• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century.

    Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.

    I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.

    Cool. You’re prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.

      Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?

      Cool. You’re prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?

      I’ve never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I’m just not good at getting into disputes.

      In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation. Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance. I think a constant paranoia of war is more likely to do harm than conjure safety.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?

        Jesus. If you’re not informed about the state of the Late Empire, don’t use it as a point of comparison.

        I’ve never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I’m just not good at getting into disputes.

        Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?

        No, that’s silly.

        In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation.

        What the fuck do you think an alliance is if not preparing for war

        Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance.

        I can’t think of many. Got any examples?

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

          Got any examples?

          Britain was absolutely not prepared for WW2 but put up a successful resistance. They had spent the decade prior, focusing on disarmament and the League of Nations. The US was not prepared for WW2 either, the attack on Pearl Harbor damaged nearly the entire battle fleet. For a more contemporary example, Ukraine was unprepared for the Russian invasion, but has been putting up more of a fight than anyone expected.

          Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?

          Then what was the point of your hypothetical?

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

            Britain was absolutely not prepared for WW2 but put up a successful resistance.

            Are you fucking kidding me

            Chamberlain’s entire deal was that he was buying time for Britain to rearm. On top of that, Britain, at the outset of the war, had one of the most powerful militaries on the face of the earth, on account of having massive colonial holdings that needed to be butchered from time to time to ‘keep them in line’.

            The US was not prepared for WW2 either, the attack on Pearl Harbor damaged nearly the entire battle fleet.

            … we had spent the past several years rebuilding our military, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to knock out one of the most powerful navies in the world.

            Sorry, what I meant was “One of the most powerful navies in the world is not a sign of being prepared for war; quite the opposite”

            For a more contemporary example, Ukraine was unprepared for the Russian invasion, but has been putting up more of a fight than anyone expected.

            Ukraine was unprepared in 2014, when, you know, the Russian military took Crimea bloodlessly and very bloodily took the Donbass. Ever since they’ve been pouring money into the military, especially considering the active phase of the War in the Donbass for the past fucking decade. The military budget almost tripled since 2014 to 2021. And since the start of the 2022 phase of the war, countries which also have prepared for war were instrumental in Ukraine’s defense, providing much of that preparatory material; while many European countries which had been less prepared for war have struggled to provide what Ukraine needs.

            Try again.

            Then what was the point of your hypothetical?

            I had meant geopolitical neighbors, but actual neighbors works as well - you are only able to be free of the threat of violence as a means of conflict resolution because someone (the state in this case) threatens it in your place

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war, but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor, and Chamberlain’s Britain was prepared for Hitler? Hmm. How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?

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

                Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war,

                Rome during the Late Empire had neglected the health of its military for a number of reasons that I won’t go into at the moment, since it would take up several comments worth of context. Fuck, the battle that turned Atilla’s army away was won by barbarian allies.

                but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor,

                No, the US was prepared for war, not for a specific battle. Hence, you know, having one of the most powerful navies on the face of the earth.

                and Chamberlain’s Britain was prepared for Hitler?

                Chamberlain’s Britain was preparing for Hitler, that was the entire point of Chamberlain’s stalling; and again, Britain still had one of the most powerful militaries in the world even before that. Jesus Christ.

                How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?

                Not familiar with it, but I would doubt that being unprepared for war helped them at all. A quick check suggests that the disorder of their ill-prepared army was ruinous and that British assistance was key.

                • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  There seems to be a disconnect in how we’re talking about this. You seem to be understanding the quote as a statement on preparedness; if you want peace, you should ensure your military is heavily funded and capable of repelling all comers.

                  My read was more about anticipation; if you want peace, you should plan for war.

                  On the surface it seems like we’re saying the same thing, but it comes into conflict when we run into historical examples. Like to my mind, Rome was always preparing for war, at the time of the quote they were waging wars like clockwork. But it’s that very habit of bullying their neighbors that put such a large target on their backs.

                  By contrast, Britain had been working towards disarmament for years before they shifted gears, there was a reason Chamberlain had to buy so much time. Germany on the other hand had been working tirelessly towards their goals of conquest. Germany had been preparing for war while Britain was preparing for peace.

                  Does that make sense from your perspective?

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve never had an issue

        Do you understand how hypotheticals work?

        Hypothetically, I’m your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          My point is that I’ve lived next to people preparing for war, and it was never an issue. I don’t see why people can’t coexist.

          Hypothetically, I’m your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?

          My evasion, guile, and misdirection.

          What’s your response to the hypothetical? Shoot first?

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            K now you run away, cool, I can’t find you but I get to keep all your stuff and your house. You die from exposure. Great plan.

            My answer is that the sanctioned violence of the state provides a check on the violence of individuals. Now we all live in a relatively peaceful society.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              That doesn’t answer the hypothetical. Are you saying you’d call the cops? What do you do when the killer is coming for you with their gun?

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

                Call the cops, yes. Defend myself if necessary inasmuch as the law allows, because I agreed to be bound by the law. If I live in a rural area and the cops are far away, using violence to defend myself may be the only option.

                But whether it’s by me or the state, my violent neighbor will be stopped by a greater amount of violence.