It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is a country without an army plausible or stupid?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
hi

I live in Belgium and everytime I fantasies about being the most influencial person in the country I think of how I would structure society so it would be better and more peaceful.

I think that Belgium would be way better off without an army, because Belgium is one of the smallest country's of Europe so having an army is really just a joke.

I mean if we would get attacked by a country we would be protected by our fellow European countries and why the hell would someone even attack such an insignificant country?

Instead of putting money into military training and materials we could put the money into a group just like the military but a group with a diffrent name purpose and mentality.

A group that exists to help other country's such as developing country's or country's with floods or quakes or what ever! The money would be well spent and Belgium would receive a image to the world as a peaceful country that wants to help.

now who would want to attack such a country? why would Belgium need an army? Belgium would be a prime example and other country's later would maybe follow, setting of a domino effect.

I personally see no bad sides about this litle plan of mine, maybe I'm too optimistic but It would really work!

Is this naïve or revolutionairy? give your opinion and how this system would work out for your country?




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
There are many countries who survive without an army:

en.wikipedia.org...

I see your logic and agree that in certain instances an army is pointless.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I can think of two instances in History of cultures that did not have a Standing Army. One of them actually was very evolved for it's time and no other culture compared. They were the height of Music, Art, Poetry, Astronomy, Mathematics, etc. The first barbarian tribe that came along defeated them and wiped them from the face of the earth.

Not having a Standing Army is a noble thing in idea, but not a very sagacious idea in practice.

EDIT: Of course, if you can convince someone else, whom you trust, to protect you from invaders, then have at it! Belgium specifically should fall under the protection of both N.A.T.O. and the E.U., so go ahead and follow Andorra's example!

[edit on 12-8-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
No, neither; a country without an army is a GENIUS accomplishment in the modern world. But it's only a very small start.

You have to take it farther: a country without clearly distinguished borders, or even any borders at all! Where does "mine" end, and "yours" begin? That is the question to be intentionally confused in order to off-set the mind-numbing stupidity of modern political thinking.

Or another improvement yet: a country that is not a country.


What country do I live in? Yeah... Well, you know, a "country" is really just an idea.
An idea with physical places and jobs and guns strongly associated with it. But an idea nonetheless with an infinite number of holes in it, because it's all made up in the end, a big nothingness that a bunch of nobodies were more or less forced into agreeing upon. I might say I live here or there to someone out of convenience so that they may better understand, but I don't REALLY consider myself a citizen of anywhere, not even this planet ultimately. My loyalties lie in stranger places! I'm a treasonous traitor I suppose! Born and raised amongst your own ranks even.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
If all countries abolished militaries and we became a peaceful world then aliens would easily take us over. They would eat our brains and we would not even have guns to shoot ourselves with while it happened!

Yeah, I make perfect sense.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I wish the answer were as easy as choosing one of the options you'd given in your topic, either A.) Plausible or B.) Stupid, but world situations vary from region to region and have a lot of dependant factors such as size, surriounding regions, history, diplomacy, system of government, etc. I would love (as most people would I venture to guess) a world where there were no armies at all, that they were unnecessary because battles need not be fought. The reality of our situation is there are some people in the world who have motivations or even no motivations to cause harm to others. The military then is supposed to be that last resort to force fairness into an otherwise unfair situation. If a country survives fine without an army, I say "blessed are the peacemakers" but cannot condemn a nation because of the possibility of breeched security. There are reasons why people do as they do, so the first step is to find out what those reasons are. After reviewing that history book, the question posed becomes quite a puzzle to discern necessity.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I understand that it isn't suitible for all countries and that the threat of invasion exists. But in the case of some countries army's are useless.

If these countries would concentrate on training people in being peaceful and empathic it would be a great start. Instead of the army brainwashing soldiers to kill and be less empathic this organisation would teach people to be good to the best of there bilities.


and we still need army's in hese times but that is just our mentality that will hopefully change fast! also If this country would be succesfull in the project it would suddenly speak to people and people would begin to see the possibility of such a system existing.

It would atleast start to change our consiousness abit and steer us in the right direction.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


A country by definition has borders. If it had borders then it believes it has something to defend. If it believes it has something to defend then it will likely feel the need to have an army. Can you see that this is circular? We have to leave the circle of separation.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by Silenceisall]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Protecting against invasion from outside sources is only one reason to have an army/armed forces/national guard. There is also the threat of invasion from within, and the problems posed by natural disasters, mob demonstrations, protection of leaders (elected or otherwise). Is there a chance these countries with an army basically have MP's or a police force that does the same duties?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join