Right. Such systems could be put into place here at the federal level. Perhaps conservatives will be more accepting of the common practices of the world once another recession wipes out the wealth of the American worker.
No nation dare attack those countries while the United States maintains a powerful military and alliance with those northern European countries.
Which nations would dare attack scandinavia if the US did not intervene?
Let’s see… @mobulis mentioned Denmark.
So these countries relay largely upon the US. But they have some expenditures of their own.
Who is Denmark protecting itself from with these missiles? Maybe someone with a capability to destroy their frigates. Their defense secrets have the answer.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/denmark-sm-2-block-iiia-standard-missiles
What type of threat is denmark protecting itself from with these missiles? Hmmmm… someone with aircraft that can threaten their nation.
Now why would Denmark buy these multi-role helicopters that have antisubmarine warfare capabilities? Wow… maybe someone has submarines that can threaten Denmark’s navy.
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/denmark-mh-60r-multi-mission-helicopters
Etc
Etc
I can likely find the name of Denmark’s military chief for you. Then you can get the particulars from him.
Capitalism is not based on merit.
1 Like
Ah…so, then it’s not Socialism itself that is the problem, it’s just that socialism in a country like ours with such a big military that is the problem?
Just trying to understand.
100% voluntary socialism- like in some commune in California- would be great. Count me in. But notice that someone else is paying for the infrastructure that allows such places to exist. In a worldwide sense, the same is true for countries that rely on other countries for their existence.
But in the rest of the world, socialism is never voluntary. And it then must be enforced through methods that appear more like economic fascism. The government pretends that it represents the people and takes over the means of production- in the name of the people of course.
History has lessons for those willing to learn.
As you have pointed out, all these countries have armies. So it’s not like they spend 0 on defense. The main reason they need NATO is, they have small populations. They could never put up a US or Russian size army simply because of their size and population.
France, Germany, and the UK could certainly put up a military force equal in size to the US or Russia if needed.
You can only have an army as large as the industrial base needed to support it.
Logistics is key. Having a 20 million man army does you no good if your industrial output can only supply enough material to support 5 million.
1 Like
Yep. With so few people, they rely on other people’s money.
Which has nothing to do with socialism working.
It has everything to do with it. Go back to sleep.
Lets see some proof.
You go first.
YOUR the one making the assertion.
What assertion?
You brought Denmark et al.
European social democracy would be more difficult to maintain if they maintained militaries on a scale (relative to economic size) to ours. Not impossible mind you; France and Germany (and the UK to a lesser extent) both had welfare states before the Second World War while also spending a MUCH higher percentage of their GDPs on defense in the mid 1930s than we do today.
Your the one asserting that their socialism works because they don’t have to pay for an extensive military, so prove it.
You first. You asserted it worked. But you offered no proof.
The proof is that we can actually see it working, now you.
