DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - China peace index ranks 80th, while US 85th

**lalffibra** · 08-29-2012, 10:08 AM

Because it is a practice in gross naivety to assume that a large-capable military is in opposition to peace. WWII should be a testament to this, Hitler marched across Europe like a Sunday stroll because no one had a strong military. If France or Britain would have had a large capable military...somewhere near 60,000,000 people would not have died.
A strong military deterrence IS peace.

That's more of an ideological statement than an observation of facts or a conclusion that can be reached from history.
Most casualties in the European theatre fell exactly when the opposing forces were capable, not when it was unbalanced as it was during the Blitzkrieg. But in the Soviet Union which had a capable military (they defeated the Nazis after all) the toll was staggering. And the Nazis were aware of the military capabilities of the Soviet Union but weren't deterred nevertheless. Japan wasn't deterred when it attacked Pearl Harbour nor Al Quaeda on 9/11. When the attacker for some reason believes they have a chance no military might forms a true deterrence.

Other than that, a strong military always needs a raison d'être. It's politically-fiscally untenable having a huge military that just sits on their asses all day. So the reasoning is that the mere presence of a huge military force enables war. And when one looks at all the nations that have such, not just the US, that's exactly what happens.

08-29-2012, 10:08 AM	#9
lalffibra Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 373 Senior Member	Because it is a practice in gross naivety to assume that a large-capable military is in opposition to peace. WWII should be a testament to this, Hitler marched across Europe like a Sunday stroll because no one had a strong military. If France or Britain would have had a large capable military...somewhere near 60,000,000 people would not have died. A strong military deterrence IS peace. That's more of an ideological statement than an observation of facts or a conclusion that can be reached from history. Most casualties in the European theatre fell exactly when the opposing forces were capable, not when it was unbalanced as it was during the Blitzkrieg. But in the Soviet Union which had a capable military (they defeated the Nazis after all) the toll was staggering. And the Nazis were aware of the military capabilities of the Soviet Union but weren't deterred nevertheless. Japan wasn't deterred when it attacked Pearl Harbour nor Al Quaeda on 9/11. When the attacker for some reason believes they have a chance no military might forms a true deterrence. Other than that, a strong military always needs a raison d'être. It's politically-fiscally untenable having a huge military that just sits on their asses all day. So the reasoning is that the mere presence of a huge military force enables war. And when one looks at all the nations that have such, not just the US, that's exactly what happens.
	Quote