Thread: No Whisky Priests here Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005734
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
In one of the darkest episodes of the comedy show Yes Minister , the Honourable Jim Hacker MP struggles with the ethics of informing the PM of the fact that British arms were being sold to terrorists. In the end, he elects to do the wrong thing, burying the knowledge via an application of what was called in the show the Rhodesia Solution - that is, telling the PM, so that his own arse was covered, but sharing the knowledge in a way that the PM could easily misunderstand its significance.
Anyway, most of you probably know all this (if you don't, the episode is well worth watching ). But you won't find any whisky priests in the government of my country, which just proudly announced plans to make Australia one of the biggest arms exporters in the world.
Why not? What, if anything, has changed? I suppose one could argue, as Sir Humphrey memorably did in the above episode, that once a government has done all in its power to ensure that the arms are not being sold to the wrong people, than it has done all that can reasonably be done. Fair enough - Mal Turnbull is not announcing plans to sell directly to terrorists. But it doesn't take a particularly insightful person to realise that arms will end up in the hands of those who can afford to purchase them - whether they are "goodies" or "baddies" (terms which are relative and contextual anyway). As Tim Costello argues in this story, the Syrian conflict would have ended ages some time ago if the parties were not continuously being supplied with arms.
The arms my government is proudly going to export are going to end up being used to maim and kill people - as that is what arms do. They will not be used primarily to defend this nation state, which I would argue is a legitimate and moral purpose for arms to exist - rather, they will be sold to other parties to do as they wish with them. And why is this not only something not to feel deep shame about, but something that should be boasted about so brazenly? Because ... the economy. That is all the state is about now, after all - making the world safe for the market to exploit.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
Meanwhile, the UK government has just increased arms sales to Turkey and Saudi Arabia
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
The thing of it is, once one sells arms to an "approved" customer, where do they go subsequently on the international arms bazaar? Beyond the "point of purchase" there is no guarantee that your merchandise will not end up killing you. Good luck with that.
On a media reference, I recommend the good but flawed film Lord of War. It nicely captures the moral bankruptcy of arms dealing.
I once had a (very surprisingly) candid conversation with an arms guy. He described product demonstrations that were unspeakably revolting in what they would do to a body.
As an historical observation, before 1938, Czechoslovakia was one of the largest (per capita) arms producers in the world. And, for the German military, it wasn't Sudetenland that was attractive - it was the Skoda works.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
DK, I would take my comedic cue on this announcement from The Hollow Men or Utopia, rather than the almost competent machinations of the British Civil Service in Yes Minister.
I agree with you concerning the morality, but this has all the hallmarks of another 'announceable'.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
The thing of it is, once one sells arms to an "approved" customer, where do they go subsequently on the international arms bazaar? Beyond the "point of purchase" there is no guarantee that your merchandise will not end up killing you. Good luck with that.
On a media reference, I recommend the good but flawed film Lord of War. It nicely captures the moral bankruptcy of arms dealing.
I once had a (very surprisingly) candid conversation with an arms guy. He described product demonstrations that were unspeakably revolting in what they would do to a body.
As an historical observation, before 1938, Czechoslovakia was one of the largest (per capita) arms producers in the world. And, for the German military, it wasn't Sudetenland that was attractive - it was the Skoda works.
And that was in the days before the 1950's Skoda Octavia, a lethal weapon disguised as a car if ever there were one, even worse than a Porsche 356.
As to your first paragraph, normally a vendor country would tie up the use to which a weapon could be put, and almost as certainly rule out sale to a non-approved third party.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
The thing of it is, once one sells arms to an "approved" customer, where do they go subsequently on the international arms bazaar? Beyond the "point of purchase" there is no guarantee that your merchandise will not end up killing you. Good luck with that.
On a media reference, I recommend the good but flawed film Lord of War. It nicely captures the moral bankruptcy of arms dealing.
I once had a (very surprisingly) candid conversation with an arms guy. He described product demonstrations that were unspeakably revolting in what they would do to a body.
As an historical observation, before 1938, Czechoslovakia was one of the largest (per capita) arms producers in the world. And, for the German military, it wasn't Sudetenland that was attractive - it was the Skoda works.
And that was in the days before the 1950's Skoda Octavia, a lethal weapon disguised as a car if ever there were one, even worse than a Porsche 356.
As to your first paragraph, normally a vendor country would tie up the use to which a weapon could be put, and almost as certainly rule out sale to a non-approved third party.
This is monitored?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Errr...this may be due to too much TV, but I had the impression that arms dealers don't necessarily worry about laws, or how their merchandise is used.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your first paragraph, normally a vendor country would tie up the use to which a weapon could be put, and almost as certainly rule out sale to a non-approved third party.
Are you trying to miss the point?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Beyond the "point of purchase" there is no guarantee that your merchandise will not end up killing you. Good luck with that.
quote:
I never thought that I would be
Fighting fascists in the Southern Sea
I saw one today and in his hand
Was a weapon that was made in Birmingham
Billy Bragg - Island of No Return (referencing the Falklands War)
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
The thing of it is, once one sells arms to an "approved" customer, where do they go subsequently on the international arms bazaar? Beyond the "point of purchase" there is no guarantee that your merchandise will not end up killing you. Good luck with that.
On a media reference, I recommend the good but flawed film Lord of War. It nicely captures the moral bankruptcy of arms dealing.
I once had a (very surprisingly) candid conversation with an arms guy. He described product demonstrations that were unspeakably revolting in what they would do to a body.
As an historical observation, before 1938, Czechoslovakia was one of the largest (per capita) arms producers in the world. And, for the German military, it wasn't Sudetenland that was attractive - it was the Skoda works.
And that was in the days before the 1950's Skoda Octavia, a lethal weapon disguised as a car if ever there were one, even worse than a Porsche 356.
As to your first paragraph, normally a vendor country would tie up the use to which a weapon could be put, and almost as certainly rule out sale to a non-approved third party.
This is monitored?
Depends what you're selling. If its an apache helicopter gunship that you've sold to say Turkey then you can stop it turning up in Congo. Quite apart from anything else it would be obvious where it came from.
Some bullets/rifles? Yes monitored, but far more difficult to control.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Actually, you can't stop it turning up in the Congo, if it's being flown by Turkish pilots as part of a Turkish military campaign, just as we can't stop UK-manufactured munitions from being dropped by Saudi planes onto Yemeni heads.
There's no button we can press to stop a bomb exploding except the one on the manufacturing conveyor belt.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
Here in Canada we had a scandal (of sorts) regarding the sale of armed personnel carriers to our ally Saudi Arabia when it was revealed that they were likely(?) or possibly(?) to be used against their own citizens. Raucous questions about the export license until everyone went back to sleep. We can't even monitor ourselves, let alone where merchandise might end up after sale.
[ 29. January 2018, 10:17: Message edited by: Pangolin Guerre ]
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, you can't stop it turning up in the Congo, if it's being flown by Turkish pilots as part of a Turkish military campaign, just as we can't stop UK-manufactured munitions from being dropped by Saudi planes onto Yemeni heads.
There's no button we can press to stop a bomb exploding except the one on the manufacturing conveyor belt.
That's a different question though - I was answering "is the sale of arms from second party countries to third party countries monitored?"
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Errr...this may be due to too much TV, but I had the impression that arms dealers don't necessarily worry about laws, or how their merchandise is used.
Definitely too much TV. The main UK arms dealer (in fact, the largest in the world by some reckonings) is BAE Systems, a massive company which builds airplanes, submarines, etc for the UK armed forces as well as for allied nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia and India). Other companies involved in the trade include Rolls Royce, Vesper Thorneycroft and GKN. These aren't shady, fly-by-night operations with a tenuous relationship to the law, they're some of the mainstays of the UK manufacturing industry.
Virtually every new vehicle or weapon created for our armed forces is designed with one eye on future export sales. And why not - if we're allied to a country then their defence is in our interests.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Actually, you can't stop it turning up in the Congo, if it's being flown by Turkish pilots as part of a Turkish military campaign, just as we can't stop UK-manufactured munitions from being dropped by Saudi planes onto Yemeni heads.
There's no button we can press to stop a bomb exploding except the one on the manufacturing conveyor belt.
That's a different question though - I was answering "is the sale of arms from second party countries to third party countries monitored?"
It is, tbf, an allied question though. We say 'these weapons should only be used in the legitimate defence of your country' when in reality, we don't actually give a shit who the bullets end up in as long as the cash keeps rolling in.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Beyond the "point of purchase" there is no guarantee that your merchandise will not end up killing you. Good luck with that.
quote:
I never thought that I would be
Fighting fascists in the Southern Sea
I saw one today and in his hand
Was a weapon that was made in Birmingham
Billy Bragg - Island of No Return (referencing the Falklands War)
Reminds me...
"...a nipponized bit of the old sixth avenue el..."
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Allied nations: Saudi Arabia.
I keep seeing action movie plots in my imagination. The returning soldier comes back home after the war and shoots the CEO of the company who's gun he saw in the hands of the enemy, maybe shoots the whole family. If they can trace and force the licensing of computer operating systems (anyone read Microsoft's end user agreements?), why can they not do it with easy to locate things like aircraft, drones and rocket launchers?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
JOKE EXPLAINED
^^ In case the reference in that poem is too obscure(and I'm not sure I would have gotten it if I hadn't had footnotes the first time), all the historical figures mentioned said something equivalent to(and in Sherman's case it was word for word) War Is Hell.
The "nipponized bit of etc" refers to metal from the New York subway that was later sold to Japan and made into bullets.
[ 29. January 2018, 14:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Allied nations: Saudi Arabia.
I keep seeing action movie plots in my imagination. The returning soldier comes back home after the war and shoots the CEO of the company who's gun he saw in the hands of the enemy, maybe shoots the whole family. If they can trace and force the licensing of computer operating systems (anyone read Microsoft's end user agreements?), why can they not do it with easy to locate things like aircraft, drones and rocket launchers?
If you have your computer n a totally isolated environment I'm sure Microsoft would have great difficulty tracking it down. But that's not what people do. They go on the internet and within nano-seconds their URL and its physical location are known to anyone who cares to look.
Drones, RPGs, AK47s and other nasty stuff can be hidden for years. If you have a quarry to spare I'm sure you could hide an air force.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you have a quarry to spare I'm sure you could hide an air force.
Who needs a quarry? A few thousand square yards of camouflage netting would do the job just as well.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you have a quarry to spare I'm sure you could hide an air force.
Who needs a quarry? A few thousand square yards of camouflage netting would do the job just as well.
Just remember to remind everyone to turn their FitBit off.
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The main UK arms dealer (in fact, the largest in the world by some reckonings) is BAE Systems,... These aren't shady, fly-by-night operations with a tenuous relationship to the law,
I expect that's why they were fined £288m in 2010 arising from corruption charges.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Ahh yes, that fitbit thing. It's all shits and giggles until somebody shells your secret base, isn't it now?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Virtually every new vehicle or weapon created for our armed forces is designed with one eye on future export sales. And why not - if we're allied to a country then their defence is in our interests.
I guess allies would never turn on each other.
Except when they do.
As one of the characters in the episode I referenced in the OP states, either you are selling arms or you aren't. If you are, then they will find their way into the hands of those who can A) afford them, and B) want to use them. If anyone here thinks that some kind of guarantee at the point of sale ensures that only the "goodies" (and let's face it - not only are allies not always goodies, but sometimes we aren't even goodies. Shocking, isn't it?) will get to use them - well, I have this great bridge I would love to sell you.
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral. And not only does my government contain no whisky priests on this issue, but recently the Opposition had little of any moral value to say about it either. Anthony Albanese, Labor front bencher who waxes lyrical about nuclear disarmament from time to time, simply opined meekly that it was all very well to sell arms, but the government should also be selling cars and other shit.
Now - I am not surprised that politicians no longer feel that they have any kind of moral role at all anymore, because it's the economy, stupid. I may not be surprised, but I can still be disappointed and ashamed. Politicians from both major parties down here have managed to make me feel those emotions many times over the last 20 odd years.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Now - I am not surprised that politicians no longer feel that they have any kind of moral role at all anymore, because it's the economy, stupid. I may not be surprised, but I can still be disappointed and ashamed. Politicians from both major parties down here have managed to make me feel those emotions many times over the last 20 odd years.
What really pisses me off when politicians blab off about how many jobs depend on arms manufacturing is that these are very expensive jobs because of the nature of the product. Comparatively the workers aren't paid that much more but tanks, military aircraft and the brand-new aircraft carriers without aircraft all cost a fortune (and if the rest of the shiny kit is anything like the Navy's latest frigates they won't bloody well work either).
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on
:
I left the RN by registering my objection to having to maintain weapons being used to train Argentinian, Iraqy and Iranean personnel. I was told "These are our allies, we have sold weapons to them, we must train them in their use". I said The RN trained Japanese Officer cohorts between WW1 and WW2, and look what they did with the training they received from us.
After I had left as a conscientious objector we had wars with Iraq and Argentina with Iran becoming effectively an enemy state when the Shah was deposed, where weapons manufactured in the UK, with better specifications than those issued to our own forces, were used against us.
Sweden has a sensible weapons development policy. They will not sell their weapons to anyone else. Neither do they release information on the performance of them.
The UK not only sells its weapons abroad allowing them to be analyzed and evaluated but often , as was the case with Argentinian Frigates, better ones than the UK government was willing to supply to our own forces.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
My father-in-law was trained to use an anti-submarine gun, originally commissioned from Armstrongs by the Japanese navy, but impounded on the outbreak of war with the er, Japanese.
So it goes.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Sweden has a sensible weapons development policy. They will not sell their weapons to anyone else. Neither do they release information on the performance of them.
Despite Peaceful Reputation, Sweden is a Major Weapons Exporter to Human Rights Abusers
Third largest arms exporter per capita, after Israel and Russia.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Sweden has a sensible weapons development policy. They will not sell their weapons to anyone else. Neither do they release information on the performance of them.
Despite Peaceful Reputation, Sweden is a Major Weapons Exporter to Human Rights Abusers
Third largest arms exporter per capita, after Israel and Russia.
One of the theories about the assassination of Olaf Palme is that he was murdered in retaliation for blocking a shipment of weapons to some overseas buyers(Kurds? Iranians?) Not saying that's the gospel truth, as there actually seems to be little solid proof for ANY of the theories around his death.
One thing that the DemNow headline alludes to is the noticable fact that nations which simply supply the weapons for conflicts, rather than actually fight the conflicts, almost never suffer any damage to their reputation.
Someone earlier mentioned Canada's on-again-off-again arms-deal with Saudi Arabia. As far as I can tell, the only people complaining about this are Canadian anti-war activists. Other than that, I don't think I've ever seen Canada mentioned in any international coverage of Saudi Arabia's human-rights abuses and war crimes.
And I'd be willing to bet that less that 1 in 10 Canadians know that Canada supplied some of the uranium used in the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, even though that is probably the most talked-about bombing in history, and there are commemorations of the event held all over the world every year.
Long and the short, if you're someone who worries that their country might be getting a bad reputation by participating in the global arms trade, you can rest easy. No. One. Gives. A. Fuck.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Sweden has a sensible weapons development policy. They will not sell their weapons to anyone else. Neither do they release information on the performance of them.
The UK not only sells its weapons abroad allowing them to be analyzed and evaluated but often , as was the case with Argentinian Frigates, better ones than the UK government was willing to supply to our own forces.
In reverse order, you mean destroyers rather than frigates. As someone else who has served in the RN, *including on the relevant Type 42 destroyers* I'm all agog on the "better ones than the UK government was willing to supply to our own forces" bit - can't wait for you to give the chapter and verse on how...
Moving on to Sweden, I've used Swedish weaponry in the British armed forces - indeed, since you mention the Falklands, you'll be aware of the Royal Marines' extensive use in that conflict of the Carl Gustav 84mm...
More up to date, overseas users of Swedish fighter aircraft include South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
I'm sure that we can all come up with similar examples, but it comes to mind because someone above mentioned Armstrong. At the east side of Queen's Park in Toronto there are cannon captured from the Russians in the Crimean war, manufactured by Armstrong. Gotta love it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Long and the short, if you're someone who worries that their country might be getting a bad reputation by participating in the global arms trade, you can rest easy. No. One. Gives. A. Fuck.
And it takes too long to figure out for many that do care. People like their protests simple. Add in an extra step and people's attention fades and they wander awa...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral.
So any country that doesn't have the necessary skills, resources or finance to design and build all its own weaponry doesn't get to defend itself?
And where does it stop? Is it immoral to sell a radar system to another country? What if they then install that radar system on their warships - does it count as selling arms then?
Besides which, the upshot of your position would be that global military spending would increase massively. Instead of having, say, a tried and tested design of missile that several different countries buy from one supplier (e.g. the French Excocet or American Harpoon missiles, each currently in use by about 30 different countries worldwide) every single country would have to research, design and build their own missiles independently. That's a lot of R&D money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral.
Generally speaking, states do not attempt to stand alone against all comers. They sign mutual defense treaties with their "friends".
So suppose I am a state that wishes to defend myself against an aggressor, and I have a firm ally in the neighbouring state. Suppose I make a really good gun, and they make a sucky gun that jams all the time. Wouldn't I rather have an ally with functional weapons? Wouldn't I rather sell my guns to him so that he was a more useful ally? I think I would.
Now, obviously I'd be concerned at some level that he might take my shiny new guns and decide to invade me, or that he might have some dodgy quartermasters or ministers of procurement that would ship truckloads of my shiny guns to some third party that wanted to oppose my interests, or whatever. And the shinier and more revolutionary the weapons system in question was, the more I'd be concerned about it getting into the hands of people who were not my friends.
But in general, that's the tradeoff. Having allies with good weapons is good for me, so long as they remain my allies.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
War and arms are great business. Consider: corporations develop very expensive weapons which they sell to governments at great profit. The governments encourage selling the same weapons to other countries of offset the cost. Governments then use the weapons to change the governments, minds and priorities of other countries to aid corporations. It's all great for business.
This is a current article by a fringe outlet, but it says the same things as older articles by news outfits that people other than trumpy trust.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
My question is: Has the Australian Government done its market research? Is there really an under-supplied sector of the arms market for Australia to corner?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral.
So any country that doesn't have the necessary skills, resources or finance to design and build all its own weaponry doesn't get to defend itself?
And where does it stop? Is it immoral to sell a radar system to another country? What if they then install that radar system on their warships - does it count as selling arms then?
Besides which, the upshot of your position would be that global military spending would increase massively. Instead of having, say, a tried and tested design of missile that several different countries buy from one supplier (e.g. the French Excocet or American Harpoon missiles, each currently in use by about 30 different countries worldwide) every single country would have to research, design and build their own missiles independently. That's a lot of R&D money that could be better spent elsewhere.
I wouldn't go as far as DN; you'd have to propounded pacifism I think which would also make the manufacture immoral. However, I think there is a potential for arms manufacture and sale to present fewer moral questions - and therefore appeal more - to some people than others, and if you're less inclined to feel uneasy about making your living from war, you're also possibly less inclined to worry as much about the exact ways in which those weapons are used - hence even BAE having had 'issues'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
IIRC, BAE had 'issues' regarding bribes and backhanders, rather than how the weapons they were bribing state officials (in multiple countries on four continents) to procure were actually used.
I'd like to think they cared about the final destination of their munitions, but I'm not convinced on this. It seems to me that profits for the company and bonuses for the sales force are what really matters.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I often wonder if the reason the USA is so involved in international politics and warfare is that it is necessary to support its economy....
And then you think, are they actively involved in diatribe with places like North Korea to make America Great Again?
#madness
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I often wonder if the reason the USA is so involved in international politics and warfare is that it is necessary to support its economy....
Um, isn't that what's meant by the term Military-industrial complex?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral.
Generally speaking, states do not attempt to stand alone against all comers. They sign mutual defense treaties with their "friends".
So suppose I am a state that wishes to defend myself against an aggressor, and I have a firm ally in the neighbouring state. Suppose I make a really good gun, and they make a sucky gun that jams all the time. Wouldn't I rather have an ally with functional weapons? Wouldn't I rather sell my guns to him so that he was a more useful ally? I think I would.
Now, obviously I'd be concerned at some level that he might take my shiny new guns and decide to invade me, or that he might have some dodgy quartermasters or ministers of procurement that would ship truckloads of my shiny guns to some third party that wanted to oppose my interests, or whatever. And the shinier and more revolutionary the weapons system in question was, the more I'd be concerned about it getting into the hands of people who were not my friends.
But in general, that's the tradeoff. Having allies with good weapons is good for me, so long as they remain my allies.
I guess this is what the experience of 'mansplaining' must be like. Although I have no idea of your gender.
As many of us still say around here: 'Der!"
The equivalent round your way might be "No shit, Captain Obvious!"
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral.
So any country that doesn't have the necessary skills, resources or finance to design and build all its own weaponry doesn't get to defend itself?
Sure. That's what I said.
When you made that straw man did you leave enough aside for the Israelites to make bricks? Because otherwise, Pharaoh is gonna be piissssed ...
quote:
And where does it stop? Is it immoral to sell a radar system to another country? What if they then install that radar system on their warships - does it count as selling arms then?
Besides which, the upshot of your position would be that global military spending would increase massively. Instead of having, say, a tried and tested design of missile that several different countries buy from one supplier (e.g. the French Excocet or American Harpoon missiles, each currently in use by about 30 different countries worldwide) every single country would have to research, design and build their own missiles independently. That's a lot of R&D money that could be better spent elsewhere.
And now that straw man has been pushed over the edge of a slippery slope. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Manufacturing arms is necessary if a state is going to be able to even begin to defend itself. Selling arms is immoral.
So any country that doesn't have the necessary skills, resources or finance to design and build all its own weaponry doesn't get to defend itself?
Sure. That's what I said.
When you made that straw man did you leave enough aside for the Israelites to make bricks? Because otherwise, Pharaoh is gonna be piissssed ...
Straw man? It's the logical conclusion of exactly what you said. If no-one sells arms (because to do so is immoral) then that means no-one can buy them. If no-one can buy them then that means every country has to research, design and manufacture them on its own. If a country can't do so for any reason then it won't be able to effectively defend itself.
The only way that's a strawman is if when you said "selling arms is immoral" you didn't mean "nobody should sell arms". In which case the problem is with your poor communication more than anything else.
quote:
quote:
And where does it stop? Is it immoral to sell a radar system to another country? What if they then install that radar system on their warships - does it count as selling arms then?
Besides which, the upshot of your position would be that global military spending would increase massively. Instead of having, say, a tried and tested design of missile that several different countries buy from one supplier (e.g. the French Excocet or American Harpoon missiles, each currently in use by about 30 different countries worldwide) every single country would have to research, design and build their own missiles independently. That's a lot of R&D money that could be better spent elsewhere.
And now that straw man has been pushed over the edge of a slippery slope.
It's only a slippery slope if you believe that most countries wouldn't want their armed forces to be kitted out with the best gear possible. Or if you think researching, designing and building weapons isn't that expensive, I suppose.
Seriously, what do you think would happen if all arms trading was stopped? Do you think most of the countries in the world would just shrug and accept that they'll have to make do with what they already have?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a country can't do so for any reason then it won't be able to effectively defend itself.
Here is the flaw in your logic.
There is another road we could go down.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a country can't do so for any reason then it won't be able to effectively defend itself.
Here is the flaw in your logic.
There is another road we could go down.
I can think of two possibilities, both of which have fairly major flaws.
- Those countries that can afford to build weapons agree to defend the ones that can't. Flaw: a handful of rich countries dominate the rest of the world to an even greater extent than is currently the case.
- Everybody in the world agrees to be friends with everyone else for the rest of time. Flaw: never going to happen.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
As many of us still say around here: 'Der!"
The equivalent round your way might be "No shit, Captain Obvious!"
Well, yes, of course it's obvious.
Perhaps you could go into a little more detail about why you think this obvious, rational behaviour is immoral?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If a country can't do so for any reason then it won't be able to effectively defend itself.
Here is the flaw in your logic.
There is another road we could go down.
I can think of two possibilities, both of which have fairly major flaws.
- Those countries that can afford to build weapons agree to defend the ones that can't. Flaw: a handful of rich countries dominate the rest of the world to an even greater extent than is currently the case.
- Everybody in the world agrees to be friends with everyone else for the rest of time. Flaw: never going to happen.
Well, yes. But they are not flaws in logic. You presented tooling up as the only option. It is not.
And while your two additional options present their own problems, I'm going to suggest that your initial mono-option presents a bigger, more existential, problem than anything else we could choose to do.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Marvin - what Doc Tor said. You are right, though, I am communicating poorly, as I misidentified your logical fallacy. Your first response to me was not a straw man, but was as Doc Tor has made clear a false dilemma.
And your second is absolutely a slippery slope, because you are suggesting an extreme consequence of what I'm proposing rather than dealing with it on its own merits.
LC - as I said before your completely unnecessary explanation of something everybody already knows, allies can turn on each other. Plus, again as I and others had already said, the one selling arms cannot control their destination. Just because I sell them to my allies - or whoever are my allies today - they may end up in the hands of people who I do not believe should have access to them.
The only way to ensure arms produced in my country are only used to defend my country is not to sell them.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, yes. But they are not flaws in logic. You presented tooling up as the only option. It is not.
When it comes to issues such as national defence, a bad option may as well be no option at all.
quote:
And while your two additional options present their own problems, I'm going to suggest that your initial mono-option presents a bigger, more existential, problem than anything else we could choose to do.
For whom?
My argument is based around the assumption that the vast majority of countries view having armed forces that are capable of providing a viable defence against any attackers as a high - even overriding - priority. From that assumption it follows that if the country cannot buy off-the-shelf weapons from elsewhere it will have to research, design and manufacture its own.
If you want to challenge my initial assumption then that's fine, but have you got anything better than "wouldn't it be nice if we all got along" to do it with?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And your second is absolutely a slippery slope, because you are suggesting an extreme consequence of what I'm proposing rather than dealing with it on its own merits.
Your proposal is that nobody sell arms to anyone outside their own country. Is that right? If so, it follows as night follows day that every country will have to research, develop and manufacture its own weapons if it doesn't want to either be in the pocket of a bigger country or without viable armed forces.
That's not an extreme consequence, it's the most realistic outcome of your proposal. In the real world, anyway - in some fantasy world where everyone automatically becomes friends if they don't have anything to fight each other with the results may be different.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you want to challenge my initial assumption then that's fine, but have you got anything better than "wouldn't it be nice if we all got along" to do it with?
Generally, we do all get along. Most of the wars we involve ourselves in are pretty much self-starters that we wouldn't have got involved in if we didn't have a crap-tonne of shiny weapons and people trained to use them.
The last war the UK fought that was an actual 'defence' was the Falklands, which is 35 years ago now. And we were very nearly undone because of weapons our allies had sold the Argentinians.
So you see where I'm going with this, right? Your plan makes war not just likely, but inevitable. It sucks resources away from civil peacemaking into military warmaking. It's not a question of me wanting us to get along better, it's a question of whether we can afford, both in terms of blood and treasure, and in the existential threat that war presents, to have a standing army at all.
The weapons the UK (and Australia) export make war a preferred option to those who make money selling weapons. The UK is a beneficiary (our politicians specifically) of those who make money selling weapons. It affects our foreign policy enormously, who we consider enemies and who we consider allies.
I'd like to see less war and more peace. Selling weapons makes that unlikely.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And your second is absolutely a slippery slope, because you are suggesting an extreme consequence of what I'm proposing rather than dealing with it on its own merits.
Your proposal is that nobody sell arms to anyone outside their own country. Is that right? If so, it follows as night follows day that every country will have to research, develop and manufacture its own weapons if it doesn't want to either be in the pocket of a bigger country or without viable armed forces.
That's not an extreme consequence, it's the most realistic outcome of your proposal. In the real world, anyway - in some fantasy world where everyone automatically becomes friends if they don't have anything to fight each other with the results may be different.
No, it really doesn't follow "as night follows day." You seem to be speaking to me from a universe in which there isn't currently an enormous amount being spent on weapons technology. In this one, if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.
Your suggestion is a possibility, and not the most likely one. It certainly doesn't directly follow, as you claim.
[ 02. February 2018, 02:27: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
So you think you might encounter a situation like this one?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not a question of me wanting us to get along better, it's a question of whether we can afford, both in terms of blood and treasure, and in the existential threat that war presents, to have a standing army at all.
As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.
quote:
I'd like to see less war and more peace. Selling weapons makes that unlikely.
The arms trade as we're discussing it has only existed for a couple of hundred years at most - before then any country could create and manufacture cutting-edge military technology for itself with relative ease. If, therefore, selling weapons makes war more likely we'd expect to have seen a massive rise in their number in the last 200 years or so. I don't think that's been the case.
And interestingly, the two biggest wars there have been in that period were between nations that built all their own weapons anyway.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.
Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.
Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.
TBF you can use that argument to defend supplying hit men.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not a question of me wanting us to get along better, it's a question of whether we can afford, both in terms of blood and treasure, and in the existential threat that war presents, to have a standing army at all.
As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.
Citation needed
quote:
quote:
I'd like to see less war and more peace. Selling weapons makes that unlikely.
The arms trade as we're discussing it has only existed for a couple of hundred years at most - before then any country could create and manufacture cutting-edge military technology for itself with relative ease. If, therefore, selling weapons makes war more likely we'd expect to have seen a massive rise in their number in the last 200 years or so. I don't think that's been the case.
And interestingly, the two biggest wars there have been in that period were between nations that built all their own weapons anyway.
'Built all their own weapons'. So you've missed the comments about how we were arming the Japanese right up to the moment they declared war on us, and somehow escaped all the history lessons where the US manufactured crap-tonnes of weapons for the Russians and the British, the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia for the Skoda works, the way they rebranded captured French warships as German ones...
I simply don't agree with you. Making and selling arms to send abroad is nothing to do with 'defence'. It's about profit. The idea that we somehow need these weapons in the modern era is unproven.
If you want to look at the data, this is a fairly comprehensive round up. That bit where you said 'wars would be more likely if we sold weapons'. Have a look at the first graph. Each red circle is a separate conflict. There are a lot of red circles in the last two hundred years, more than in the preceding 400. Correlation is not causation, but I don't think you can argue that the arms trade has diminished conflict.
[ 02. February 2018, 11:34: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
if the markets companies have for weapons was suddenly reduced or removed, it is far more likely that much less is going to spent on armaments R & D.
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.
Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.
The problem is that you were talking about research and development of arms increasing, not black markets for arms themselves. They are two discrete things. Companies tend to be resonsible for research (for better or worse), and tend to only carry out research into stuff they can profit from. If there are fewer legal avenues for them to make those profits, they will rearrange their priorities. That is the market logic we live in. Again, for better or worse.
Black markets for arms is something you didn't initially argue. Yes, restricting arms sales may lead to black markets. Are you still arguing that doing the ethical thing is a bad idea because of consequences that might occur? What ARE you arguing?
ETF spelling and grammar
[ 03. February 2018, 01:37: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
*responsible for research
Mortifying when you edit your own post and still mess things up. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Why is it morally licit for BAE (for example) to sell weapons to the UK government but not to a foreign government? In both cases you are making money out of killing devices.
(I agree it's morally questionable to sell weapons to somewhere like Saudi Arabia, but then the moral distinction is between democratic / oppressive rather than domestic / foreign.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
As you suggest, it's a question of degrees of morality.
But BAE don't actually give a shit who they sell to, as long as they sell. They most likely prefer to sell to both sides in a conflict.
The Boy, when he was choosing his engineering degree course, deliberately chose a 'less warry' course, rather than the ones with strong links to arms manufacturers. Because he doesn't see much of a distinction, and increasingly, neither do I.
[ 03. February 2018, 16:53: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
If you didn't see Insiders this morning (not up yet on youtube and would probably be geoblocked), the Talking Pictures segment was set in an empty warehouse ready to be filled with arms to ship overseas and Mike Bowers and his mate were dressed up to the nines in anticipation of all the money they were going to make selling lil Mal's wares. Droll, very droll, and the appropriate response to an announcement about the arms industry made in South Australia with a looming election in that state.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Is death a product? Do they rate the cost effectiveness of killing machines and bombs by cost per kill?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I reckon they probably do, np. No doubt there is an algorithm for it, as these given every aspect of our lives now.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is death a product? Do they rate the cost effectiveness of killing machines and bombs by cost per kill?
Money back if not entirely satisfied.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.
Citation needed
A nation is less able to defend against an attack if it doesn't have viable and effective armed forces than if it does. You need a citation for that?
quote:
I simply don't agree with you. Making and selling arms to send abroad is nothing to do with 'defence'. It's about profit. The idea that we somehow need these weapons in the modern era is unproven.
OK, so we get rid of our armed forces. And then if Putin or ISIS decide that they want to annex or destroy us what do we do?
What's your non-military solution to that scenario, other than some vague hope that it will never happen?
quote:
If you want to look at the data, this is a fairly comprehensive round up. That bit where you said 'wars would be more likely if we sold weapons'. Have a look at the first graph. Each red circle is a separate conflict. There are a lot of red circles in the last two hundred years, more than in the preceding 400. Correlation is not causation, but I don't think you can argue that the arms trade has diminished conflict.
I'm not convinced about the methodology behind that chart. For one thing, it's counting things such as the Night of the Long Knives or Idi Amin's murder of political opponents as conflicts, when few would count them as wars in the sense that we're talking about.
For another thing, even the site itself states that historical conflict numbers may be underreported.
And finally, that chart shows that deaths in conflicts are decreasing quite a bit, even with considerably more dots on the chart. I would imagine that some of that will be due to technological advances such as guided missiles and drones and some will be due to increasing automation meaning fewer people are needed to operate machines of war (and yes, some is due to the world wars no longer being counted in the rolling averages). It's quite logical really - you don't need to spend dozens or hundreds of lives to eliminate an enemy strongpoint if you can do the same thing with a predator drone or a few tomahawk missiles.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The problem with your way of thinking, MtM, is that is perpetuates the cycle whilst pretending to be sensible.
Obviously, nations need military in the current world situation. But working to reduce that need is the better strategy. Not easy, not guaranteed. But the current practice of selling arms willy-nilly is fucking stupid.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As Tolkien wrote, those who do not carry swords can still die on them. Not having viable and effective armed forces is far more of an existential threat than having them.
Citation needed
A nation is less able to defend against an attack if it doesn't have viable and effective armed forces than if it does. You need a citation for that?
Yes. This gets to the heart of the matter.
If you want to argue that a householder without a gun is more likely to be burgled, then yes: show me some statistics on that. If you want to argue that a nation with say, only civilian law enforcement, is more likely to be invaded by a superiorly armed aggressor nation state, then yes: show me some statistics on that.
Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.
Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.
The problem is that you were talking about research and development of arms increasing, not black markets for arms themselves. They are two discrete things. Companies tend to be resonsible for research (for better or worse), and tend to only carry out research into stuff they can profit from. If there are fewer legal avenues for them to make those profits, they will rearrange their priorities. That is the market logic we live in. Again, for better or worse.
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.
My underlying assumption is that one way or another governments will get the most advanced weapons they can possibly get. Currently the R&D part of that equation is effectively being outsourced to a few companies by a much greater number of governments, but if the companies stop providing that service then all those governments will simply bring it back in house. You'd have the same outcome, but in a far less efficient way meaning that globally a considerably greater amount of resources would be spent on weapons than is currently the case.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you want to argue that a nation with say, only civilian law enforcement, is more likely to be invaded by a superiorly armed aggressor nation state, then yes: show me some statistics on that.
American military history 1950 - 2018. Fierce rivalries and/or outright enmities with nations that have good armed forces = uneasy truce, but no direct aggression. Slight tiffs with nations that have poor or no armed forces = invasion and regime change. It's why Saddam Hussein is dead and Kim Jong Un lives on.
And if Ukraine had a better military they'd still have Crimea.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.
Governement actually do R&D now. Who do you think pays for private companies to develop weapons?
The current strategy makes the world less safe. The focus should be on reducing tensions, not preparing for them.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yes. You're right. But you also need to explain why it doesn't happen to all those countries it doesn't happen to.
The US are by far (3X) the largest spender on military hardware. Are you suggesting every country needs to spend that much? Or are you suggesting that every country needs nuclear weapons to fend off the threat of US invasion? Ukraine spends $4bn. Russia $44bn. Should Ukraine have bankrupted itself and fronted up to a nuclear power over Crimea?
Lots of countries down the bottom of the list have never been invaded in recent history. Countries at the top of the list haven't either (with the exception of WWI/WWII, and that's no longer recent history).
Almost as if correlation isn't causation. As if there might be another model of international relations we might promote other than arming ourselves to the teeth.
(xposted with lB - reply is to Marvin)
[ 06. February 2018, 17:16: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I strongly suspect Ukraine's best chance of not losing Crimea would have been to join NATO.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So do I. And I can understand such pooling of resources and, to some extent, sovereignty. If NATO allies only sold to each other and no one else, that would be far preferable than the free-for-all we have now.
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I strongly suspect Ukraine's best chance of not losing Crimea would have been to join NATO.
I think that NATO is properly reluctant to admit anymore 'frontline' states. Crimea is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier, in the view of Brussels. Bad enough that they're now stationing troops in Poland and the Baltic republics. Except for the host countries, no one is really happy about that.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Markets function on supply and demand. You're talking about reducing the demand for weapons, whereas any putative ban on the arms trade would be a restriction on the supply.
Or to put it another way, just because we stop selling something to someone else doesn't mean they're going to stop wanting to have it. It just means they have to find another way to get it.
The problem is that you were talking about research and development of arms increasing, not black markets for arms themselves. They are two discrete things. Companies tend to be resonsible for research (for better or worse), and tend to only carry out research into stuff they can profit from. If there are fewer legal avenues for them to make those profits, they will rearrange their priorities. That is the market logic we live in. Again, for better or worse.
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.
My underlying assumption is that one way or another governments will get the most advanced weapons they can possibly get. Currently the R&D part of that equation is effectively being outsourced to a few companies by a much greater number of governments, but if the companies stop providing that service then all those governments will simply bring it back in house. You'd have the same outcome, but in a far less efficient way meaning that globally a considerably greater amount of resources would be spent on weapons than is currently the case.
Indeed. The slippery slope involves a lot of assumptions and contingencies.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My point is that if companies stop doing the R&D governments will start doing it instead. That's the "other way" I was thinking of.
Governement actually do R&D now. Who do you think pays for private companies to develop weapons?
As I said, it's currently outsourced by a lot of governments to a few companies. Remove the companies, and the governments will all have to do it themselves. Which leads to inefficiency in the system.
quote:
The current strategy makes the world less safe. The focus should be on reducing tensions, not preparing for them.
Reducing tensions requires both sides to back down. When one of the sides is unwilling to back down then the other side can either stand up against them or get rolled over.
How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Or are you suggesting that every country needs nuclear weapons to fend off the threat of US invasion?
History would suggest so, yes.
quote:
Ukraine spends $4bn. Russia $44bn. Should Ukraine have bankrupted itself and fronted up to a nuclear power over Crimea?
Given that Russia wanted Crimea and was willing to invade to get it, what alternative option do you think would have enabled Ukraine to keep it? Or do you think that the top military spenders should be able to grab any bit of land they want from any other country?
quote:
Lots of countries down the bottom of the list have never been invaded in recent history.
Very few of them have anything worth invading for. Or if they do, it's only something that another nation with low military spending wants which puts them on a relatively even playing field.
Some of them, of course, are allied to nations that spend big on their military. Which is basically another way of having a viable defensive force, albeit one that is dependent on your relationship to the bigger power.
quote:
Almost as if correlation isn't causation. As if there might be another model of international relations we might promote other than arming ourselves to the teeth.
Other than some vague notion of "can't we all just get along", what do you have in mind?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I strongly suspect Ukraine's best chance of not losing Crimea would have been to join NATO.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So do I. And I can understand such pooling of resources and, to some extent, sovereignty. If NATO allies only sold to each other and no one else, that would be far preferable than the free-for-all we have now.
So, what? It's OK to sell arms to your allies, but only if they're the right allies?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It's less wrong, which you would have understood if you'd read my post.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?
It would have been better not to have created those tensions in the first. And that is the point you are missing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?
It would have been better not to have created those tensions in the first. And that is the point you are missing.
We didn’t create them, Hitler did. That’s my point. It only needs one side to be assholes to start a war, and when that happens the pacifists and appeasers will find out that wishful thinking and offers of friendship won’t stop the occupying forces from taking over.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How well did a focus on reducing tensions work against Germany in the 30s?
It would have been better not to have created those tensions in the first. And that is the point you are missing.
We didn’t create them, Hitler did. That’s my point. It only needs one side to be assholes to start a war, and when that happens the pacifists and appeasers will find out that wishful thinking and offers of friendship won’t stop the occupying forces from taking over.
There's a pretty sound argument that the terms of the Versailles Treaty, following the Armistice, set Germany on the road to totalitarianism, which could have gone one way or the other. Western Europe, unsurprisingly, preferred Nazism to Marxist-Leninism.
And then during the war the western allies had a policy of appeasing Stalin, eg, the hapless Dieppe raid, area bombing (eg, the Hamburg firestorm, 1,000 bomber raids and the bombing of Dresden), leaving most of Germany open to the Soviets in 1945 and (believe it or not) handing German PoWs to the Soviets at the end of the war "as a geture of friendship". All this while ignoring the evils perpetrated by Stalin & co in conducting the war.
That worked out well didn't it?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
And still nobody can provide a reasonable alternative means of national and international defence.
How do we stop ISIS? How do we keep Putin from world dominance? What about North Korea, or China, or Iran? What about Boko Haram? How are we supposed to respond to those threats if military means are off the table?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And still nobody can provide a reasonable alternative means of national and international defence.
How do we stop ISIS? How do we keep Putin from world dominance? What about North Korea, or China, or Iran? What about Boko Haram? How are we supposed to respond to those threats if military means are off the table?
Stop invading Middle East countries would be a good start. Stop treating terrorists like an army and more like the criminals they are. Putin is a difficult call, but I'd still suggest that soft power would be a far more effective way of countering him than military might - it's worked pretty well for him so far. North Korea is as North Korea does: sanctions and isolation. China's territorial claims are worrying, but we had the opportunity to do something when they invaded Tibet and didn't, Boko Haram isn't a sophisticated modern army with tanks and fighter aircraft last time I looked, why do they need opposing with the same? Iran? Diplomacy.
I'm sure there's a certain glory in raising your tattered flag over the remains of your civilisation and shouting defiantly "At least we had a strong military!" moments before you succumb to the toxins in your blood stream, but it's not one I'd vote for.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QBWe didn’t create them, Hitler did. [/QB]
Incorrect. Hitler exploited the situation we created, as Sioni outlines.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Hitler's national socialists exploited a situation Germany had created for itself by losing a war it started in 1914.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Hitler's national socialists exploited a situation Germany had created for itself by losing a war it started in 1914.
Double fail. The causes of WWI were multiple, none of the principle nations avoid fault there.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Good luck with your rewriting of the History books.
Germany, war-prepared, crossing borders with 4.5 million troops counts as starting a war in my book. Having the remains of that Army close to mutiny 4 yrs later, looking to cut it's loses for Peace, counts as losing it.
If you want to play what ifs, then at the very least the Great War might not have involved Britain thus changing the course of Human history.
The free World did lose the Peace forged in 1919, most observers accept that. That still does not make the rise of AH our FUCKIN FAULT !
(A tragedy of shared responsibility if I wanted to get unhellish about it)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good luck with your rewriting of the History books.
You'd better tell John Keegan he's got it wrong all these years, because he agrees with lB (and pretty much every single historian).
But go you. I'm sure you'll tell us how it really was.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good luck with your rewriting of the History books.
Germany, war-prepared, crossing borders with 4.5 million troops counts as starting a war in my book.
There is no doubt who started the fighting in WWI. That is not what is being discussed. It is who causes wars. And that is typically not the person who swung first, or not only them.
quote:
The free World did lose the Peace forged in 1919, most observers accept that. That still does not make the rise of AH our FUCKIN FAULT !
(A tragedy of shared responsibility if I wanted to get unhellish about it)
That shared responsibility is exactly what we are talking about. Hitler is Hitler's fault. But the circumstances which allowed him to flourish and take root are, in large part, ours.
It is a blinkered, and ridiculous, notion that fault or cause is zero-sum. Hitler is 100% responsible for the path he took. That doesn't mean no one else can be responsible for why he was able to do so.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I am willing to concede that the cause of WW1 was murky and long held enigma, of which the general arms race was but a factor.
It is recent thinking which has tended towards deliberate intent on the part of Germany. In many ways it was Russia, on the edge of revolt, which had most to gain from a speedy and glorious victory. The Great War will probably remain as one of the most horrific, yet most avoidable conflicts in modern history.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I am willing to concede that the cause of WW1 was murky and long held enigma, of which the general arms race was but a factor.
It isn't murky nor ever an enigma. It just isn't as clear as who pulled the trigger.
quote:
It is recent thinking which has tended towards deliberate intent on the part of Germany.
One typically paints oneself as the goodun. This involves a lot of whitewash, and there are very many old coats under the current one.
quote:
The Great War will probably remain as one of the most horrific, yet most avoidable conflicts in modern history.
Unnecessary? Yes. Unavoidable? That is far from clear. Just how inevitable actual war was is debated amongst historians, but that there was a building of factors into the tensions that eventually exploded, isn't.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't murky nor ever an enigma. It just isn't as clear as who pulled the trigger.
Well yeah, which is exactly the reason for frigging puzzlement.
Who had what to gain from turning a terrorist assassination, (which at worst would have caused yet another Balkan war), into full blown military mobilzation across two Continents?
Britain certainly didn’t want it, no more than the repeat performance 22 years later. It had a tentative hold on a fifth of the World land mass and wasn’t looking to jepordise that in a hurry.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0