I agree that warfare is changing fast. But I don’t think the changes so far support your Idea of guerilla-warfare being better than having a standing army.

Staying with the example of Ukraine (which I believe is the best example of the type of war we would be having here in Europe), I don’t see how guerrilla warfare would be better than how they are fighting the war right now (With a standing army). But maybe you could showcase how that would be the case?

Small, highly mobile, capable of underground, covert operation groups - guerrilla warfare - will be a game changer.

I also don’t quite understand how this would even work without a standing army. Who trains these covert operation groups? Because you can’t start training them when you are attacked, at that point it’s way too late. So you need an Organisation that trains them, in which case we just end up with a standing army again.

Alright, thanks for the confirmation! Yeah, hopefully this won’t affect FOSS projects too much…

What position? I’m not discussing anything with you lol

And if you were informed here you wouldn’t be down voting someone talking about their families experience with one of the more brutal regimes in modern history. But it’s cute!

Many people in the world will disagree with that view.

I mean, yeah sure, but a lot of people in the world would also agree with me. Neither of those things make a point though.

A standing army is a lumbersome beast. It requires supplies for both machines and soldiers, space, infrastructure. A loosely organized resistance can severely hinder or even cripple such a force with assimetric warfare.

It may be more cost-effective, but definitely not human-life-effective. I guess it depends on what you value more. Money and and materials or human life? Because I can guarantee asymmetric warfare costs a lot of lives. I mean just ask the Vietnamese if they would rather have had an army capable of fighting the US. Or the Iraqi. Or ask the Ukrainians if they prefer their army fighting Russia or having to fight civilian asymmetric warfare. You don’t want to have a civilian fighting force against a foe that has invested in a modern military with Anti Air, tanks, missiles, drones, trained personnel.

I personally prefer paying the price of war in money and materials than in the lives of my fellow citizens.

People fighting for a belief fight with resolution.

I don’t disagree but are you implying that this is not true for a standing army?

Plus whoever organises these resistances will end up as an Organisation akin to an army anyway. So you just end up with what you didn’t want but only weaker and less able to defend against an attacker.

I risk most will defend their home and family at the risk of cost of their health and life if a bad actor arises. But that in no way leads to the logic for need of a standing army.

You say “…if a bad actor arises.” But we already have those bad actors at our doorstep, they don’t need to arise. I don’t think we would be able to defend against Russia if we didn’t have standing armies. A quickly mounted militia is no match for a standing army, so I would say there is a pressing need and logic for a standing army.

Admittedly, Portugal is at the other end of Europe and not really threatened by Russia, but arguing against standing armies in general because it would be other nations fighting for you is a bad argument imo.

But I actually agree. Armed peace is a veiled threat. A threat against Russia (and other hostile nations) to leave the European Nations and democracy in peace.

I think it really depends on the foreign policy of the country you live in. I would argue most European countries are unlikely to start offensive wars but would rather be defending against Russia for example. European countries are especially weary of offensive wars after what the US and UK pulled in order to make them join the Iraq War.

In this light, yes, I do believe it is the right choice to bolster our armies in Europe. I wanted to join myself but it seems my shoulder is too fucked for that.

But it is also a risk, since it could always happen that right wing extremists, like the afd in Germany, could come into power and then you’re stuck working for a military at the behest of fascists.

I believe we have to take that risk in order to protect European democracy. We just need to also do everything in our power to not let the fascists win elections in Europe.

I also use /e/OS. I’m not too versed in these things, but if I understand correctly from your comment, this decision by Google won’t directly affect us right? Only in the sense that it discourages developers to not support FOSS apps?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Oh no, I didn’t assume you meant ethnicity, that was just an example and apartheid as well. It’s a better example than the US ‘equal but separate’. I just answered why Swedes are supposed to pay for non-Swedes.

I’m not quite sure how to connect apartheid to the deportation of non citizens? Apartheid is different treatment based on ethnicity, not citizenship. At least per the definition on wikipedia “a system of institutionalised racial segregation”.

What I wanted to point out is that those who has residence in the country can’t be treated differently before the law. Citizenship or not, the law applies and all it’s benefits and consequences.

Are you saying it should be like that or it is? Because as of now, citizens and non-citizens are definitely treated differently.( In Sweden and in most countries) One simple example is the right to Vote. You are only allowed to vote if you are a citizen. (Although some countries allow voting in local elections for non-citizens) But I would even disagree if you meant it should be that way. Staying with the example of voting. I don’t believe anyone should be able to move to a country and just be able to vote. That would be a huge vulnerability for democracies.

On another note, the prison sentence is carried out and then the convict is deported, meaning we rehabilitated someone and then got rid of them, not benefiting from the rehabilitated person.

No argument here. That is obviously nonsensical. It should be either right away(After due process) or not at all.

Edit: Adding to the point of being treated differently under the law depending on whether you are a citizen or not. Thinking about it, it means exactly that by definition no? If we were not to differentiate between citizen and non-citizen, what would be the point of having citizenship at all?

I see how my comment could be seen otherwise, but I am only speaking of citizenship.

It’s unlawful as well.

Deportations of Non-Citizen criminals is legal in most countries.

(I’m guessing your apartheid comment was based on the assumption of me meaning ethnicity.)

Aw shucks, you nearly managed to not sound like a condescending dick, but not quite! And you clearly don’t seem to understand what I was saying. Too bad.

Yeah, because getting sick is the same as committing a crime lmao

Why wouldn’t they? That’s like asking why would they pay for their fellow citizens healthcare.

To be fair, prisons in Europe are about rehabilitation and not punishment. Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a non-swede?

Edit: I am talking about citizenship specifically

How’s that trying something else going for ya?

Yes, if I’m not totally wrong they started posting again a little while ago. But I primarily watched them in my younger years, so they remind me of that time.

Yogscast are one of those things that when I stumble upon them, it gives me this immense feeling of nostalgia and also sadness. Time flies.