• AbsentBird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah, everyone knows you can only prevent war by fighting in wars. War is peace.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ah yes, the famous quote from fourth century Rome. How did that work out for them? I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century. It also inspired the name of the Parabellum pistol (AKA Lugar) manufactured in Germany for both worlds wars. The quote doesn’t have the best track record.

        I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.

        • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          One can find the application to this quote pretty much everywhere, everywhen, even in small personal situations, so once it spread it stuck and outlived the Rome itself because it does correspond to what we sometimes think and do. In soviet times (another dead empire) there were a couple of the same-meaning proverbs, like ‘alarmed, thus got armed (in time)’ I used when I prepared for things like exams, job interviews, long camping trips and stuff, and I’m pretty sure your culture has them too.

          I believe that Einstein was very optimistic and said that too early, or dreamed of the future when wars over beliefs, ego or profits aren’t a usual occurence. But we as humanity haven’t arrived there yet. One of the ways this can occur is if we would see the war not worth it for a long time, to get used to it, and Europe mostly got this by now within itself, but not against external threats. As, so it happens, there are still rogue actors who can start their shitty crusade on their border. And if we won’t be so europocentric, the Middle East and Africa and Asia has a lot of war axes dug out for their peers, there are hot and cold conflicts going on even if they aren’t covered in what news sources we can read.

          Star Trek: TNG’s first season has a little mention of how we humans came here, through unimaginable wars and atrocities, before we aknowledged that our ways are wrong. I hope, we would be better and won’t see WW3 (or WW4 with sticks and stones as Albert said) play out before we reach something akin to their fantastic future. We may need to come to the parity and agree to tone it all down, and have a century of peace, before we even get into the mentality characters have in this show.

        • 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?

            • 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?

      • Ragdoll X@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        *oops now there’s a cold war and thousands of nukes*

        Like come on, if there’s one person who didn’t like to make things simple it was Einstein. The guy was a fan of the Soviet Union, which was established through a revolution. This is just a catchy one-liner about pointless wars and militarism, not a deep and detailed political analysis.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Soviet Union, which was established on anti-war. WW1, anyone remembers that?

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You can discredit Einstein as much as you like.

          That doesn’t change a thing about the truth of the quote.