Investing in military

[Nakidana]

Hey peepz, I was writing an article on drones and the huge investments that have recently been pumped into this new technology, and it got me thinking about military investments generally.

From a revleft standpoint, if a country is not under military threat (as is the case with many Western countries today), should it still invest in military gear and research? I can understand how it seems absurd during the current financial crises where our resources could be spent in much more useful places. But for arguments sake, should military research and development be ongoing in a, say, communist society (where people would already have their material needs fulfilled)?

At that point in time I guess there would be no more war, but I'm thinking keeping the military would be useful in countering a potential future outside "threat"? (from space? :lol:)

[ind_com]

I think a civilization doing a decent amount of research in other fields won't need much effort to transform its technology for military purpose. So there will be no need for separate military-research, as space-creatures developed enough to travel to far away planets will most likely be communist as well.

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Bullshit. Mankind is incapable of truly anticipating the aims and structures of creatures who's evolution and historical trajectory may be vastly different from our own. Although military expenditure should be reduced, it ought not be abolished.

[barbelo]

if a country is not under military threat (as is the case with many Western countries today), should it still invest in military gear and research?

Yes, of course. As the author of my signature says, you arm yourself in order to prevent war, not the opposite.



But for arguments sake, should military research and development be ongoing in a, say, communist society (where people would already have their material needs fulfilled)?

Here we enter in a never solved debate about the nature of states, the nature of a communistic society, the nature of warfare, the inevitability of communism...
And I think people come with a answer to these questions too quickly and too easily.

What I find more relevant, in a materialistic point of view, is to see who benefits with the disarmament and less military spending in these hypotecial communist societies.

[Hermes]

Yes, of course. As the author of my signature says, you arm yourself in order to prevent war, not the opposite.




Here we enter in a never solved debate about the nature of states, the nature of a communistic society, the nature of warfare, the inevitability of communism...
And I think people come with a answer to these questions too quickly and too easily.

What I find more relevant, in a materialistic point of view, is to see who benefits with the disarmament and less military spending in these hypotecial communist societies.

I would disagree with your first point, though. I don't believe that deterrence is ever reliable enough as a tactic to risk the downsides it usually brings.

Of course, it would benefit those countries who have little chance of actually winning a war for everyone to stop military spending, but states who actually have something to gain from doing so would never agree.

--

edited because I didn't realize who the quote was by and my assumption didn't make any sense

[Psy]

Hey peepz, I was writing an article on drones and the huge investments that have recently been pumped into this new technology, and it got me thinking about military investments generally.

From a revleft standpoint, if a country is not under military threat (as is the case with many Western countries today), should it still invest in military gear and research? I can understand how it seems absurd during the current financial crises where our resources could be spent in much more useful places. But for arguments sake, should military research and development be ongoing in a, say, communist society (where people would already have their material needs fulfilled)?

At that point in time I guess there would be no more war, but I'm thinking keeping the military would be useful in countering a potential future outside "threat"? (from space? :lol:)
The problem it without conflict it is hard to predict how useful new military technology will be, as you don't know when the next conflict will occur let alone its nature.

[Ocean Seal]

Hey peepz, I was writing an article on drones and the huge investments that have recently been pumped into this new technology, and it got me thinking about military investments generally.

From a revleft standpoint, if a country is not under military threat (as is the case with many Western countries today), should it still invest in military gear and research? I can understand how it seems absurd during the current financial crises where our resources could be spent in much more useful places. But for arguments sake, should military research and development be ongoing in a, say, communist society (where people would already have their material needs fulfilled)?
I don't think we should.


At that point in time I guess there would be no more war, but I'm thinking keeping the military would be useful in countering a potential future outside "threat"? (from space? :lol:)
too many movies bro

[piet11111]

i think the military in and off itself could be transformed into a disaster relief/humanitarian missions agency.

I cant think of any other organization that can match the military when it comes to logistical capability and heavy machinery and with the guidance to put those things to work.

Obviously it would need to be drastically changed but that would be easier then abolishing the military and then proceeding to build up such an organization.

*edit* To clarify by transforming the military i mean the end of its "fighting" task.
The weapons themselves i suppose could be put into storage and maintained just in case until they become inoperable due to old age and periodically put on display as an historical object from a period of history that by that time we finally put behind us.
Stuff that is not extremely dangerous (thinking about firearms and stuff like a tank wich isn't more dangerous then a bulldozer when it is without munitions) could be given to collectors for as far as i am concerned.

[Jimmie Higgins]

With no threats of national and then class conflict, there would be no need for maintaining a constant and systematic military.

If, for example, some strange cult of broccoli worshipers wanted to form a militia and try and force other people to eat broccoli, then I think workers in a liberated society, probably used to mutual ad hoc mobilizations (for large projects or disaster relief or even just organizing huge festivals) would most likely be able to defend against the Vegi-fascists.

Capitalists need a constant force, first for maintaining domestic class order, and second, due to the demands of capitalist competition and the development into imperialism. They need to be able to enforce international relations favorable to them: blockade or fight the trade blocades of others, "open markets" by force or threat of force, secure resources, direct conflicts between capitalist powers.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

With no threats of national and then class conflict, there would be no need for maintaining a constant and systematic military.

I completely agree with this. The existence of an armed forces is impractical in all areas because it will naturally test it's strength on whatever is around it.

It's like saying that a really heavily armed country is the most peaceful, a load of rubbish because it is clear that countries that are the most peaceful are ones that do not appear to be threatening.

America and Iceland.
Massive standing army and no standing army.

Which country is estimated to be the most peaceful? Yup, Iceland.