Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Is an army really necessary?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Apr 2009, 22:32
I've had some thoughts lately.

Would a socialist state really need an army? Wouldn't it be far more efficient to just have an armed population instead? Everybody could receive military education at school, and if there is an invasion, the state could provide artillery.

I think the benefits are obvious: When an invasor tries to enter the country, they'd face the biggest army in the world. For example, the biggest army is currently the Iranian one, with about 12 million troops. Most countries could come up with a bigger population than that, even if you just count those who would be able to fight (say, 16 to 40 year olds). Also, somebody who received military training since they were child would probably fight better than a soldier who's just recieved two years of training. Also, their motivations would probably be much higher than those of current soldiers.

Also, it would look quite good in terms of diplomatic relations: "Hey, look! We don't have an army! We're the most pacifist country in the world!"

Any thoughts?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 09 Apr 2009, 22:59
It sounds good in principle, but I don't think it would be very practical, especially when the need to understand how to operate modern equipment (let alone effectively) is considered. This is one area where TRL and I will probably agree wholeheartedly.

I'll comment more later on.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Apr 2009, 02:55
A huge armed mob. Wonderful. They're more dangerous to their own country then to a potential invader. This huge barely trained and underequipped mob (the price tag of outfitting with modern weapons that large of a population is enormous) would scatter at the first signed of a disciplined and professional enemy.

Look Chechen fighters were much better prepared then your mob, but a single airborne company (76 men strong) with air and arty support held of thousands of Chechen insurgents, and left hundreds dead.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/En ... obja01.pdf

Read the article titled Ulus-Kert: And Airborne Company's Last Stand.

By the way officially the Iranian military numbers is under one million. You're thinking of the Basij which is claimed to be 12.6 million, out of which 3 million are claimed to be combat capable. This is not a regular military. It's a paramilitary. In effect it's meant to provide reserves to the Iranian military, and form the basis of a guerilla warfare front in case Iran falls. Iran still operates a conventional military. By the way other sources put even Basij numbers as much more modest: 90 000 full time, 300 000 reservists, and up to 1 million that can be mobilized total, but are not military (or paramilitary) at this point. So in reality the Basij is not an army. Or even a pure paramilitary. It's a huge organization that can provide some secondary capabilities to the already large and formidable Iranian (conventional) military.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Apr 2009, 03:12
Quote:
A huge armed mob. Wonderful. They're more dangerous to their own country then to a potential invader. This huge barely trained and underequipped mob (the price tag of outfitting with modern weapons that large of a population is enormous) would scatter at the first signed of a disciplined and professional enemy.


Why "barely trained"? I said military training would be compulsory at school. And why wouldn't they be disciplined themselves? If I had to defend socialism, I'd be disciplined.

Quote:
Look Chechen fighters were much better prepared then your mob, but a single airborne company (76 men strong) with air and arty support held of thousands of Chechen insurgents, and left hundreds dead.


Yeah, but my "mob" would have air and artillery support, too.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 10 Apr 2009, 07:09
In my opinion an army would be necessity even if there are no outside threats. The PLA has not fought a war since the Sino-Vietnamese War. But they were used for disaster relief. An armed, unidentified group of people will only lead to gangs, corruption, and violence.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 10 Apr 2009, 07:58
Quote:
Why "barely trained"? I said military training would be compulsory at school.


You you really want to create a completely (just about) militarised society though? IMO, that kind of thing should really only happen in wartime, and it would have to be a big war at that.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Apr 2009, 10:18
Mabool for becoming a US Marine, I need 6 months of non-stop intensive training. To remain in good enough shape to be a reservist, I need to train one weekend a month, and additionally two weeks a year in one go. You propose having the entire population of the country spend that much time in training? And where would you get your money for that?

Another point, arty and air support also require money. To have a proportion of arty and air assets to infantry that is comparable to other armies you would need huge stores of equipment. That's expensive. You would also need professional officers and commanders to lead these units, and to coordinate their actions with arty and air support. You would also need trained arty and air soldiers, that require far higher degrees of specialization. All of that is prohibitevly expensive.

The USSR had something like what you envision. Compulsory military service, with the almost the entire population subject to war-time usage. And a huge number of 2nd line and 3rd line formations that are during peacetime skeletons, to be filled up at war time. The Soviet Army could accomplish (albeit on a more limited level) what you are talking about. But even then, the USSR was a super power, with huge economic power, and could only do this to a large chunk of the population. Doing it to the entire population is impossible in practical terms. Oh, and there's also the part where the economic strain from it was one of the biggest reasons that Soviet quality of life lagged behind the west.

EDIT: I understand the temptation of proposing these radical, simple, and seemingly effective methods. Believe me the worlds' military leaders are not idiots, and the worlds' militaries are organized in the way that they are organized for a very good reason. I welcome your engagement with these fundamental questions, but generally I strongly encourage you to find out more about how and why a modern military operates, before trying to flip the notion of a modern military on it's head.
I'm really not trying to shoot you down, just suggesting that a little self-education on the subject could go a long way.

This site is an excellent source for general readings on the subject, with many serious resources. If you have trouble locating specifically the subject that you're looking for, ask, and I'll try to help you.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm#warden
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Apr 2009, 12:43
Even before I opened this thread, I knew that I'd be utterly pwnt by TRL. Well, it's happened. I rest my case.

Still, the idea is tempting. I mean, Hitler did a similar thing shortly before the Red Army crushed him, called Volkssturm. Isn't there any way to organize and effective/disciplined/professional volkssturm?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Apr 2009, 21:27
You mean, 2nd line formations to reinforce the main army? Only in a situation where you are 1) preparing for world war III or 2) desperately short on manpower.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 11 Apr 2009, 01:53
I think conscription service of two years for everyone before being able to attend a University is an intelligent way to go. There, your people can have military training and can be utilized as part of a militia in time of national defense. Your standing army can be the conscripts and the officers for those who choose military as a career. This way, you have a reserve force that will prevent a large standing army.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Apr 2009, 02:25
I support there being some kind of national service. And for those who do not wish to participate in a war, it wouldn't have to be in the military either.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Apr 2009, 01:22
I agree with Mabool... I believe an army is detrimental to any leftist society, and the closest to an armed forces should be a militia. If a small group of armed drunks start a revolt I think the rest of the nation can handle them.
The chances of the whole nation going on a free-for-all civil war are pretty slim in theory, especially if the appropriate patriotic and socialist values are repeatedly taught in education systems.

Educating young (less than 18 yrs) children in armed combat seems pretty right-wing/immoral to me. I think it should only be done during an emergency (World War, Enemy invasion, alien invasion, meteor/comet threat, etc...) But when they mature, then they should start military training, in university/college, or whatever they will be renamed to after the global communization.

You will find that once I start to believe deeply in something, it is easier to single handedly overthrow the US government than to change my views...
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Hélder Câmara
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 12 Apr 2009, 05:08
Quote:
I agree with Mabool... I believe an army is detrimental to any leftist society, and the closest to an armed forces should be a militia. If a small group of armed drunks start a revolt I think the rest of the nation can handle them.


So what do you do when a capitalist country with an advanced MIC and a professional military invades and wipes the floor with your sh*tty little third world militia?
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Apr 2009, 13:34
Right now, that would be the USA... And from the looks of it, the ISO and most of the population would not be very happy if their gov't started a war with a harmless communist country.
Plus, their weakening economy and their collapsing government would be even worse by the time any communist revolution takes place.

Let's talk about killing efficiency now:
What is the most efficient weapon ever built? The atom bomb!
The weakest: the rock!

Pretend Army= Nuclear bomb and Militia=rock

Now let's look beyond the fascinating mushroom clouds... Sure the Nuclear bomb can vaporize enemy cities, but in the long run, it will vaporize any life-form on the planet, even cockroaches. Now is the efficiency worth all that risk of MAD?

"I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!" - Einstein

And if you look at world history a little bit, you will notice that a small government, especially after a recent revolution can easily be overthrown... With an army you have the chances of a rogue general overthrowing you (Napoleon and the French Revolution). Militia on the other hand is a bit safer, as any rogue combatants can be handled by the rest of the nation (Early USA).
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Hélder Câmara
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Apr 2009, 14:01
because there werent hundreds or thousands of nukes already used for testing in the pacific, syberia, nevada etc.

also there's another good and very practical reason why regular army would be preferable over militia. less casualties. why sacrifice 1000 citizen over 100 soldiers in one border skirmish? i'm sure that will make you popular amongst their families and the enemy will have a good propaganda to use against you as well; look at the evil communists, they will sacrifice everyone to stay in power!
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Apr 2009, 15:26
Moris wrote:
because there werent hundreds or thousands of nukes already used for testing in the pacific, syberia, nevada etc.

also there's another good and very practical reason why regular army would be preferable over militia. less casualties. why sacrifice 1000 citizen over 100 soldiers in one border skirmish? i'm sure that will make you popular amongst their families and the enemy will have a good propaganda to use against you as well; look at the evil communists, they will sacrifice everyone to stay in power!


You are talking as if my ideal communist nation had the party in control... Go and read my introduction and then criticize my thoughts on military. But in case you miss the point, in my ideal communist society, all of it's members have participation in decision making and all the party can do is spread communist propaganda and do what the people tell it to do.
Learn from history will you... Big government, big army, no trust and the ideals of communism are as dead as a dodo...
What kind of a peace-seeking nation has a big army and tells its people that WW3 is coming and all they can do is build tanks and nukes...
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Hélder Câmara
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Apr 2009, 17:03
Quote:
You are talking as if my ideal communist nation had the party in control...


go ahead then, form a communist nation without a government right here, right now. let's see how long you will last
they'll destabilise you first and after they'll invade you, just like nicaragua. and what will you throw at them? rocks?

it's very easy to say that people will throw themselves into the fire because they would love government more than their families. they'll be mowed down by machine guns, tanks and advanced aircraft before they'll even reach the enemy.
learn from history and current geopolitical situation will you? nation cant survive without an army or a stronger neighbour watching over it and i dare you to prove me otherwise.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Apr 2009, 17:54
A nation would only need an over-organized army if they have no culture and no values...
A nation cannot survive without a government!? It is exactly this kind of imperialist thinking that created War-loving USA, Stalinist USSR, State-capitalist China, Nuclear Korea and Nazi Germany...

If a nation has culture and values and ideals, it will live better without a single-party government.
The only thing that I've learned about governments through history and geopolitics is that they are part of some imperialist Illuminati conspiracy that seeks to impose a single world government under a Pharaoh-ist monarchy...

Humanity managed to survive through an ice age in nomadic and total democratic colonies, which had systems of self-government which are almost identical to what I see as an ideal communist society. Throw an ice age at us right now and let's see how things go with the current systems.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Hélder Câmara
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Apr 2009, 18:54
Quote:
A nation would only need an over-organized army if they have no culture and no values...
A nation cannot survive without a government!? It is exactly this kind of imperialist thinking that created War-loving USA, Stalinist USSR, State-capitalist China, Nuclear Korea and Nazi Germany...


and who will direct the people who belong to a nation? will everyone be equally intelligent and they'll know what to do and direct each other at all times? telepathically preferably? or, since you mentioned that culture has no need for the government, caste system? why not living with our parents for the rest of our lives instead? that's plain utopical thinking and absolutely nothing else. you have still not addressed my question how a communist state without government and an army would survive in these days.

Quote:
The only thing that I've learned about governments through history and geopolitics is that they are part of some imperialist Illuminati conspiracy that seeks to impose a single world government under a Pharaoh-ist monarchy...


right, illuminati...


Quote:
Humanity managed to survive through an ice age in nomadic and total democratic colonies, which had systems of self-government which are almost identical to what I see as an ideal communist society.


we call that period "primitive communism". people have advanced since then, dont you agree? or do we still get impressed by a lightning hitting a tree and worshipping it as a divine intervention? you have not provided an adequate prove to my sentence.

Quote:
Throw an ice age at us right now and let's see how things go with the current systems.


you'll just have to wait for about... 15000-20000 years for another ice age and pray that scientists dont find a way to prevent it.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Apr 2009, 23:39
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Apr 2009, 22:29
Moris wrote:
and who will direct the people who belong to a nation? will everyone be equally intelligent and they'll know what to do and direct each other at all times? telepathically preferably? or, since you mentioned that culture has no need for the government, caste system? why not living with our parents for the rest of our lives instead? that's plain utopical thinking and absolutely nothing else. you have still not addressed my question how a communist state without government and an army would survive in these days.

right, illuminati...


you'll just have to wait for about... 15000-20000 years for another ice age and pray that scientists dont find a way to prevent it.


There's something called true democracy and power equality, read about it...
One person/group gives an idea...
the people that are gonna be affected vote on it and whatever the majority wants will happen
if that group/person becomes violent, the militia will take care of them...

And of course a democratic assignment of jobs accordingly with the person's individual interests, talents and abilities and the services that are needed.

To keep the nation from dissolving and moving towards capitalism the educational system will repeatedly teach people the values and ideals of communism along with propaganda and media doing the same for those who have finished their education.

Nowadays the Illuminati are known as the European Union, and even though they are only European governments, they have political influences all over the world...
...
Ahhh, an army and a government... Truly the worst idea ever. You think the army's job is to protect and serve the people? Wrong! Their job is to support and become the government. The army-government relationship is nothing more than one general overthrowing another (the other being a political leader).
It's a constant cycle: one general becomes supreme leader and all the others (secretly from each other) race to overthrow him. There is no complexity to it... It's most logical explanation as to why most world leaders are so imperialistic.
The fake 'democracy' you see now is nothing more than a seemingly peaceful way of doing that; it is so that the generals keep the people in illusion and out of their hair, so they can focus on overthrowing their buddy.

Apparently they even fool communists too...

So I just want to get rid of this constant cycle of coup d'etats and assassinations so that the people have freedom...
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Hélder Câmara
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron