There is no real difference between military offense and defense...

There is no real difference between military offense and defense. And those who say it's perfectly fine to defend yourself from invaders but evil to invade others are retarded.

Attached: 1586943297337.jpg (800x400, 40.47K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP 1 Warfighting.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

so the invaders aren't evil either
that means the people you are invading also are not evil
that means warfare can never be evil
yeah i'm thinking that's retarded

Is this your way of sparking a discussion about moral nihilism in the international sphere? Or are you really this stupid?

Yeah, that's his point. How is that retarded?

you wage war by killing people and destroying their stuff
if you did that outside of war it's evil, what makes it not evil if done during a war, a law?
you can say it's a necessary evil, that would be more accurate
evil stems from weakness, if you had the power to tranquilize people, net them, etc and then trial them and lock them up for however many years, feeding them etc, then that would clearly be less evil. you can't do it because you don't have the resources for it (without making other sacrifices)
same with the enemy, strapping explosives on you and blowing up some kids is evil, even tho you think you're waging war, and this is the best you can do due to your weakness

I'm more thinking like this.
A nation state isn't some static thing. When we hear of an act of war in the news a lot has gone on beneath the surface before that happened. And I think there is a blurred line between war and peace, all of existence is actually constant war. Business for example. And a lot of war has ties into business too, crony capitalism etc. Peace is a cold war. And with advanced technology and a highly interconnected world there is a constant war going on between states in information and other areas. I think offense and defense are kind of like an equilibrium reaction in chemistry, a reaction that is going both ways simultaneously, it appears static but when you zoom in it's actually moving constantly.

but when it comes to the subject of good and evil, if you had the power, you could protect your internet and your business and your so on, without going on the offensive
offense (evil) is being used as a defensive (good) tool out of necessity / weakness, not out of there being no difference between the two

Take the example of oil.
>we found this oil therefore it's ours, by god given right
Actually I don't think that makes any sense. The oil you found is only yours to the extent that you can defend yourself against others who want to get it. Somebody hears that there has been oil found in a place, and they decide they want it too, so they go over there and try to claim it, then actually why would one of them be more entitled than the other to have it? The people who found it in their country most likely at one point had to fight to obtain that land.

You have to call them evil for propaganda and moral so your own troops don't turn on you since you ordered murders of innocent people and kids.

Technology, including the internet, largely exists due to a previous outside threat. The stealth airplane would never have been invented if there wasn't an enemy with radar.

why would you make an enemy when you can make an ally
how much will it cost you to fight for that oil, compared to letting them develop it and then just buy the thing
if you recognize a nations borders that means you recognize their right to have them
i can be walking down the street and i see a little girl eating candy, is this candy hers or only so far as she can defend it from me
you're saying there is no moral difference between me, wanting to eat that candy, and her father, who's going to kick my ass defending her

When I wrote that about evil I was thinking of a Muslim who told me in Islam you're allowed to defend your country but not to invade other countries, and how stupid I thought that was. There was also a video on youtube with some religious scholar or something who said something similar.

it would have still been invented had there been a requirement for it
there are many things that could be useful today in terms of war that don't exist
and you're not factoring in all the things invented not due to war, some explosives for example could be used in mining, the first space lasers we see will mostly be used for an economic reason, and a war reason secondarily
the people who intend airplanes themselves i don't believe were working for the military, it was simply later adopted and improved upon by it
and again i'm not saying don't develop those things, but if their use results in death, destruction, suffering, etc, then they should not be called good

>in Islam you're allowed to defend your country but not to invade other countries
that's a lie (yes muslims are also allowed to lie)
in islam there is the house of peace (islam) and the house of war (everybody else), they are ordered to constantly wage war, take sex slaves, and so on
if you want good info on islam (with sources etc) check out christian prince on yourtube

>mostly
most likely first be used*
>intend
invented*

They can withhold the oil, creating artificial scarcity, to enrich themselves. If two states fight over an oil source, the one that wins does so because it was stronger, more intelligent etc. Those people will most likely be better at managing the oil after they have obtained it. The stupider people will be more wasteful, harming the environment and the people etc. That's an interesting point about the candy. I have to think more about that, but I think there is a difference between the macro scale and the micro scale, kind of like that equilibrium reaction that looks static when zoomed out, and IS static in one sense or from one perspective, and is moving when zoomed in.

waiting to be attacked rather than being proactive is evil because it allows your adversary to become strong and inflict more casualties on your side.

Looks like someone just read Warfighting and found out about the basics of military doctrine. Everyone should be forced to read it in public school to graduate.

marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP 1 Warfighting.pdf

Attached: ODS_Air.jpg (800x510, 46.1K)

conservashits like to ignore the fact of the main reason we declared independence was opposing a standing military. not just because it was british, but all standing armies in history seek to justify offensive wars and never ending spending.

>you're not factoring in all the things invented not due to war
That's why I said there is a blurred line or no line between war and peace, between war and business, that peace is a cold war, that existence is a constant war. There is the saying "necessity is the mother of invention". The airplane was most probably instantly involved in some sort of business, and business also most probably being to a large extent in the funding behind it.
>I've been losing market share lately since Thomas started using these new steam trains
>if I could invent a means of transportation that was faster and cheaper I could regain market share
>If Charles totally blows me out of the water before that happens I won't have a penny left to build an airplane with

>They can withhold the oil, creating artificial scarcity
you're already living in scarcity if you can't provide fuel for your own stuff
just like any attack, this one too can be defended against, for example by having stockpiles, by having other suppliers, by having alternative sources of energy, by having a means to extract the oil reserves in your own nation, etc
if your government / military aren't taking those defensive (good) measures, that doesn't mean they are excused to resort to offensive (evil) measures
their weakness / stupidity does not excuse them
>Those people will most likely be better at managing the oil after they have obtained it.
idk, the muslims have done a p bad job managing what they conquered from the persians / egyptians

I didn't read it but thanks for the tip

how do you differentiate an adversary from other people
sounds like you'd have to go around shooting quite a bunch of people (adversaries) in your day to day life

none of what you said has anything to do with my post

but Thomas never attacked you directly
what you're saying is "right let's kill thomas, blow up his stuff and go back MY shitty system"
not only that but you're talking about luxury, i'm sure when somebody goes out of business he can still go wash dishes. why would you have to consider the other guy your enemy, when both of you had the same goal of providing a good service

no I never said to kill thomas, are you even trying to think about what I write at all

why
if you consider me your adversary you should shoot me on the spot, lest i become stronger
but i didn't do anything to you, so your classification of me as an adversary is baseless
that's why i ask what is your definition

oops accidentally wrote charles instead of thomas at the end, was meant to be the same guy

>never said to kill thomas
sure you did, you said offensive war is the same as defensive war
i'm saying why do you have to kill people and bomb them, if you could gain control with better means
the same applies here, yes, why would you kill thomas, if you can use defensive means (innovation, etc) as opposed to offensive means (assassinations, etc)
are you implying killing thomas would be evil and wrong. why, isn't he in your way and preventing you from getting what you want

Are landmines and razor wire offensive or defensive?

let's say thomas inherited his company, that's no different from someone finding oil in his land
if you killed thomas, would you do a better job of running his company, surely if you killed him that means you're "more intelligent", right? never mind the fact he's the reason your company failed