Every nation worldwide had an annual military budget of $0 annually?
Then who would we need a military to protect us from? Space aliens?
Every nation worldwide had an annual military budget of $0 annually?
Then who would we need a military to protect us from? Space aliens?
Nobody, because we'd all be living under the global hegemony of the first country to violate this agreement. All hail our benevolent Namibian overlords!
I'm not well read on the history of disbarment.
Recent political relevance might be,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
WW1 had a large 'build up of military forces I 'think,
Had all the sides 'not built up their armies, maybe they would have been less willing to enter war.
. . . Public used to being taxed for weapons, Vs 'new taxes for weapons.
Object in motion, Object at rest.
'Trying for less military, maybe can last a while.
Though 'eventually people and situation might change again, and one would need weapons again.
. . .
People do make 'laws for war,
Agree on behaviors, responsibilities, weapons.
Maybe leads to less atrocity,
Less atrocity, maybe less cycle of revenge.
Idk maybe sudan would get to us first.
Notwithstanding North Korea?
You drive a good point. But consider that they would have to go through japan or indonesian territory, russia would likely go strict lockdown.
And also China.
Hmmm. But this is $0 military budget question, wherein we are trying to guess the one rogue State.
How do you stop a rogue State, unless you have also violated the $0 military spending agreement.
Id have to assume based on weapons already distributed and try to imagine what each country would do. I imagine people in sudan would have an easier time as they have only to deal wit mostly unarmed nations heading west to sail across sea to u.s.
Just because there is no budget for a country to spend on military, doesnt mean they will spend money to gather weapons.
Yes, sort of the Swiss approach.
And of course we mustn't forget that Navally speaking Sudan are allied to the Russians.
Although, like the Russians, also embroiled in conflicts closer to home.
Hmmm. Hominids have taken many millennia to evolve to this level of intellect and civility.
So what's not to like about a big party and happy hands?
Nobody, because we'd all be living under the global hegemony of the first country to violate this agreement. All hail our benevolent Namibian overlords!
☝️ Ah, but he didn't say it was an agreement. For all we know it's a spell cast by a wizard in this hypothetical.
Or space aliens conquer us, and reduce our military budget and forces to zero, while being hands off for most everything else.
Which 'could be an answer in a way.
Various nations in history 'have conquered other nations and reduced their militaries to zero before, yet kept them around as vassals of sorts.
Some nations have reduced or no military budget in history.
Maybe get more social services.
I recall some "mostly peaceful" protesting when George Floyd died. It might have gone differently without National Guard presence. You might as well ask, "What if everyone never did anything wrong?"
Every democracy only functions as long as the people with guns permit it at their pleasure. The monopoly on violence ultimately decides the legitimacy of whether ballots can be cast at all depending on how far it wishes to indulge the masses based on the present threats to them. The one thing that cannot ever be decided at the ballot box is the stripping of the military of their powesr to enforce or ignore the outcome. So WRLY is correct, the OP can only occur with wizardry.
->Nobody, because we'd all be living under the global hegemony of the first country to violate this agreement. All hail our benevolent Namibian overlords!
Even though many people are tagged, the above argument is more or less your argument.
My refutation is that's like saying in the US, where no state has a significant military budget on it's own, then we would all be at the mercy of the Oklahoma Overlords. Why would Namibia want to conquer the world? It's like Oklahoma trying to conquer the entire US.
A country is an arbitrary shape on a map.
You are talking about police, not military. Police don't bomb tens of thousands of people. The military does.
Antifa de-facto conquered a few of your states, and with small budgets. All you need to do is wear a protester's uniform and declare to a friendly judge that you were protesting peacefully.
I specifically mentioned the National Guard, which is part of the military.
My refutation is that's like saying in the US, where no state has a significant military budget on it's own, then we would all be at the mercy of the Oklahoma Overlords. Why would Namibia want to conquer the world? It's like Oklahoma trying to conquer the entire US.
Because there's a Federal military to stop Oklahoma from trying this. So would the UN have an army? How is that preferable to the current situation?
Just have the national guard socially transition to become cops and help our police force.
->Because there's a Federal military to stop Oklahoma from trying this. So would the UN have an army? How is that preferable to the current situation?
I'd be fine with the UN having an army. It's preferable to the current situation because the UN army would cost less for the taxpayers of the planet than each of their own collective militaries combined. In addition, I'd also break up various large countries that often have big military budgets into their subdivisions, so the UN military wouldn't even have to be that large.
Antifa never conquored any US states.
"Even though many people are tagged, the above argument is more or less your argument."
Not even. Sudan would wipe out nambian like a cake walk.
Every nation worldwide had an annual military budget of $0 annually?
If it were somehow possible to ensure and/or enforce this, militaries would still exist but be voluntary (and of course no where near as powerful). Never underestimate the human ability to remain paranoid.
Without a military budget, I suppose it would be up to average citizens to decide to fight an invasion. If you find out a country was actually arming people and preparing them to go to war, could they be sanctioned or could there be a prosecutory action. You would almost have an advantage if you were a country like the US where guns were still something that the average person had in their home. I don't think we're anywhere near that point for any of this though. I mean, Russia and Israel are pretty significant countries and they're still engaging others.