[dktekno]

Why do nearly all countries spend so much money on military?

Billions of dollars are going to the military. And what does the military do? Nothing, but killing.

Why not just abolish military altogether and use the money on welfare and tax cuttings?

Ordinary citizens don't need guns, tanks and rockets.
Ordinary citizens need hospitals, schools and welfare.

The government should not serve the small elite, but the large majority.

[Potemkin]

Ordinary citizens don't need guns, tanks and rockets.
Ordinary citizens need hospitals, schools and welfare.

They won't have the latter anyway if they don't have the former.

[Corporatios]

Why do nearly all countries use so much money on military?

Haven't you heard of international conflicts?

Countries that are safe(but never say never) and have no disputes with other countries,are doing what you've said,like Iceland and Switzerland.Unfortunately they're only a few.

[dktekno]

Countries that are safe(but never say never) and have no disputes with other countries,are doing what you've said,like Iceland and Switzerland.Unfortunately they're only a few.

And I wonder why a country like Sweden which has been neutral in both world wars and even during the cold war, haven't abolished military yet.

[Grognonours]

And I wonder why a country like Sweden which has been neutral in both world wars and even during the cold war, haven't abolished military yet.

Because they are smart enough not to abolish the military. Also, military budgets are high in the US because when there is an emergency, the first place money is pulled from to pay for it is in the military budget. During an international crisis our military has the money to go lend a hand. It's not all buying weapons and killing the brown people.

[Dave]

Sweden was nearly invaded in the Second World War and avoided the conflict due to very shrewd political maneuvering and building up a very powerful defense machine. Since that time Sweden has taken its defense very seriously and has underground defense factories, naval and airbases situated deep under hard granite, fighter aircraft which only need 6 men to be serviced and can fly from highways, arms caches hidden in the wilderness, etc.

I should also note that the First World War was a very serious affair for Sweden, and many in Sweden wanted to join the war on the German side. The German ambassador offered Sweden the return of Finland if she would join the Central Powers, but the King intervened and refused to commit Sweden to the conflict.

At any rate, your opposition to the military has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen you post, out of very many idiotic propositions that you have made. No military, no security. The first duty of any state is to provide security.

[wraith261]

Billions of dollars are going to the military. And what does the military do? Nothing, but killing.
You obviously live in a fantasy land where nations all get along swell. However reality/history do not reflect that.

This country would have ceased to exist decades ago if not for our military.

.

[dktekno]

Sweden was nearly invaded in the Second World War and avoided the conflict due to very shrewd political maneuvering and building up a very powerful defense machine.

But there is no danger anymore to the scandinavian countries.

The only threat to Scandinavia is Russia, as Scandinavia (especially Denmark) is blocking the sea route to the Atlantic from the Baltic Sea.

But I do know that no matter what, Denmark can't resist russian forces - and they're going to use nuclear weapons anyway which will totally eliminate all life in western scandinavia.

Secondly, if Denmark was to be invaded by Russia, no matter wether or not Denmark is a member of NATO, a russian controlled Denmark is a threat to the western world - NATO will intervene and help Denmark regain its independence as it is simply too dangerous for the other NATO-countries to see Denmark fall in the hands of Russia.

This means: Denmark and Norway and Sweden don't need military! Nor does Switzerland. They MAY have needed military, but not any longer!

[Dave]

But there is no danger anymore to the scandinavian countries.

The only threat to Scandinavia is Russia, as Scandinavia (especially Denmark) is blocking the sea route to the Atlantic from the Baltic Sea.

But I do know that no matter what, Denmark can't resist russian forces - and they're going to use nuclear weapons anyway which will totally eliminate all life in western scandinavia.

Secondly, if Denmark was to be invaded by Russia, no matter wether or not Denmark is a member of NATO, a russian controlled Denmark is a threat to the western world - NATO will intervene and help Denmark regain its independence as it is simply too dangerous for the other NATO-countries to see Denmark fall in the hands of Russia.

This means: Denmark and Norway and Sweden don't need military! Nor does Switzerland. They MAY have needed military, but not any longer!

Denmark is quite defensible. It's land border with Germany is very short and can be reinforced, and the rest of Denmark is an unfriendly coast line and seaborne invasions could be repulsed. A strong network of air intercept radar and surface to air missiles is not particularly expensive and could provide good air defenses, and some AIP submarines (purchased from friendly Sweden or Germany) are not expensive and could cause serious problems for enemy naval forces. While a determined Russia would of course be able to overwhelm Denmark, Denmark could make such an invasion costly enough to deter it. But yes, you are correct that NATO would intervene, so Denmark can parasitically use NATO's security guarantees to spend less on the armed forces. NATO technically requires a minimum expenditure on defense, but this is not well enforced and in any case can be cheated on (spend on science and call it defense).

In the case of Sweden or Norway, the case is different. Their terrain is extremely defensible, as it is heavily forested, rocky, hilly, and even mountainous. With sufficient armed force they could hold a determined Russian force for a very long time. The same is true of mountainous Switzerland. Switzerland's excellent armed forces and terrain helped deter German invasion during the war, and the Swiss were so jealous of their independence that they intercepted and shot down Axis and Allied aircraft which encroached on their airspace throughout the war.

You must also realize that the international situation can change, and building up a military from scratch is extremely expensive and difficult. Perhaps a good compromise, both to save money but retain defensive capability, is to have a universal militia system and a small regular armed forces with a highly professional and elite officer corps, with expenditures on weapons being primarily cheap defensive ones, like surface to air missiles. Then costs are low, the nation is defended, and if the situation worsens the armed forces can be rapidly and effectively expanded.

[stalker]

I would focus on building a state of the art nuclear deterrent and a small but elite force projection capability so as to exert influence. I think that's pretty much entirely what big countries like the US, Russia or China need.

I don't really see the point for a militia system as Dave says. It's not as if an invasion of the US where the citizenry will have to fight a guerrilla war is even remotely feasible.

[Dave]

dktekno is Danish