Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Abolishing the Armed Forces - good idea or complete insanity?

13:54 / 27.05.02

Just a crazy old notion that just fell into my head. Was wondering what everyone thought of it:

I think it's generally agreed that there's very little chance of a Western European country being the subject of a direct invasion.

And there's very little justification for them ever directly invading anyone else.

So, assuming I was supreme and unquestioned ruler of the British isles, I think my first action would be cutting the defense budget to zero, putting the money saved toward doing useful things, putting all the soldiers to work melting down and destroying their equipment, then sacking them or finding them work doing something more useful.

And, following this dramatic move, who in their right mind could possibly justify attacking a country that doesn't have an army?

The first nation to abolish it's armed forces should be given hefty congratulations from all international bodies, and others should be encouraged to do the same.

Obviously this is massively impractical in the world as it stands at the moment, but theorectically speaking, what do you think?
Would it be nice to get rid of all the armies in countries that are under no direct threat (or at least, no direct threat that thousands of armed men in jackboots can do anything about)?, or do they still serve a vital purpose?

14:31 / 27.05.02

Costa Rica has no military to speak of, and they seem to be doing ok.

But the phrase
, who in their right mind
is where you start having problems.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

14:42 / 27.05.02

... And then there's the occasions when the army get drafted in for disaster relief...

"The Army, we're not just there for the nasty things in life, but if you could arrange for there to be someone for us to punch, we'd be obliged."

02:58 / 28.05.02

And, following this dramatic move, who in their right mind could possibly justify attacking a country that doesn't have an army?

There's nothing to justify. The British Isles have a lot of resources I want. I have an army. They don't. I win.

06:01 / 28.05.02

Maybe, if there were no armies to fight, Hitler would have just forgot about the whole thing...

08:13 / 28.05.02

Erm...no.

While the idea of abolishing the armed forces would be very appealing indeed to me, seeing as I can't live in my home country until I turn 29 in order to avoid my compulsory military service, I don't think it would be feasible for a number of reasons.

What I wouldn't mind is a redefinition of the armed forces. As Misheard Lada pointed out, most countries use their armed forces as emergency relief workers. What if every country kept their soldiers, but disarmed them and trained them in more effective techniques for disaster relief? The support infrastructure that's in place would lend itself to every country being able to send their relief forces to aid anyone that needs them, with the tacit agreement that should they require outsde assistance it will be provided without fail.

I wouldn't mind serving my time in such a humanitarian force, as opposed to spending 10 to 13 months being trained to be cannon fodder and wear camoflague.

14:42 / 28.05.02

That seems a good idea. Up with that.

At the risk of revealing myself as incredibly ignorant, where exactly is your home country?

14:57 / 28.05.02

Ah, good bit of national service, that's what this country needs. Sort things out a bit, what? Instead of a bunch of layabouts smoking glue and cracking charlie's horse with LSD, we could have good, fit criminals with discipline and firearms skills. Marvellous. Made the East End what it was.

I was going to make some points about the army serving a useful function in disaster relief and being helpful to protect the country, but someone got there first so I thought I'd just ramble on like a senile old bastard.
Oh, they also come in handy when you need someone to stand around and do very little while lots of muslims get hauled onto coaches marked 'this way to a large trench'... Oh, sorry, that was the Dutch.
Unfair I know. I suppose they do have a useful 'peacekeeping' function. Sometimes. Ooh, the army also looks after the Queen, and that's important too.
...
..

[howls of derisive laughter] I'm sorry, I tried to keep a straight face, I really did.

A mad old general buffer once said: "You'll always need an army." I find it amazing that it's turning out to be true. Even with all our big missiles, we still need an army to stop us having to use the missiles.
Would having an army of robo-clones help or do you feel, as p[art of me does, that people aren't going to get worried until you get proper casualties?

15:27 / 28.05.02

There's nothing to justify. The British Isles have a lot of resources I want. I have an army. They don't. I win.

Nah, that's a bad example, 'cause the U.S. would step in and save their sorry asses. Again.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

11:45 / 29.05.02

The problem seems to be Mr Y that yes, we still need groundtroops but we make damn sure they're not going to get killed or injured, at least not by the enemy. Friendly fire seems okay, it's pretty much expected now. It seems to be considered unfair to let the enemy get in on the action. So we use missiles to kill them instead.