This article is about Germany rapidly increasing defence spending, and also the fact that they’re considering conscription. I also found this interesting:
A recent YouGov poll showed that 79% of Germans still see Vladimir Putin as “very” or “quite” dangerous to European peace and security. Now 74% said the same for Donald Trump.
Thoughts?
You are just naive in thinking that querfronts can prevent a war.
I never said that I think weapons prevent wars.
Wars with erratic actors like Putin cannot be prevented, because certainty of peace is built on trust, but Putin cannot be trusted.
So your solution is just to lay down and die (pobably litteraly)?
The country I live in tries to be prepared for war and so do many countries in Europe.
I and my in-group have a lot to lose when countries like Russia, USA or China expand their influence onto Europe, by indirect, hybrid or direct intervention.
European society is already split enough, it doesn’t need further authority (from outside).
Europe doesn’t exist anymore after WW3.
https://youtu.be/MpmGXeAtWUw
MAD only works if all sides have nuclear anxiety and the existence of nuclear weapons doesn’t rule ballistic weapons out of existence, especially for countries without nuclear weapons (see Ukraine). I’m not advocating for nuclear proliferation here.
The equilibrium of MAD (as in “The only way to win is not to play”) might be relevant for countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. Russia, USA, China), but telling the Ukraine defense that “The only way to win is not to play” is insulting and privileged.
Germany does not intend to test how far Russia is going with ballistic weapons and cannot rely solely on the power of MAD’s equilibrium from France, NATO or USA.
now you are derailing the argument
btt
But all i hear is we need more conventional weapons to defend against russia?
Still wanna know how that increases the peace?
“Conventional” weapons make a defensive war less deadly to civilians and more expensive for the other side.
How?
If this counts then there must be a diplomatic solution mustn’t it? because a war is always more expensive.
For examply by increased range: Weapons that shoot down rockets/drones before they hit can protect a city or region.
Call the Kremlin/White House/Zhongnanhai, I think you’re onto something there.
“Diplomatic Solution” is only viable if rulers care about pre-war military economics. Authoritarians don’t always do that.
So your solution is to do nothing and die (Very likely literally)?
I don’t have a solution, but unlike the militarist I don’t pretend to have one.