[theatadug]

You have a problem with our Constitution? We are given the right to have easy access to weapons.

I'm trying to find a logical reasoning that led you to that conclusion but can't seem to find any.

[Alkanyadela]

Greetings and Felicitations,

Thank you.
You just clarified why the index is not a good indicator of peace.

I have difficulty agreeing with this. If the only purpose is to measure the level of conflict in the world then the cause of the conflict isn't relevant.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

[xqdrocherz]

How is that a bias ? It's just its definition.
Bias comes in exactly when you introduce concepts such as 'justification' which is always subjective. Whether a war is justified or not, even if there were some objective values to measure this against, it makes no difference in the observation that there is an absence of peace.

Definitions can also be bias. How to define a peaceful nation defined by the luxuries of society and freedom of expression. Would you say that definition is bias? If you say yes, then any result would be bias. Right? The same can be said of this index. For example, simply using the number of wars or then umber of people killed does not mean it is less peaceful than a country that has not beein in wars. Additionally, the weighted average of the index per the number of parts also show a bias. If we change the weighted average among the parts, then the numbers would change where certain countries will go down and certain countries will go up in the index. That is the definition of bias.

In the relative ranking of countries both statements are true. It's not a dichotomy. Techniclly, they are both true and false.

[AnetTeilor]

And?

Do the citizens of the top 10 GPI countries get a free cookie or something?

Just trying to fathom why we (or anyone) should care....

[diundasmink]

So killing 40,000,000-70,000,000 of your people is written off after a couple decades? Way to go china !

[infarrelisam]

That sucks. Anyone below 100 is a friggin' pussy!

[ThzinChang]

So killing 40,000,000-70,000,000 of your people is written off after a couple decades? Way to go china !

So is forced abortions and the forced relocation of millions for the 3 gorges project.

[ëàìèíàò]

So is forced abortions and the forced relocation of millions for the 3 gorges project.

But it's peaceful forced abortions and peaceful relocations...

[yazetaw]

But in the Soviet Union which had a capable military (they defeated the Nazis after all) the toll was staggering. .

Well, the Russian Winter had a bit to do with it. Unless you consider a, "scorched earth policy" to be an offensive military tactic.

[Elelaytet]

We're a democracy not a pacifist nation. We have freedom of speech because we shoot people who don't have freedom of speech.

[alecoplesosse]

We're a democracy not a pacifist nation. We have freedom of speech because we shoot people who don't have freedom of speech.

That and strong drink defines this country! I'm proud of you for pointing it out.

[vesiasmepay]

The points where the US scores badly are often aspects many Americans actually like, such as the high militarization of society (5/5) or the high rate of incarceration (5/5).

The same goes for points such as easy acces to weapons (3/5) or the several aspects that are related simply to being in a war.

It seems a bit contradictory to have a wish to be high on a peace index given the nature of American society ?

High militarization index? This of a country where less then 1% of the population serves in the military.

And I find it ironic that nations like Egypt rate in at 49. Even though female mutilation is still commonly practiced. And Mexico ranks at 107, even though it hosts what is undoubtedly the deadliest city in the world (Juarez). And Belarus has taken a dive, even though it did not start or provoke a war, but was invaded.

And Sierra Leone is ranked 53. Even though they still have an active civil war, RUF is still killing villagers who do not support them, there is still slavery in the diamond mines, and the drug cartels run large sections of the nation.

But I guess I should feel good, since they rank Russia as 7th from the bottom. And if the "warlike" USA had not stepped in and supported Croatia in their war a few years ago, they would not be able to enjoy their place at 41. Or South Korea in their place at 43.

[Gymngatagaica]

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.

your version of history is interesting, not really based on facts but it is interesting.
here are facts
after ww1 the us, uk and france disarmed and russia imploded with their revolution.
Japan and Germany broke the treaties and increased the size of their military and modernized it(yes I know Japan did not fight with Germany during ww1)
so at teh start of ww2 you had the allied miltary that was filled with old equipment in disrepair vs a mordern miltary.
the russian miltary was in such bad shape many did not have guns or bullets. the only thing that kept them going was the supplies form the us and the size of the country.
Also the Japanese belived that the US where weak and had no will to fight and would just settle for peace giving up everything west of hawaii.
so historicaly speaking everythign you said was wrong. before ww2 the only countries with strong miltary was germany and japan the two countires that attacked the rest

[Stetbrate]

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.

Actually, the military does not juse "sit on their asses all day". It actually works quite hard. I mean, how many jobs have you had where 18 hour days, 30+ days without a day off can be considered "normal"? Or where you can be expected to work 24+ hours a day (without overtime pay no less)?

And a large percentage of the military does more then just fight wars. They are also a major first responder during times of disaster. Who was it that provided most of the initial support after 9/11? Hurricane Katrina? Mississippi flooding? North-East winter storms? California earthquakes? Wild fires?

Yep, the military. In addition they give huge amounts of support to other nations when they have disasters, from hurricanes and earthquakes to famine, civil strife, even volcanoes.

And the very idea of a large, well trained, well equiped military is to hopefully prevent wars by deterrence. And with a few exceptions it has worked for over 100 years. But the problem is that not everybody will be deterred. They are so sure that they have a mission from a higher power to destroy us (or an ally).

Just look at Hitler, Mussilini and Tojo to see what I mean. Even if the US possessed "The Bomb" when WWII broke out, it would not have prevented them from starting the war. Because all three were sure they would prevail, no matter what the odds.

[PeterPatrickJohn]

[VanDerSmok]

Actually, the military does not juse "sit on their asses all day". It actually works quite hard. I mean, how many jobs have you had where 18 hour days, 30+ days without a day off can be considered "normal"? Or where you can be expected to work 24+ hours a day (without overtime pay no less)?

I think his criticism is that it doesn't do anything useful much of the time.
And a large percentage of the military does more then just fight wars. They are also a major first responder during times of disaster. Who was it that provided most of the initial support after 9/11? Hurricane Katrina? Mississippi flooding? North-East winter storms? California earthquakes? Wild fires?

Yep, the military. In addition they give huge amounts of support to other nations when they have disasters, from hurricanes and earthquakes to famine, civil strife, even volcanoes.
I don't really care for giving free shit to other nations and I doubt that the US military is the most efficient way to respond to earthquakes and other natural disasters.
And the very idea of a large, well trained, well equiped military is to hopefully prevent wars by deterrence. And with a few exceptions it has worked for over 100 years. But the problem is that not everybody will be deterred. They are so sure that they have a mission from a higher power to destroy us (or an ally).
Oh please. The US is one of the most if not the most belligerent nation on the planet today.

[Rnlvifov]

I think his criticism is that it doesn't do anything useful much of the time.I don't really care for giving free shit to other nations and I doubt that the US military is the most efficient way to respond to earthquakes and other natural disasters.Oh please. The US is one of the most if not the most belligerent nation on the planet today.

National Guard = US military. Theyre who gets called. Theyve got resources and lots and lots of training. Do you have a better idea?

[AricGoffgog]

I don't really care for giving free shit to other nations and I doubt that the US military is the most efficient way to respond to earthquakes and other natural disasters.

National Guard = US military. Theyre who gets called. Theyve got resources and lots and lots of training. Do you have a better idea?

That is strange, because I do care about "giving free shit to other nations" when there has been a disaster.

You see, I do not give a rats arse if the people in need are a free democracy, a Communist Dictatorship, or an oppressive Theocracy. When I see a disaster, I only see people in immediate need. I do not see Americans, Hatians, Indians, Iranians, Chinese, or anything else. All I want to do is go in and help.

And yes, the best people to send in is the Military. They are trained, organized, and equipped to handle this type of event. Tell me, who else can pack up, fly to anywhere in the world, and bring everything they need from shelter and food to water purification and hospitals, fuel, communications, and highly trained personnel by the thousands that are experienced in working together?

Certainly not the Red Cross or UN.

Every member of the military has training that makes them unique as a disaster relief organization. And if anybody could name a better one, I would love to hear it.

[vipluka]

National Guard = US military. Theyre who gets called. Theyve got resources and lots and lots of training. Do you have a better idea?

Maybe so, but training in what? Are they trained exclusively for disaster response?

That is strange, because I do care about "giving free shit to other nations" when there has been a disaster.

You see, I do not give a rats arse if the people in need are a free democracy, a Communist Dictatorship, or an oppressive Theocracy. When I see a disaster, I only see people in immediate need. I do not see Americans, Hatians, Indians, Iranians, Chinese, or anything else. All I want to do is go in and help.

Then help them yourself. Without taking my money first.
And yes, the best people to send in is the Military. They are trained, organized, and equipped to handle this type of event. Tell me, who else can pack up, fly to anywhere in the world, and bring everything they need from shelter and food to water purification and hospitals, fuel, communications, and highly trained personnel by the thousands that are experienced in working together?

Certainly not the Red Cross or UN.

Every member of the military has training that makes them unique as a disaster relief organization. And if anybody could name a better one, I would love to hear it. The US spends a third or a fourth of it's money on the military, doesn't it? Are you saying it's the most efficient way to deal with disasters?

[dodsCooggipsehome]

Maybe so, but training in what? Are they trained exclusively for disaster response?

Not exclusively, but that is part of the training. Training for saving people wounded in battle and wounded during a hurricane or earthquake is not much different. And training to stay alive in a desert with little water is not much different then training to stay alive on an island where essential services (like fresh water are not available).

And they have the equipment and know how to use it.

Then help them yourself. Without taking my money first.

I do. I have before, and will again.

But how much assistance is anybody going to be without money? How much do you think the relief after Katrina cost? Or in Haiti?

You can't send thousands of people anywhere (be they civilian or military) without money to support them.

And at the same time, all the money in the world will do you no good if there are no people willing to go and help.

The US spends a third or a fourth of it's money on the military, doesn't it? Are you saying it's the most efficient way to deal with disasters?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And most of that money goes to such things as pay, housing, medical and schooling for dependents, and the like. There are roughly 3 dependents (spouses, children) for every person serving in the military. So not only do you support the servicemembers themselves, you provide for their families.

And a lot of other services. Things like the American Red Cross, who have offices on every military installation (and in return provides a lot of services to the ARC for free). They also provide back things like blood (by percentage the military is the largest provider of blood for local blood banks).

During any natural disaster, you will find the military giving support. From providing food and shelter to safe drinking water and emergency medical services. They simply have a supply of personnel that leaves every other disaster service far behind.

An average Army Battalion has 5 mobile kitchens (which are able to support 1,000+ people each), 6 trailers that can supply 400 gallons of fresh water, tents to shelter 2,500+ people, 20 trained paramedics (and normally 300+ emergency medical techs), and vehicles to transport all of those personnel.

And to give an idea, the 101st Airborne has 41 Battalions. That is just one of 28 Divisions (18 active, 10 National Guard-Reserve).

For Katrina alone, you have the National Guard of 4 states activated (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana) activated, totalling over 10,000 personnel.

You had the Coast Guard activate units from as far as Cape Cod and moved to the Gulf Coast. Over 39,000 Coast Guard personnel were mobilized into the area.

9 US Navy ships were brought to the area (USS Truman, USS Bataan, USS Iwo Jima, USS Shreveport, USS Tortuga, USS Whidbey Island, USNS Arctic, USNS Comfort [hospital ship], and USS Grapple. Plus you had the Canadian Navy ships HMCS Athabaskan, HCMS Toronto, and the HMCS Ville de Quebec deploy to assist, along with the Dutch Frigate HS can Amstel and the Mexican Frigate Papaloapan.

The Air Force sent SAR and aeromedical evacuation support, relief supplies, and support. They medically evacuated over 4,000 people to hospitals in areas not affected, as well as emergency evacuations of over 25,000 people. They also ran an emergency hospital and provided over 9 million meals.

The Army also supplied assistance, including helicopters from Fort Rucker to supply SAR support and to bring supplies to the hardest hit areas.

All told, over 65,000 military personnel assisted in disaster relief. And all brought their own support and supplies, in addition to giving to those that were hit in the disaster.

Now tell me, what other organization can bring close to that number of people to assist in a disaster? And not just people, but over 300 helicopters, 20 transport aircraft, mobile hospitals, water and waste purification, food, tents, security, and everything else needed.

And I defy you to tell me of a more efficient way to do it. Civilians? That would cost even more, because no civilians would do that job for the money the military pays.

The top pay in the military is just over $224k per year. And starting pay? Just over $17k.

Tell me a group of 60,000+ civilians that will work for that kind of wage. The President of the American Red Cross pulled down over $651,000. That is just under 3 times what the highest paid General makes, with a lot less danger or responsibility.

And the average ARC employee makes around $30,000 a year. That is a lot more then people in the military make (an ARC "Volunteer Coordinator" makes $36k a year).

So please tell me, what is a more efficient way to have that many people constantly on call to assist in disaster relief? I would love to hear it.

The military is pretty much the "911 of disaster support" for the US. Everything from flooding on the Mississippi river, tornadoes, hurricanes, even winter storms and earthquakes. If you watch the news, you will see them doing everything and everything needed, from standing in -20 degree weather to restore power, to running water purification and sanitation systems. Evacuation of the wounded to emergency shelter.

And not just in the US. Mexico, Haiti, Philippines, this assistance is given world-wide. Nobody else in the US even comes a close second in this kind of support and assistance.