Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers
- From: "Grave" <grave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:07:42 GMT
"Ghost" <dj_ghostuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> 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?
japan has a strictly 'defense' only armed force and i was always of the
opinion that the U.N were supposed to do the fighting if it ever came up
which would allow us to do away with the army (except the nominal forces for
> 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.
funny, but britain hasnt been invaded since they invented modern warfare,
battleships and planes. in the days of yore werent they invaded fortnightly
by anyone who happened to be passing?
> 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
germany, japan and now france have got the right idea. you dont need a
massive army to win a war, you just need the finance.
- Prev by Date: Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers
- Next by Date: Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers
- Previous by thread: Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers
- Next by thread: Re: note to uk.people.gothic readers