It wouldn't hurt. It would sure enough get me back in shape.
In all seriousness: I truly believe it would not hurt to put everyone through some sort of basic training, including gun handling.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
It wouldn't hurt. It would sure enough get me back in shape.
In all seriousness: I truly believe it would not hurt to put everyone through some sort of basic training, including gun handling.
There's a lot of things that could be included in such a program that would be useful for the general population to know both in times of war and in peace. Civil defense and emergency response. First aid, evacuation of wounded/incapacitated people from dangerous areas. Basic firefighting, shelter locations and evacuation protocols etc.
During world war II, a Japanese general was once quoted as saying "you do not invade the mainland US. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Compare the cost of doing this, with the deterrent effect of your enemy's knowing that basically the entire population can mobilize as a militia, it's pretty extreme.
Go Poland!
So I'm not in.. horrible shape but certainly haven't been exercising recently. The thought did cross my mind of starting again, just in case of complete societal collapse. Never thought id see the day where that was an ACTUAL possibility.
Honestly pretty good idea, way better than mandatory service/conscription. Training with no strings attached.
Hehe no strings attached except they know where to find you when more cannon fodder is necessary.
I like Europe and Poland but Im not dying for some suit wearing men. I consider myself free because that’s what they told me in school.
As a pole I absolutely agree, I don't want to die for the ruling class, however I'm also willing to be taught how to defend myself and others against fascist agression for free by the state.
It might be useful against russian fascists, but not only them if you know what I mean 🙃
Edit: about that first point - every man in poland has to pass a military classification anyways when they're about 16 and get assigned an ability score for eventual conscription in war, so the list is already there. It might even prevent conscription because there will likely be more volunteers.
So where are you moving?
Right now Im going to stay home.
edit: responded to wrong comment
Im polish, I can’t imagine living in the US right now.
Holy shit that guy's so Polish.
Why just men? Yes, men are generally stronger than women, but that doesn't mean women are not capable of military service. And there are also men who aren't capable of something like that.
Note: I'm against being forced into military service, just asking this
From a repop level men are more desposible than women. Which is funny cause women are second class citizens often. To clarify, 1 woman can only produce on avg 1 child per year. While a man can do far more than that. So if male pop dropped from a wierd disease or war its recoverable. Not ideal obviously from a genetic level but far better than if women population got cut in half. That would cause tons of problems.
Whilst this in theory may hold, people are social animals that live in societies with rules and norms and that typically have only one partner. If half your male population dies, you're not gonna have guys go around having sex with multiple women just to make up the difference, you're just gonna have a lot of single women.
Alternatively, there could just be a ton of single moms. I have seen that first hand. Males on my dad side are the worst. Dozen of kids each with multiple women globally. I Doubt I'll ever be able to meet all my half siblings. But I 100% agree that my statement is purely numbers and takes 0 consideration on human emotions. Which is typical how wars are fought. 0 regard for the peasants feelings.
"Breed you dogs! I need meat for the orphan crushing machine"
From a different article:
“Of course, it will be open to both sexes,” added the prime minister. “I do not want to belittle the role of women here in any way, but war – due to physical conditions – is associated more with men.”
Ah, that's fair. Thanks!
Maybe because they don't want to send their whole population to the meat grinder?
The reality of it is that men are expendable, from a population standpoint. Birth rates are far more limited by the number of women than the number of men, since pregnancy and gestation takes so long.
Obviously this is over reductive, but it’s one way to approach the question.
Thats not true at all, its not like farm husbandry, human do not just bred like animals. Only a fraction of women would be willing to have kids without a long term partner.
Societies where there is a high male mortality rate adapt. Iceland apparently has had its uncommonly accepting view of single motherhood for centuries, stemming from the large proportion of the male population employed in fishing, and the dangerous nature (in those days) of going to sea meaning that it was not uncommon for fathers to die before their children.
not uncommon for fathers to die before their children.
Isn't this usually the case?
They adapt by having more children per couples, not by having more single mother families. At least that was the case after WWII and WWI, but nowadays couples cannot afford more than 2 or 3 children.
And single mother in iceland is totally different, they were a couple with children before the husband died.
I think there are no absolutes here. Some women will wait for a long term partner, and a fraction of that group will have children by accident before finding one, and some other women don't wait for one (especially in a context where men don't abound), etc. What women do overall is the amalgation of millions of specific biographies concerning unique women.
No absolutes sure, but there is a clear pattern...
Only a fraction of women would be willing to have kids without a long term partner.
Have you seen the real world? Women who are willing to wait until a stable man comes along to have children with him are the exception, not the rule.
You mean the World where demography is crashing down? You are a clown
That's... Exactly what was being said above
In the rogue state of Israel, it's required for "both sexes".
The only democracy in the Middle East.
So I don't see problem with it. More like a sexism problem.
EDIT: It's "not compulsory", so != conscription.
They need an army of pawns and believe men suit better the job.
The unfortunate reality of being close to Russia.
As a citizen of Canada, this has become relatable.
With a madman in charge may even be worse.
The mere existence of russia is causing people of EU so much... All the money making shit that explode, people's time wasted on defence training, nations on rhe border living in constant stress.
What a cancer on this world.
I am Polish and I fully support it.
I wonder if this applies to people with residency