• index@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

    This highlight that you are thinking only according to how the system currently work (or how you are told it works). No country would actually suffer economically if they cut off the arms industry because they can use the money and resources for something else.

    Countries are populated by people and humans can defend themself even without stealth planes or nuclear submarines. It’s the government that needs asset to exercise their power be it machines or people.

    • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Sorry but you don’t understand how this works.

      It doesn’t make sense when you say:

      they can use the money and resources for something else.

      For example. The US arms industry exports were worth 238 Billion $ in 2023. That means that the arms industry brought 238 billion from outside the US to inside the economy

      Because the money is coming from outside. If the industry stops, the US will lose this money.

      You are putting your convictions above logic. It doesn’t matter how hard you believe in something, if it is not practical it won’t work.

      If your suggestions really make sense you should be able to convince at least a few people. But look at the responses you’re getting. How can you convince all the world leaders to change if you can’t convince a few people in the comments?

      At some point you have to consider that you might be in the wrong. Admitting your mistakes makes you a better person and allows you to grow in character. I kindly ask you to consider that.

      My guy, I’m going to finish this conversation here. I hope this was useful. Cheers!