On the bunker drill, the former minister said that all secretaries of state - not just defence - have a desk and a bed ready for them in a bunker.

This is not so they are able to survive a nuclear attack “for re-populating our islands after the apocalypse” but “because their departments are as integral to the war effort as the MoD”.

Because it’s precisely these politicians who should be repopulating after a potential apocalypse /s

Alternate title: “Former military guy can only think about conflict and makes war mongering comments to scare politicians and population”

  • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    If you desire peace, prepare for war.

    The US has recently proven itself an unreliable ally and can no longer be depended upon. I don’t want any armed conflict but now is the time to at least make sure you have the plans and resources in place to prepare for future conflicts. Hopefully they will not eventuate but it seems unwise to bet too much on that.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you desire peace, prepare for war.

      This is propaganda twisted logic at its finest. If you want peace you prepare peace you do not fucking prepare war!

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          if the last 1500 years teach you something is that when someone is preparing for war they do not want peace.

        • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Eh, there are plenty of old quotes that don’t hold up, and the last 1500 years haven’t really been that peaceful. I think it’s fair to be critical of a philosophy that’s been around that long and has really just been better at marketing increased military spending than actually successful at building real peace.

      • Shalakushka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        What do you do when you have prepared for nothing but peace and someone else brings war? That’s what the idiom means: you don’t prepare for war because you want it, you prepare for war because war literally never happens when you would like except when you are the one invading. If you want peace, you have to be prepared to defend yourself against people who do not desire or understand peace.

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          The UK is one of the countries in the world with the biggest military spending. Don’t feed up on propaganda, billions on billions already get spend every year on war by pretty much every nation.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures

          “Preparing for peace” means spending your money on useful and good things for humanity that aren’t war or police related. If someone brings war to you people will defend themself like they have always done. People from a country that doesn’t steal their money and treat them like pawns will actually defend themself better

          • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It’s not a dichotomy. Of course you’re right we should be providing for people and making sure we have a healthy society. In reality part of that is having sufficient defence. Being prepared for war doesn’t necessarily mean increasing spending either, it could be spending more efficiently, make sure you’re spending on the right things or even strengthening cooperation with allied nations.

            I’m not sure what you mean by people defending themselves as they have always done. Maybe you can elaborate more on that, are you saying we should rely on drafting civilians if attacked and therefore spend less to maintain a professional armed forces?

            • index@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s peasants like you and me that “defend” the country. A soldier is a peasant with a uniform. People can defend themself even without an uniform or a politician giving them orders

              • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                I think you’ve lost me here. A soldier has access to equipment, extensive training, support from other soldiers, streamlined communications between themselves and other military functions such as artillery, air support, armour and most importantly a massive network of logistics to ensure they can operate effectively. Not to mention guidance from commanders with access to extremely deep and complex intelligence networks. I’m sure I’m missing a bunch of stuff here as I’m far from an expert but you get the point.

                Of course things go wrong and it doesn’t always work perfectly but up against a competent armed forces a ragtag bunch of individuals really doesn’t stand a chance. I personally don’t think it’s a credible option for defending your country.

                • index@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  but up against a competent armed forces a ragtag bunch of individuals really doesn’t stand a chance.

                  As long as they are in the right the “ragtags” will always win. A country is a bunch of invisible lines on the map, no gear or order will ever be able to defend it from a bunch of angry people.

                  • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Saying the good guys will always win no matter what is magical thinking and doesn’t pan out in reality. By that logic nobody needs to spend even one cent on defence because conflicts would be won or lost on some kind of moral standard.