• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It would have to be global otherwise someone realizes “hey I’m the only one with an army” and marches it into whatever they claim as theirs.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You have discovered the essential flaw in the plan yes

          Engineering a world without war sounds like a great idea. Just disarming and hoping everyone else will do the same isn’t it.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I’ve talked before about how nuclear disarmament, like total nuclear disarmament, is going to happen suddenly.

            Not because the missiles launch or because someone cracks the diplomatic code to get North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel, France, the UK, and the US all on the same page, but because countermeasures developed enough that someone is able to make a complete decapitation play to try and get an early lead on the post nuclear game for primacy.

            It will go down in history as the war of 30 seconds, because that’s how long the mass strike on all the nuclear capabilities of the aggressed and their potential nuclear allies will likely be cut down to.

            As for what the ultimate nuke killer in question will ultimately be. I would bet heavily on high speed long operation time drone tech. Build enough drones that can stay in the air for days or weeks or even months, make them fast enough, and all you would need is enough intelligence gathering to identify all the targets.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars. It’s about how a refusal of war is integral to the mindset of a peaceful world. He isn’t advocating for asymmetrical disarmament, but for a global movement for peace lead by conscientious objectors.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars.

            Oh, cool, if only more citizens of the Allies during WW2 had refused military service, what shining examples of morality they would be to lead the world into an era of peace.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              There were many brave and accomplished citizens of allied nations who refused military service and who were integral to victory over the axis.

              Alan Turing broke the German cyphers and was staunchly antiwar. Howard Florey won the nobel prize for the mass production of penicillin and rejected military rank. Einstein himself was an outspoken pacifist, but it was his research that made the atomic bomb possible.

              If the allies had been as interested in forcing everyone into military service as the axis, it’s likely the war would have been even more bloody and prolonged.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                There were many brave and accomplished citizens of allied nations who refused military service and who were integral to victory over the axis.

                Alan Turing

                … didn’t refuse wartime service. The exact opposite, in fact. You… you do realize not all military service is shooting guns, right? Turing’s work was directly related to discovering German movements, and then, killing them. The Brits weren’t codebreaking to find out the Nazis’ favorite color for a Valentine’s day card.

                Howard Florey won the nobel prize for the mass production of penicillin and rejected military rank.

                … okay?

                Einstein himself was an outspoken pacifist, but it was his research that made the atomic bomb possible.

                If the allies had been as interested in forcing everyone into military service as the axis, it’s likely the war would have been even more bloody and prolonged.

                Well, I am glad you agree that the atomic bombs saved many lives, at least.

                • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Alan Turing didn’t refuse wartime service.

                  He was part of the anti-war movement while attending Cambridge. By your reasoning Gandhi was part of the military because he volunteered as a medic. Turing was not a soldier.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    He was part of the anti-war movement while attending Cambridge.

                    … okay? Your argument is then because at the age of 21, near a decade before WW2, he was part of an anti-war movement when in college; therefore, he was a total pacifist and his willing and eager service to military intelligence at the outbreak of WW2 against one of the most vile governments in modern history ‘didn’t count’?

                    By your reasoning Gandhi was part of the military because he volunteered as a medic.

                    When was this? The only military service I remember Gandhi being a part of was pre-WW2, and in those cases, quite decidedly in support of a brutal imperial British machine.

              • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Alan Turing broke the German cyphers and was staunchly antiwar.

                Are you confusing correlation with causation?

            • then_three_more@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              I think you’re thinking about it at a very basic level. In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also. Likely leading to the same overall result, but with a far lower death toll.

              • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also.

                If you’re making up the world, for sure. But stating it doesn’t guarantee it’s true for this world. The logic simply doesn’t hold, unfortunately. Remember, the biggest single common attribute of conservatives and fascists is the loyalty they demand – and that includes military service so they have a willing stream of bodies to waste.

                Sad? Yeah. True? Yeah. Moving us to a better society still requires a decent standing army through a slow and steady evolution until we’re sure we’re safe. Also sad, also true.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                I think you’re thinking about it at a very basic level. In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also.

                Oh, right, I had forgotten, cultural movements in one culture automatically take root simultaneously in others regardless of geographical or ideological distance. This is why circumcision is mandatory all across the world. Definitely, the fascists would have followed suit if the Allies proclaimed, over and over again, “Peace in our time!”

                Likely leading to the same overall result, but with a far lower death toll.

                What

                • then_three_more@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Oh, right, I had forgotten, cultural movements in one culture automatically take root simultaneously in others regardless of geographical or ideological distance

                  That’s actually a good point.

                  What

                  Simple maths. Less people fighting is less people killing and dieing.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Less people fighting is less people killing and dieing.

                    It’s really not, though. Especially not in context of a war like WW2. Less Brits fighting simply would have meant more freedom for Nazi bombers to crater London.

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yes if there were move more conscious objectors in the world, there would be less wars.

              If more citizens of the Allies AND the Axis during WW2 had refused military service, the war wouldn’t have been so bloody and wouldn’t have taken that long.

              You need soldiers to wage war, if every soldier refuses, you can’t have one.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I would suggest that just people in just a handful of countries doing it would be enough. Unfortunately, those handful are the ones causing all the trouble in the world right now.

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think you would have to couple the pacifist attitude with physical destruction of the majority of weapons to see results. So long as the weapons exist someone is going to plot to use them.

            • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Honestly, even that wouldn’t work. The genie’s out of the bottle so to speak. You could destroy all weapons today and they’d be rebuilt tomorrow.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Genie was out of the bottle the moment one human being picked up a stone and bashed another with it. Fuck, look at other primates - genie was out of the bottle before even that.

                People resort to war less as there becomes less incentive to participate in war. The idea that the increased capability to wage war through technology and institutions (like military service) is the driving factor of war is just… fanciful.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Agreed – the right bunch of countries under-going a sea change would definitely precipitate a huge jump in our evolution toward a non-violent society.

            But that’s a really dear dream to hold, and the odds are NOT with us today.