Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers

So do you believe that in the 21st century a first world European
sovereign state has no need of a standing army or do you mean that you
feel the UK is currently perusing a more offensive than strictly
defensive role?

Only warfare has changed an awful lot since WW2 and the likelihood of a
nation lacking a standing army being able to raise one, train one,
equip one and field one in the event of being invaded, in time for it
to do any good is about zero. Therefore I would contend that keeping a
professional standing army is a necessity.

However, if you also believe the chance of a first world European
nation ever being attacked by another first world nation is also zero,
then I can see the point of arguing against the necessity of keeping a
standing army. I would view it as naive, but I could of course be
wrong.

Interesting topic by the way.

Ghost

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers
    ... > So do you believe that in the 21st century a first world European ... > sovereign state has no need of a standing army or do you mean that you ... > professional standing army is a necessity. ... > nation ever being attacked by another first world nation is also zero, ...
    (uk.people.gothic)
  • Re: Liberals, Guns, and why this Nation should never have been founded!
    ... First, when our nation was founded, the founders did not envision a ... government that supplied arms to a standing army. ... Hardly suggestive of a nation intended not ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)