The best defense is a healthy society.
I don't know if this statement is true, but I said it in a client discussion today, based on my own observations and intuition. The conversation was quite a complex one, but we were considering government cutbacks and savings, as well as spending. For instance, the Helsinki Hospital will have a hiring freeze in order to save 24 million this year, and then will have to save another 225 million between 2025-27, in an already tightly stretched healthcare system. However, 8.4 billion dollars has been spent on 64 fighter jets to "protect" against a Russian invasion.
That is 350 years of 24 million dollar savings.
My argument, which I have had for a long time and still trying to hone and formulate into something more concise and clear, is that the best way to stop an invasion from Russia, is to increase the value of the human population. However, the government policies are around increasing the military power, at the expense of human value. I posit that the lower human value goes, and the closer it gets to the land value, the more likely an attack or conflict will happen.
Here is a list of all the ongoing armed conflicts around the world right now, and if you scroll through you will notice that where they are would be considered places where society itself is struggling. Even the war between Israel and Palestine, is fought on the Palestinian side for the most part. The conflicts with drug cartels are in countries like Mexico and Brazil, where poverty is high, meaning that society is failing, but poverty itself is not the only issue.
Education, health care, opportunity.
These in the many forms they can take, are indicators of a healthy society. Looking at that list, it aligns with the three other parts of a healthy individual, mind, body, emotions. And while ideally they would all be well cared for, it is possible to be relatively healthy overall when they are all to a base level, and one or two are at a higher level. Because, that will drive improvement in society. Healthy people will look to get educated and create opportunity. Opportunity will look to improve health and education. Educated people will build ways to facilitate better health and opportunity.
But, if we go in the other direction, become a military state that looks at physical might to deter aggressors at the expense of local society and communities, that gap to attack closes. Not only that, a healthy society will value itself, meaning that while there are always things to improve, there is a general sense of in it together to reach a better outcome.
The enemy of my enemy, is my ally.
However, when we go the other way, where people's standard of living are continually being crushed, the tide turns. Firstly, it will turn against the source of the reduction, which is often the government. What this does is makes the government an enemy to a group of people who feel victimized by them. This again lowers the bar to attack, because if their sentiment drops far enough, they will actually start to consider that perhaps it might be better if for instance, Russia controls Finland again. Especially if they make promises that say, support us, and we will look after you.
There is of course precedence in living memory of this happening, where people who were suffering economically and socially, were given a common enemy of a minority group that was positioned as the cause of their suffering. Then, propaganda and conditioning was able to frame that group as subhuman, which meant that it was then possible for people to treat them as animals, who not too much early would have considered themselves good people.
There are lots of complexities in this, but many of them are social ideals and conditioning based, where people have been taught to believe that the best defense, is a good offense. I don't believe that is the case, even though in the short term, it might work. However, at what cost in the long term?
Protect the country.
It seems so obvious, doesn't it? But, what is "the country" that is being protected? Is it the land within the borders, or the people who inhabit that land? If the land is protected, but the people within the land are long-suffering, struggling to survive and constantly feel a lack of support or opportunity, what is being protected?
Where is the high road?
At least for me, I would rather die working toward a better life, then live trying to survive in a constantly worsening one. And the irony is in my opinion, is that if we built a society that was aggressively looking to improve the health of society itself, we would be far less prone to attack. An aggressor would always be unable to justify the attack, and they would have little internal support. They can't offer a better life, all they can offer is worse. This doesn't stop them attacking, but it also means that other than the value of the land, they get nothing.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Your argument does make a lot of sense. I still think there would be takers out there who want to have what more well off people have. I do think defense is sort of important in that respect, but the amount of money we spend on weapons is just ridiculous. There is zero question about that.
Yeah, I think it makes sense - at least in theory :)
Some defense is needed, but what they are doing now is not the way to actually defend well in my opinion.
I get what you are saying about conflict in less developed places. But I doubt Finland would invade Russia in any scenario, even if Finland were all PhDs.
I agree that some defense spending is necessary in that militaries often serve as workforce training. You want people to know how to handle emergencies and carry out operations under stress. Here in the USA, many top employees are former military. They have a confidence and discipline that sets them apart. In the event of disaster, you want people with military experience to help with recovery.
However, I think that the concern about Russians wanting to take over Europe is largely a political bogeyman. They haven't the economic capacity to fight at such a large scale for an extended period. My ignorant opinion is that NATO is making up worries to justify its continued existence after the fall of the soviet union. The goal of NATO was to contain Communism. But if you look today, much of Europe is more Socialist than Russia.
I guess what I'm saying is that the Russian threat is likely Bovine Scat. However, don't discount the military as pointless spending. There is some degree of workforce development inherent in military training. And there is some degree of resilience that having a military offers a nation. It's an insurance premium of sorts, which you pay and hope you never need.
No, Finland wouldn't invade Russia - Russia would invade Finland.
There is compulsory military service for Finnish men in Finland.
They are struggling with Ukraine - so why would they be able to fight on many fronts? It is nonsensical.
Social democracy is a bit different to socialism though.
Totally agree.
Yes, but there are other ways to do things to. We take it as gospel that the only way to protect a country, is what we have always done, and it hasn't necessarily led to a safer world.
It is interesting that the actual version of the statement is "The best defense is a good offense". I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasonings used for increasing military spending.
But I do agree with what you are saying. We need to focus more on the welfare of the people.
It is definitely one of the reasons - but is it the truth?
Well, the truth is a tricky and subjective thing. For those in the military and concerned about the safety of the land, that is the truth for them, or the truth they want to believe in.
You mentioned that you’d rather die working toward a better life than live trying to survive in a worsening one
Honestly, I feel trying to live a better life is the same as trying to survive
If an economy is crumbling, you just have to strive harder and I feel it is the same as trying to survive
Or what do you feel?
Not necessarily. Many Germans in Nazi Germany did what they did to survive - but was it the right thing to do?
I think it is almost the same with every country. They arouse people's nationalist feelings to invest in army stuffs, and then make us stick with the bill.
It is a scam. A marketing trick.
I think this has become some kind of cycle. They get us to rally behind national pride, but in the end, we foot the bill for military spending. It's a tough reality. I the future becomes better than this
I agree to all the the opinions you shared.😊 As what my administrator told us, we can solve the economy , we can find ways of it but being in a war, all we can do was to wait for our time since we have no place to hide from the bomb.😪
In fact, in every sense of it, society is failing. We don't even know what is coming up next.
Once people cannot meet up with the standard of living, we all know the government is supposed to be blamed but what if I tell you that I don’t think that way? I just go harder even when things are hard
I have never understood why human beings love war by nature. It seems that we have a gene that drives us to develop these morbid actions. We want to live, we do everything we can to live longer (fear of death), but we love to hold a gun in our hands. Many popular games are based on war actions, and also in those games a lot of money is invested, just like in real wars. At least in games ‘nobody dies’, but they parasite.
Guess the governments are running on the related saying of the best defence is a good offence.
Maybe but they're also equally likely to backstab you once you've dealt with the common enemy XD
This line of thinking was instrumental in pushing me toward anarchy. Australia's defense force is reasonably well equipped but has a fairly small headcount.
I remember wondering if, on the cusp of an invasion, devoting the military to disseminating stockpiled weapons among the civilian population and destroying all records of military service; would be the best strategy. Each soldier could run a team of 10 civilians, and we'd 10x our capacity while hiding in plain sight.
The attackers would face no resistance while seizing Canberra, but would face guerrilla action when trying to actually govern.
The fact that's not even remotely entertained as a strategy suggests that Canberra's more concerned about a well armed populace defying their rule, than they are enthused about a well armed populace deterring others from attempting an attack.