problem using any weapon of war, unless they face consequences, has them too. In fact europe should do everything to keep a lunaric like putin as far away from the figurative line, whose overstepping does mean nuclear war, because if we let him step arbitrarily close to that line than it is indeed only a matter of time until that line is overstepped.
Does Lemmy have an im14andthisisdeep forum yet? Because I’m seeing more and more that belongs there lately.
Well… has that happened with all the other weapons of war?
I mean I get the sentinment, and in localized situations this makes sense to a degree. OTOH you have all the nuclear missiles that were taken apart again or just turned to rust. Or the Zumwaldt class, which is just how you glue money bills together in the shape of a ship. Or the insane mountain of stuff that was never used and mothballed.
Roi on nuclear weapon use is not great.
Sadly it jusy means that countries who fuck around or get too drunk on their power will have to be brought in line swiftly and harshly and in a way that permanently incapacitates them to continue screwing around.
Polite global society is an armed global society and I’m actually not being ironic here. Bullies only understand force often through specificaly tailored deterrence mechanisms, look at “sovergn” citizens. Gotta make it not worth the time to try, if there’s a chance they succeed they will take it because it often has no downside to try
That’s kind of true for all non-perishable goods. So what’s your point?
“Using a bottle of milk” is a bit different than “using a missile.” My point is clear. You make weapons of war with the intent of them being used for war.
Yes, I know it’s different that’s what I specified non-perishable. Milk is perishable.
You make weapons of war with the intent of them being used for war.
All tools are made with the intent for being used for their purpose …
Your point is not clear.
Missiles aren’t made to last forever.
They are made to last for quite a while. Look at Russia, they are still going through equipment and ammunitions made for the cold war. So yeah, as long wars keep happening, there is a good chance weapon stockpiles will eventually get used. And it doesn’t look like wars are going to stop happening anytime soon.
Also weapons being decomissioned (destroyed without being used) or ageing equipment being converted for training/practice is also quite common. So not all weapons will eventually get used in war.
I still don’t see your point. You’re basically saying most hammers will eventually used to hammer a nail. I agree. It just isn’t a very insightful statement.
Would Russia be as aggressive as they are today if they didn’t have stockpiles from the Cold War?
Probably not. The issue is that we can only control one side. So decommissioning requires trust and obviously the current Russia can not be trusted and no Politician would be willing to gamble with the security of people and country if they can just invest money into arms instead. It’s the prisoner dilemma with an extremely skewed reward/risk ratio.
The war is directly linked to the cold war, so it’s pointless to talk what would have happend if the cold war would have ended differently.
But let’s assume the political situation would have been the same and just the stockpile of old soviet weapons was gone: I’d say yes, they would have been just as aggressive in the beginning. After all the didn’t really intended to be relying on their old stockpile at the start.
I couldn’t say either way but those weapons are for sure finding their home.
Bud, Russia is aggressive because Putin’s entire rise to power was built on manufactured fear. He likely used FSB agents to execute false flag attacks on Russian citizens and blame it on Chechen separatists. He has had to build on that fear to maintain power, developing a mythological Imperial past that was “stolen” by the west. Conquering Ukraine is the first step in “resurrecting” that glorious fiction. Russia will not stop pursuing this fever dream until Putin and his government are gone - they can’t. It’s basically the only thing keeping them in power. I don’t like wars either, but until we can collectively figure out how to stop these authoritarian impulses there just isn’t any alternative. It’s the paradox of tolerance, essentially
Funny example that, considering how many missiles do go unused. Are you disagreeing with your own post then?
No, I’m not trying to win a semantics argument but if you wish, you win semantics. Here’s your semantics trophy:
Do you have car home or renter’s insurance? If so, when are you planning on setting fire to your home?
If you have nukes, nobody’s going to invade you. Ever since nukes were invented we’ve had the most peaceful period of existence.
What do you care? If what you say is true, we’re already doomed to nuclear war.
I dunno. I’m just a guy. I dont want any wars.
A relatively small minority of people through history have wanted wars. But if we look at the past 4000 years, we nonetheless find many, many wars, the vast majority of which people have never even heard the name of. You cannot escape this by simply disarming yourself.
I’m just a guy.
I don’t know for the “all used” part, but yeah, responsibility of wars to come will partly lay on weapons makers, both enterprises and countries. They can say “I admit that I increase risk of wars and war casualties, but I think it’s the best bet for country/nation”., it’s not necessarily exclusive, but weapons are made to be used (especially dissuasion weapons, they only work if it’s well known they are ready to use).
The people who think you’re just referring to Russia make me laugh. Talk about one track minds
