| |
| ▲ | Peritract 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'm not suggesting that Iran shouldn't have a military, but instead questioning the purposes for which it would have one. Well, they're currently being attacked. "Defending against attackers" is a pretty important purpose for a military. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They wouldn't be under attack if they weren't being run by the regime that is running their country. Notice how it's just Iran that's being attacked? And even so, what good did that military to them? They still got attacked, and their military assets were still significantly/mostly destroyed. What's the point of a military if the military you're buying just gets obliterated by the only country that is going to attack you for things you did in the first place and didn't have to do? | | |
| ▲ | craftkiller 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Notice how it's just Iran that's being attacked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war | | |
| ▲ | newAccount2025 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Like, this very second? It’s been ones of months since USA attacked Venzuela. We are openly musing about invading Greenland. We are actively embargoing and threatening to invade Cuba. We are the unhinged aggressor in all of this. | |
| ▲ | ericmay 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy who has, in violation of UN actions and against Lebanese government wishes seized and held territory in Lebanon from which to launch rockets into Israel lol. If you're going to use that as such a loose category than the list of countries that have been attacked expands quite a bit. Israel has attacked Iran, while Iran has attacked Israel, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, USA, and maybe one or two others that I'm not thinking of. | | |
| |
| ▲ | lovich 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no civilization on the planet that would accept full disarmament under the logic that they should just trust that you won’t attack them if they weren’t armed. | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let's be fair, if someone bombed trump right now, most of the world would be happy, including a lot of americans. Does that mean that someone should bomb US because of your regime? I mean... you have more homeless people living in tents than most cities post some natural disaster, your people can't afford education, healthcare nor (as above) homes, and you guys are spending money to bomb a place half a planet away that is in no way endangering you... and that after you've bombed it once before and "completely destroyed the nuclear program"... and before that and before that. I mean... i understand americans are well... americans, but you guys can't even imprison pedos running your country, why should you decide who to bomb? I mean.. what's next? Iranian special forces will eventually start destroying stuff in US, and you guys will claim "terrorism" or something again... well, it's not terrorism if you're in a war. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mittensc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time, UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges. Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable. Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges. I like to think this is true, but how many French soldiers coming home in body bags defending Lithuania will it take before they say enough? Are they going to just resort to nuclear weapons against Russia immediately? I don't think the nuclear umbrella is the trump card that it you might be portraying it to be. It's really difficult to say who would use those and when. There are some obvious cases, but there are also some not so obvious ones. But nukes aren't enough. You're not winning the Ukraine war with your nuclear umbrella for example - that's being won on the ground with Ukrainian blood. > Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable. Combined command of a military like this is incredibly difficult, and while I'd certainly agree that some specific militaries are quite capable of [1], I think the political and organizational system in Europe really poses a challenge. But even so those militaries lack power projection capabilities and lack in some other key areas. [1] In order probably Ukraine -> UK -> France -> Poland and then nobody else registers. Ignoring Russia because they're not really European IMO. > Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that. Nah, we actually have money to easily afford both we just have a bunch of morons in charge (Democrats and Republicans) who, particular to healthcare, have gotten us the worst of both worlds. Education we're #1 there's no question about that. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | France trained the most efficient recon crews, and the most efficient Ukrainian sniper units (some of them led by ex french soldiers. At least with a french passport, or on the verge of getting one). Caesar MK1 are the most efficient howitzer by a large margin in Ukrainian conflict, and Ukraine have half the French number, and first MK1 units, when France is starting to get Caesar MK2. Our MBTs is so much better than Ukrainian tanks it isn't a comparison, and French rafales are not a joke, unlike su57s. When it come to boots on the ground and artillery support, nobody can beat Italy in Europe, though Finland probably can give it a run, and both countries would have defended Russia aggression easily. Special units are not even a consideration tbh, both French and Italian winter units are incredibly better trained than Spetnaz it appears (and they have the advantage of like, not being dead), and even they are less well trained and equipped than those in Finland/Sweden/Norway/Denmark or UK. If you're talking about global capabilities, including power projection, then the ranking have to start with France, and have Italy very, very close to the UK if not ahead (if we don't take into account nukes), and then Spain should be slightly above Poland and Ukraine, maybe with Finland and Sweden in the mix (gripe3 and CV90?). German have the Gepard which seems to be the best response to drones, but their army is too new. The only thing Europe truly lacks is a strong IFV with reactive armor like the Bradley, maybe the Lynx would qualify but the quantity is clearly not enough. And here I didn't talk about military doctrine and how well both French, Italian and German equipment fit their own, which to me is a huge advantage right after the early days of a conflict, because even when no one really know what to do and improvise, at least the whole army group improvise in the same direction. |
|
|
|
