Why should we demand countries that are only spending 1/3 of what we spend disarm? No, let’s focus on having the most militaristic country in the world, the one that spends as much as the next 9 countries combined, on having that country reduce spending and stop trying to dominate the entire world through military force.
And then we can spend some of that money on giving me healthcare! Everybody wins! Well, except for the corporate executives, corrupt politicians, and their chauvanistic bootlickers.
You do realize that if you “reduce” spending you will still have arms companies making weapons and engineers will work for them? I don’t think it’s that complicated…
You spend a lot on weapons. If you reduce it you will spend less on weapons but you will buy some weapons.
Like imagine you’re spending $100 a week on alcohol. You decide it’s bad for you and you reduce it. Now you’re only spending $30 on alcohol. You’re still buying alcohol. You spend less but you still buy it so someone will still make it.
I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you’re making.
Yes, reducing spending would not completely eliminate the harm. It would only, you know, reduce it. Since you said you don’t like the idea of cutting it too much, I suggested a reasonable compromise of merely reducing it by 2/3, to be “only” the most well funded military on the planet.
To actually eliminate all the harm altogether would require either a complete shutdown of US military production or a fundamental shift in US foreign policy away from terrorism and domination, which would hopefully involve prosecuting the politicians responsible for current foreign policy for war crimes. Probably in some sort of revolutionary tribunal, because that’s about the only conceivable way for them to be brought to justice.
I’m not sure what part of that you’re confused about.
The fewer weapons that people make for them, the fewer weapons they will have that they can use to kill brown people with. Therefore there is a clear line of cause and effect between making weapons for them and brown people dying. Therefore, the people making those weapons have caused harm, and would deserve to go to Hell if it existed.
This is all very straightforward, I still have no idea what you’re confused about.
It’s really not that complicated. We have two “issues”.
Engineers making weapons
Weapons being used to kill innocent people.
There is an easy solution to both: don’t make weapons. That’s a stupid solution because if your country doesn’t have any weapons it will be invaded by other country and innocent people will die.
You know this easy solution is stupid so you say we should only “reduce” the number of weapons. But this doesn’t solve any issues. Engineers still make weapons and those weapons can still be used to kill innocent people. You just saved some money which is completely different topic entirely.
So now you’re stuck in a loop claiming that your stupid solution will solve issue 2 (which it won’t) while ignoring issue 1 entirely.
The real “solution” is to not use weapons to kill innocent people. “Issue” 1 is not an issue at all. Engineers making weapons are necessary. “Issue” 2 has to be solved by the entire country by electing better politicians. Engineers don’t have more power here than farmers or doctors.
Great, so let’s disarm unilaterally. I’m sure Russia and China will do the same.
Such a childish take…
Why should we demand countries that are only spending 1/3 of what we spend disarm? No, let’s focus on having the most militaristic country in the world, the one that spends as much as the next 9 countries combined, on having that country reduce spending and stop trying to dominate the entire world through military force.
And then we can spend some of that money on giving me healthcare! Everybody wins! Well, except for the corporate executives, corrupt politicians, and their chauvanistic bootlickers.
You do realize that if you “reduce” spending you will still have arms companies making weapons and engineers will work for them? I don’t think it’s that complicated…
You spend a lot on weapons. If you reduce it you will spend less on weapons but you will buy some weapons.
Like imagine you’re spending $100 a week on alcohol. You decide it’s bad for you and you reduce it. Now you’re only spending $30 on alcohol. You’re still buying alcohol. You spend less but you still buy it so someone will still make it.
Hope that helps.
I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you’re making.
Yes, reducing spending would not completely eliminate the harm. It would only, you know, reduce it. Since you said you don’t like the idea of cutting it too much, I suggested a reasonable compromise of merely reducing it by 2/3, to be “only” the most well funded military on the planet.
To actually eliminate all the harm altogether would require either a complete shutdown of US military production or a fundamental shift in US foreign policy away from terrorism and domination, which would hopefully involve prosecuting the politicians responsible for current foreign policy for war crimes. Probably in some sort of revolutionary tribunal, because that’s about the only conceivable way for them to be brought to justice.
I’m not sure what part of that you’re confused about.
I can see that. Let me explain that in even simpler way.
You say:
Me: Making guns.
You: “Engineers making guns bad! Make less guns!”
Me: Make 1 gun instead of 3.
US Army: Take 1 gun and kill brown children.
You: “Engineers making guns bad!”
I say:
Me: Making guns.
US Army: Takes guns and kills brown people.
Me: Army bad!
P.S. I don’t work for arms company. I was just making a point.
The fewer guns they have the fewer brown people they’re able to kill. Obviously.
Obviously.
The fewer weapons that people make for them, the fewer weapons they will have that they can use to kill brown people with. Therefore there is a clear line of cause and effect between making weapons for them and brown people dying. Therefore, the people making those weapons have caused harm, and would deserve to go to Hell if it existed.
This is all very straightforward, I still have no idea what you’re confused about.
It’s really not that complicated. We have two “issues”.
There is an easy solution to both: don’t make weapons. That’s a stupid solution because if your country doesn’t have any weapons it will be invaded by other country and innocent people will die.
You know this easy solution is stupid so you say we should only “reduce” the number of weapons. But this doesn’t solve any issues. Engineers still make weapons and those weapons can still be used to kill innocent people. You just saved some money which is completely different topic entirely.
So now you’re stuck in a loop claiming that your stupid solution will solve issue 2 (which it won’t) while ignoring issue 1 entirely.
The real “solution” is to not use weapons to kill innocent people. “Issue” 1 is not an issue at all. Engineers making weapons are necessary. “Issue” 2 has to be solved by the entire country by electing better politicians. Engineers don’t have more power here than farmers or doctors.