this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1336 points (96.3% liked)
memes
10690 readers
2723 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd rather have a 100km particle collider than an aircraft carrier.
What if we build it on a 100km aircraft carrier? Think of the possibilities! heh
What if we put an aircraft carrier into a particular accelerator and spin it up to the speed of light?
The sailors would probably get dizzy.
We can only get to 99.999998% or so (I might be off by a decimal) so I think it would just result in light bruising (though probably at the atomic level which tends to sting a bit more).
https://youtu.be/atG3H3rTTsI
Always a relevant Onion
It better have a particle collider on it
that would just be the Halo from Halo
That'd be kinda cool. Ace Combat ass aircraft carrier
Throw in Jurassic Park and some jet engines and we've got Ark
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Last good Republican change my mind
His foreign relations record includes a hell of a lot of ratfucking the third world, including being so paranoid about communism he ended up pushing quite a few nations into the Soviet sphere when the coups didn't work (Cuba, cough cough cough) and directly enabling some of history's greatest monsters when they did, but he is an American president so grade that on a curve I guess
Yep, it went downhill from there, just so ya know
Exactly. I like Ike, in comparison to other U.S. presidents. He had some good ideas, but we have a really shitty track record with the rest of the world, and he's no exception to that.
In a ideal word, sure, I'd too. But we live among fucking beasts.
Yeah, if history has taught as nothing else, it's that the guy with the biggest stick usually wins. There are many criticisms of the U.S. military, but no one could accuse it of being weak. That kind of deterrence is invaluable.
If only they wouldn't use that force to invade half the planet...
The peace of Americans is paid for by the terror of dozens of nations. It ain't cool.
I can't say I disagree. There is much to criticise.
My fear is, this approach is unsustainable in general, and cannot be effectively applied for global security.
It's not just US military being poorly led.
You are fucking beasts
The purpose of military is always dual: to deflect other country's military and to "protect national interests" (read: attack another country that now has to have military too, and may consider using it for an attack).
Wildly assuming you are American, you should have no issue understanding that defensive forces are not really always defensive.
I am from Europe, from country invaded by nazi Germany so I know well what means an oppressive use of army. But could you give an alternative to the army?
Uhm...no army?
We have to push politicians to drive UN-scale policies on demilitarization - not this playful "lemme dismantle 10 rockets and call it a day" demilitarization, but a real effort - and expanding mutual defence-type alliance (could be NATO expansion if they're gonna get their shit together, or a new bigger alliance) to as many countries as humanly possible in order to reduce their need to rely on their own armies and drastically reduce armed manpower globally.
Switzerland-like militias can help in the transitional period.
I wonder how Switzerland militia would deal with Russian tanks and rockets.
After the Russian invasion do you really believe than all countries in the world will become peaceful and any of them will ever try to invade another?
Which is why I suggested transition into a worldwide military alliance first. One that would cover Ukraine, and even Russia at the end of the conflict if it would like to join.
Any sort of aggression, from members or non-members, should be met with united forces. With such circumstances, you really won't need that much, even if your plan is to keep forces like US or China at bay, not to mention Russia.
Militias should be there not as a force that can solely defeat an army, but as a stopping force for the initiation of the conflict, while logistics is busy moving troops. And yes - Switzerland is actually equipped to deal with Russian tanks (see demolition of roadways) and rockets (see a vast network of bunkers).
Idk, I'm not sure I could get much use out of a particular accelerator even if I got it running. An aircraft carrier though might be joyride-able, and that I can understand. Might still be moot since both need a team, but if I get to have either one I'd have to at least think on it.