• bort@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hindsight sure is sharp

      In hindsigth, are there strong reasons why european nato members should have invested significantly more in military, than they did?

      • PilferJynx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You have to factor in the length of human life. There isn’t a lot of living memory from ww2 anymore. And the ones that are still living are too far gone to have any influence. It’s also hard to justify higher taxes in peacetime for weapons that might never be used.

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          And the ones with living memory of the great wars remember how the buildup of European militaries led to the decimation of the European population. Large armies are costly and so need to do something to justify that cost, this leads to wars, wars inevitably lead to wholesale destruction and death of civilians, why build up again for that to happen.

          Unfortunately while Western Europe didn’t build up, the Muscovy focused on expansion after the fall of the union. Now Russia is looking west at a continent not as armed as it should be and backed by an America that is once again isolationist, it’s a return to the status of the 1930s and I don’t see it ending well