Cyborgs

[Jeremy]

I'm not planning to go on a military career, but then I thought, what if someone in my situation was? He, a highly motivated soldier-to-be in a good physical form, would, in the worst case, have to spend over a year doing something else before he could start his training. That's just a huge waste of resources. I don't know what our system wants, but at the same time guys supposed to do their compulsory service quit and go home after just two weeks because they can't take it, are Internet addicts or just miss their moms.

If this highly motivated solider to be can't wait an extra year, he's not highly motivated.

Also a lot of people might say that it's having armies that creates conflict.

[sniikeri]

If this highly motivated solider to be can't wait an extra year, he's not highly motivated.

That is one of the dumbest statements I've read on modified (including my own statements). The point was that our military system may lose some of the best ones because of stupid bureaucracy. "Huge waste of resources", I said. If I were this person (which I'm not, although I consider myself more motivated than the average) and got this kind of welcome, I'd probably look for something else to do. (Now you can't as the national service is mandatory). Even a high motivation can be killed quickly, and I don't think our county can afford it.
If our army had a more welcoming atmosphere, they might have more motivated people. We wouldn't perhaps need the compulsory service and we could move on to a professional army. This way there'd be only those who wanted to be there and not those who'd be there only because they had to.

Also a lot of people might say that it's having armies that creates conflict.

Also a lot of people might say that you're argument is utopistic. I can guarantee you that Finland won't be the first country to abolish its army. Maybe Dan could write an essay here about the Finnish war history with speculations what would have happened to Finland if we hadn't had armed forces.

[Jeremy]

If this highly motivated solider to be can't wait an extra year, he's not highly motivated.

That is one of the dumbest statements I've read on modified (including my own statements).

Oh please. Cut the hyperbole. Do you honestly believe that's "one of the dumbest statements" you've read on modified? How many posts have you read? Do you want me to quote some dumb statements from the forum. If you disagree with something, that doesn't make it dumb. If you showed my statement, followed by your statement to a random person who didn't know either of us, and simply asked them which was the "dumber" statement, which statement do you honestly think she would find dumber?

I see your 18, and that makes a lot of sense. 1 year is not a long time to wait. When you're older, you'll see that (and I apologise for being condescending, but wait 5 years, and I bet it's true). Not being able to wait one year to begin what you plan to be your career for the rest of your life[/i] could clearly be seen as not being highly motivated. Even if you disagree with that statement, surely you can understand why many people would agree with it, and surely you can see that it's not a "dumb" statement at all.

Let me tell you about my life. I finished year 12 in 2002. I had fairly strong marks, and I easily managed to get into the university of my choice. Unfortunately I lived no where near any universities and my parents have a big home loan and couldn't afford to pay for myself and my brother to live away from home. The government won't give you any money if your parents earn over a certain amount unless you spend 18 months working and earn enough money in that time. Because of this, I have ended up spending 5 years not studying, despite winning a number of national academic awards at school and being recognised in the top 99.97% of maths students in the Oceanic region (Australia, NZ, South Asia). Now, after spending a year in Melbourne, coming home when my step dad had a heart attack, doing a little travelling, and working full time for two and half years, I'm starting university, I'm already one of the top students in at least 2 out of my 4 classes, I'm studying every day, I'm still working, and you know what; I always knew that I was going to go to university and I always knew I was going to get good results. Despite every hurdle I've faced, I didn't even consider giving up, and you better believe that in August and in December (or whenever I get my results), they'll be excellent results. I'm somebody who when I'm doing running training, sometimes run until I throw up. I run around a 2km circuit which has a 200m hill at the end, and every time I get to the hill, I sprint up it. I tend to do 3 to 5 laps. I'm somebody who broke my finger this year playing touch football, straightened it on the field and kept playing. I'm somebody who broke my ribs playing Australian rules football and not only kept playing that game, but took half the time the doctor recommend I have off, and then played out the season despite the fact that they hurt every game. Yeah perhaps that could be seen as taking the game too seriously, but those are examples of being "highly motivated." Giving up on something because you have to wait 1 year is an example of not being motivated at all. If you want something in life, you take it, and if you don't take it, or at least try your hardest to take it, you didn't want it enough.

The point was that our military system may lose some of the best ones because of stupid bureaucracy. "Huge waste of resources", I said. If I were this person (which I'm not, although I consider myself more motivated than the average) and got this kind of welcome, I'd probably look for something else to do. (Now you can't as the national service is mandatory).

As you say, your national service is mandatory, so how will you lose some of your best? Wouldn't you also have just as much chance of losing some of your worst anyway? And what resources are wasted? Is being in the military the only thing people do in Finland? Everybody who is not in the military is being wasted? Give me some tangible numbers on the number of resources wasted by the policy of not allowing people to volunteer into the service? Does this mean that this year you're not going to do anything productive at all? Is that a reflection on your military recruitment system, or is it a reflection on you? What do you mean by "wasted?"

Even a high motivation can be killed quickly, and I don't think our county can afford it.

Why can't your country afford it? What's going to happen to Finland because of the loss in the size of the military because of this policy? Since it's been put in place, why don't you make a prediction. Predict some kind of negative event that will occur in Finland (directly or indirectly) because of this policy. Be as specific as you can be. How many people volunteer for the service each year? What was the reason for the change in policy? Did they change it for absolutely no reason at all, or was there a reason?

You label the change as "idiotic" but it's easy to conceive reasons why you'd want want to limit the number of people in the military if you had a compulsory draft - especially budget pressures. If you have to keep the military the same size, rather than allowing it to expand, because otherwise you couldn't afford to adequately fund it without taking important money away from health or education, wouldn't this be one of the easiest ways of curbing a growing military? If you don't know the reason why this change was made, it seems very unwise to label a policy as "idiotic" when you're ignorant of the rational of the policy. I can assure you that every government in the world can give you a reason for every policy (or lack of policy) that they have.

If our army had a more welcoming atmosphere, they might have more motivated people. We wouldn't perhaps need the compulsory service and we could move on to a professional army. This way there'd be only those who wanted to be there and not those who'd be there only because they had to.

But what purpose does the military have? Finland has no serious external threats. If Finland got rid of all its armed forces tomorrow, what would be the situation in Finland in 5 years time, or 10 years time? Remember that if an external threat appears, you can always introduce an army again, and I'd challenge anybody to give an example of a country that was attacked by a country that didn't give any signs of being a threat before attacking in the 20th Century. So if the purpose of your army is not to protect Finland from external threats, or if that's only a small part of the role, what is the purpose? Isn't it to instil a sense of national identity and give experience to young Fins (especially males)? Isn't it a traditional thing as well? Isn't the purpose about the benefit to the participants, rather than the need to protect Finland from external invaders? You think the world would notice if Finland pulled it's troops out of the UN forces or NATO or whatever other forces Finland has troops in? A professional army would lose the benefits that the current system has. Yes it would have other benefits, but it would mean an army with a new purpose. Politicians, business men, managers and leaders make decisions by deciding the purpose first, and then looking at the best way of achieving that goal. Not deciding the best way of doing something, and then deciding what goal that will achieve.

Also a lot of people might say that it's having armies that creates conflict.

Also a lot of people might say that you're argument is utopistic.

That's not my argument. I was putting up a point worth noting, in no way do I agree or disagree with that point. You'd need to present me with objective evidence as to the tangible benefits of the Finnish armed forces before I decided if it was necessary or not. I also note that even if my point was my belief, you don't actually address it at all. It doesn't suggest that armies be demolished, and nothing it suggests is "utopistic," it simply observes that you can't have a serious conflict between people without armies. Do you agree with this, or can you give examples of serious conflicts where there are no armies? The statement isn't putting forward how the world should be, it's just observing how it is. Do you know what the word "utopistic" means? Do you understand why the statement cannot be?

I can guarantee you that Finland won't be the first country to abolish its army. Maybe Dan could write an essay here about the Finnish war history with speculations what would have happened to Finland if we hadn't had armed forces.

That's all well and good, but the world is a lot different now than it was the last time Finland was involved in a serious war. It's over 60 years since there's been a war in Western Europe, and when is that going to change? Being aware of history is important, but adapting to the present is even more important.

[Blue_turnip]

Lol mega-owned.

One thing I've noted in the past is that a post's ownage tends to be proportional to the amount of rhetorical questions asked. At 27, the above post definately unleashes some serious pwn.

[sniikeri]

I will reply to that post asap.
I'm having my final exams at the moment so I haven't had the time to write more than just a couple of lines.

(What comes to the "dumbest statement" - as I was working on the post I accidentally copy&pasted it to the wrong place; it was supposed to come after the second quote, not the first one. Anyways, I'll explain it later when I have time.)

[BainbridgeShred]

Blue Turnip, every time you respond behind Jeremy, all I read is "Jeremy come teabag me", because seriously you love his nuts.

That's all well and good, but the world is a lot different now than it was the last time Finland was involved in a serious war. It's over 60 years since there's been a war in Western Europe, and when is that going to change? Being aware of history is important, but adapting to the present is even more important.

I think his point was, Jeremy, that Finland's military (Regardless the size of the force or country) played a large role in the last major diplomatic shifting of our times, and their military played a role in setting up the democratic systm we live under today.

This is impotant, because now more than ever the world is on the brink of a crisis. What's shocking Jeremy, is that I thought I'd noticed you coming around to this concept recently, that concept being that the world isn't always a nice place and that everyone isn't going to love you jut because you dropyour military.

Also, anyone advising a country bordering Russia to drop their military is a fucking 'tard. And that certainly is one of the more stupid things I've read of modified. Ther are many prdator country's in the world, and I don't really know where you get off on allthis utopian garbage Jeremy.

I found it interesting that you mentioned it'd been 60 years since the last crisis. Let's look at crisis's specifically in North American history, and the time elapsed before they hit.

Glorious Revolution: 1688
American Revolution: 1770 (Approx)
Civil War: 1860
Depression/WW2: 1933

Theres generally a 70-90 year gap between major crisis's in a culture. You can notice these patterns in European culture as well, and these 4 generally relate to Europe as well besides the Civil War. My point is, with the Caucus's still highly violatile, with Kashmir still highly violatile, with China highly violatile, with a worldwide financial mess, and with the potential for a major epedemic, there's all the reason in the world for a country to want to have a military. The whole argument that it is having military's that causes wars is so subversive and idiotic honestly. What causes wars are predator country's seeing a benefit in causing a war. I've never gotten into a fight because I have fists right? I've gotten into fights because I was drunk or because my pride was hurt or because I wanted someones sneakers.



Also Jeremy, what is different in the world today than from 60 years ago? Is China less of a threat than Japan? Russia than Nazi Germany? Is the Leauge of Na- I mean the United Nations going make everything alright in the world?

[Jeremy]

So are you predicting that if Finland dropped it's military, it would be invaded by Russia?

[Jeremy]

argh. Sorry there shouldn't be an apostrophe in my last post at all. I suck.

[BainbridgeShred]

No, I'm just letting you know that just because Finland hypothetically dropped its military, Russia wouldn't follow suit. And I'm also just letting you know that the oil boom that has allowed Putin to stay in power isn't going to last forever necesarily, regardless of any other factors that could destabalize Russia, a country much more favorable for destabalization than say, any Scandanavian country. Do you get my point? I'm not saying their aren't instances where your "Lets drop the military" plan wouldn't work. Pakistan, India maybe? I doubt it would deter Palestines from killing Israeli's, but it probably would lessen the attacks.

Look, of course peace is preferable, but for every 5 people that look at a good act as a sing of kindness, there's 1 person that looks at it as a sign of weakness. People usually get to power in the first place by exploiting other people's weaknesses, that's your natural selection right? You see where I'm going with this though?

[Jeremy]

So how does Finland's military compare to Russia's? Let's say that Finland keeps its military and Russia decides to invade anyway. How would the result of the conflict be different to if Finland didn't have a military? More people would die and Russia would still win? Or you think the Finnish military would defeat the Russian military? If the only change in result is that more people die, is it serving a positive purpose or a negative purpose?

[BainbridgeShred]

How does Finland's military compare to Russia's? I think Sniikeri gave his opinion on that already, and he probably knows what he's talking about better than I do on that. To paraphrase, he thought they wouldn't do too well.

That isn't to say that Finland couldn't necesarilly hold off a Russian invasion. The whole hypothetical situation you have set up is bogus though, because everyone knows that for decades Europe's only real defense has been the United States military (Not to say that some European countries don't have well trained armies) so of course Russian brass would have to spread it's forces to account for a counter attack from probably both Eastern Europe and the Pacific. In such an instance, I could definitely seeing Finland defending itself. Especially because the US military today along with the other countries that would come to Finlands aid would easily trump the outdated Soviet armies.

But to answer what I think you are really getting at; the whole question as to if any of it is worth it if it all just equals more death, well that is a very sophmoric thing to even stab at. Like I said, for every country that would see Finland dropping its military as a positive, there would be one to see it as an opportunity. This opportunity (In the hypothetical instance above for example) would probably of course be absolved by the detternent that such an invasion of "Western" Europe would bring about the largest combined military force of all time probably (If it was even needed). Beyond the practical reasons that having a well prepared military is a positive, there is the question of whether or not a major war would be a good thing. Overpopulation is probably the biggest threat to the planet; forget global warming, nuclear war, or germs. All of those we can technically avoid with the right measures, but until we colonize a planet we will have this sword over our throne, and it is approaching raaapidly. This isn't to forget that a major war would probably spur the development of space colonization, by causing more interest in using weapons from space.

Which is one of the contradictions you represent Jeremy. This brave new world that you champion is just hubris. Fighting is a condition of mankind- especially of mankind in a group. What bigger group, or gang racket, is there than the government? The same government that you champion, and think people should sign their whole financial and personal lives over to.

How do you think this world you are a product of got to be before you're collectivist, utopian views were instilled in you? By a lot of blood and violence and wars and dead men and women and children. Atleast that is what has provided us with the technology to have such a "liberal" society (Quotations because I'm not even sure how I am using that word in this instance). Am I misrepresenting your views? I don't think so. I think we've both been pretty candid in what we believe, regardless of how outlandish it seems to the other. [/code]

[Jeremy]

But to answer what I think you are really getting at; the whole question as to if any of it is worth it if it all just equals more death, well that is a very sophmoric thing to even stab at. Like I said, for every country that would see Finland dropping its military as a positive, there would be one to see it as an opportunity. This opportunity (In the hypothetical instance above for example) would probably of course be absolved by the detternent that such an invasion of "Western" Europe would bring about the largest combined military force of all time probably (If it was even needed). Beyond the practical reasons that having a well prepared military is a positive, there is the question of whether or not a major war would be a good thing. Overpopulation is probably the biggest threat to the planet; forget global warming, nuclear war, or germs. All of those we can technically avoid with the right measures, but until we colonize a planet we will have this sword over our throne, and it is approaching raaapidly. This isn't to forget that a major war would probably spur the development of space colonization, by causing more interest in using weapons from space.

A couple of points; First global warming has already happened. It's not something we can "avoid with a few measures." It's been happening for a long time now, and even if we were to stop all carbon emissions today, it would keep on happening for decades.

Secondly the world doesn't think in terms of "opportunities to invade" any more. Every Western country in the world could invade Nigeria; a very oil rich country, and easily defeat the country and gain the wealth. The don't, and won't, because that's not the way the world works any more. If you think Finland needs an army to stop invasions, why doesn't the rest of the world invade all the countries without armies or with such pathetic armies that it would take little resources to so.

Which is one of the contradictions you represent Jeremy. This brave new world that you champion is just hubris. Fighting is a condition of mankind- especially of mankind in a group. What bigger group, or gang racket, is there than the government? The same government that you champion, and think people should sign their whole financial and personal lives over to.

What evidence do you have that "fighting is a condition of mankind?" In the 20th century less than 1% of people died from violence, and that includes both the world wars. The majority of people do not engage in fighting, and never will. Since 1992 armed conflicts in the world have dropped by 40%. This is a world becoming more and more peaceful, with less and less fighting. That's what the evidence from the UN, and from anthropologists like Lawrence Keeley, Stephen LeBlanc, Phillip Walker, and Bruce Knauft. You claim that "fighting is a condition of mankind;" back that up with some evidence, because I don't believe you.

How do you think this world you are a product of got to be before you're collectivist, utopian views were instilled in you? By a lot of blood and violence and wars and dead men and women and children. Atleast that is what has provided us with the technology to have such a "liberal" society (Quotations because I'm not even sure how I am using that word in this instance). Am I misrepresenting your views? I don't think so. I think we've both been pretty candid in what we believe, regardless of how outlandish it seems to the other.

You are misrepresenting my views. I'm not suggesting that all countries should get rid of their armed forces. In fact nor did I say that I thought Finland should get rid of theirs. I put forward a view that some people might hold, not a view that I held. Your comment about history also misses the point. The world has changed. It has been changing for the last 10,000 years, and the direction of that change over that time has been linear; more government, less violence, better education, longer lives etc.

If we return to the original statement and the original point I was making. Sniikeri claims that it is a "huge waste of resources" in making people wait 1 year before being drafted into the armed forces who were 17 the year they'd like to be drafted (it breaks international law to draft 17 year olds, which is probably the reason for this decision).

In the context of that statement, what real benefit in the world we live in today is gained by Finland having an army? If a teenager having to wait 1 year to join the army is a "massive waste of resources," what resources are being wasted, and how are they being wasted?

[BainbridgeShred]

You are misrepresenting my views. I'm not suggesting that all countries should get rid of their armed forces. In fact nor did I say that I thought Finland should get rid of theirs. I put forward a view that some people might hold, not a view that I held. Your comment about history also misses the point. The world has changed. It has been changing for the last 10,000 years, and the direction of that change over that time has been linear; more government, less violence, better education, longer lives etc.

I stopped reading here. Once again, you argue a posistion like "I think Castro did a pretty good job" and then realize how impractical the shit your say is and then try and say you don't even believe what you've been arguing? You're a joke dude. Who ever said you did say Finland should get rid of theirs? Did I not fucking go to lengths for you to make it clear that the situation I was describing was merely an example?

[Jeremy]

Of course none of what I've said here, or in my other post is an attempt to support the Cuban government.

I don't support the government

[quote="Jeremy]his job overall was good, but at too high a cost to civil liberties and freedoms[/quote]


I never said that Castro did a "pretty good job." Who are you quoting in that sentence? What I said is that he did a good job in some areas, but the cost of that good was too high. Do you know what the word "too" means? It means that I think the cost was greater than the benefit. This isn't just my view, it's the view of many historians and it applies to many socialist countries, including China and Stalinist Russia. If you look at the education system or the health system in Cuba in isolation, it's an undeniable fact that they've done a good job. If you look at a wider perspective it is clear that the cost of having the Castro government in power has been too high. Likewise Stalin made massive progress in Russia. There is the famous quote about taking the country from the hand cart to the nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean he was a good person or that it was good for Russia that he was in power, it means that some of the things he did were good, and some were very bad. I was completely clear in the Fidel Castro topic, but because you're so poorly educated, you were unable to understand.

The same applies here, you think you know everything, you view the world in very simplistic terms because you don't have a high degree of education, and so you fail to see the complexity that people are talking about. You should actually study the issues formally, and perhaps you'll get a greater understanding.

My comment that; "Also a lot of people might say that it's having armies that creates conflict," is not "utopian" at all. How can it be? It's an observation of how the world is, not how it should be. A Utopian comment would be suggesting that the world be different to how it is. My comment is an objective observational comment describing how the world is. There really are people who think that the armies create conflict; that's not a view of how the world should be, it's a fact. Or do you believe that there are no such people, but I think there should be? In Jeremy's Utopia there are a bunch of people walking around saying "armies create conflict." - sounds like a ridiculous utopia to me.

[BainbridgeShred]

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3114/85/

Read the intro and watch. I just cracked up when I heard them singing about Muscle Schoal's and Neil Young and Watergate and everything else in that song. Lynyrd Skynyrd is one of the best bands of the last 40 years, and also one of the most influential.

I will respond to Jeremy's rant sometime a long time from now probably, but it shalll be EPPPICCC.

[sniikeri]

If this highly motivated solider to be can't wait an extra year, he's not highly motivated.

That is one of the dumbest statements I've read on modified (including my own statements).

Well, browsing modified I can see there are thousands of more stupid comments around but I usually just ignore them - I was referring to somewhat serious discussions. Like I said, my "dumbest statement" comment was supposed to come after the second quote, not this one. My bad.

I admit I exaggerated the "huge waste" part, because there actually are a few dozens of people in my situation, not hundreds or thousands. Also, a very highly motivated person will undoubtedly become a soldier if he wants to. The reasons why it isn't possible to volunteer anymore are probably those you presented, Jeremy: every man will go there eventually (or to the civilian service or prison), so they calculate they aren't going to lose anyone. Also in my case I sent in the papers a week before I turned 18 so it might have been against the international policy to draft me. (Although according to the law, a man becomes a selectee the year he turns 18, i.e. before he actually turns 18 unless his birthday happens to be the 1st of January.)

Still, I find the legislation has some flaws. See, the voluntary service for men doesn't exist at all anymore. It may be to keep the military the same size, but before there used to be a quota for volunteers each year. I don't understand why these can't still exist as it wouldn't expand the size of the army - those doing the service in advance wouldn't be there anymore when their "right time" comes.
The current policy doesn't, like said, probably drive away the highly motivated ones (again, I'm not planning to go on a military career; the only time I've had such ideas was when I was ten), but let's say, what about the somewhat motivated ones? The people who might become highly motivated soldiers, the people who already are highly motivated to do their best but just aren't sure what would be the right place where to give all they've got?
When so many break off their service, the news headlines report that many servicemen are physically in such a poor condition they wouldn't last a minute in combat, and still they respond "you can't volunteer because there is no room for more people", I'd start looking for something else to do. And I still don't think our military can afford to lose many of those people - even if they didn't stay there after the service, they wouldn't probably show that much enthusiasm towards the special tasks that you can seek your way to during the service and that they'd fit into.

OK, that still isn't necessarily huge waste of resources. But let's change the point of view: even though it doesn't concern a great number of people, is it right that the women of my age have the opportunity (note: not the obligation) to volunteer, but men don't? If I was a girl, I could've got drafted to the normal service and I could begin my service next July. As I'm not, I'd have to wait for the call-up which are next September, and if I was lucky, I could begin next January. (Luckily I've managed to get an invitation to the "entrance examination" of some special forces which I'm quite certain to pass, but that's not the case for everyone.) How does that six-month gap sound? To me it's gender discrimination, and as you've said

I'm clearly one of the strongest feminists on this forum

,
what do you think about it, Jeremy? I've understood the feminists are concerned about gender inequalities. (Someone might say I'm a strong feminist too as I oppose gender discrimination and support equal rights for everyone, but personally I shun calling the ideology feminism - calling it "masculinism" would sound as strange to me as feminism does.)

You don't need to lecture me about motivation. I know what hard work is. And without any boasting, I know I'm getting in to any university I want.
I respect your life story and achievements, Jeremy, but I don't understand why you give spending 5 years not studying as a sign of motivation. I see some people want to take it easy for a while after they've finished the secondary school / senior high / sixth form college and I think it's completely okay. But if the reason you couldn't start studying right away was that your parents couldn't afford to pay for it, then that's no high motivation at all. Five years is 60 months, that's over three times more than the 18 months, and despite your step dad had a heart attack - what took you so long? In addition, don't you have student loans in Australia? Don't you agree that a highly motivated student would take a loan to get to study more quickly? Because, a very highly motivated student would know he'd get good jobs and thus be able to pay it back. It took my dad over 20 years to pay his student loan back, partially because there was a depression in Finland in the early 90's, but it was always clear to him that he could pay it back eventually. It hasn't affected our family's standard of living to any worse; actually, I don't think our family's standard of living would be even near to the current level if he hadn't taken the loan.
I don't expect to get anything free when I leave home. I'm also going to work partially as my parents earn over the limit and I thus won't get student money from the government, but I won't hesitate to take a loan if I have to.
It may be easier for me as studying in Finland doesn't cost anything, but hey, I'm sure an Australian guy with your marks could easily get to study here too. Actually, the government is desperately trying to figure out ways to attract more foreign students to our universities.

But what purpose does the military have? Finland has no serious external threats. If Finland got rid of all its armed forces tomorrow, what would be the situation in Finland in 5 years time, or 10 years time? Remember that if an external threat appears, you can always introduce an army again, and I'd challenge anybody to give an example of a country that was attacked by a country that didn't give any signs of being a threat before attacking in the 20th Century.

So how does Finland's military compare to Russia's? Let's say that Finland keeps its military and Russia decides to invade anyway. How would the result of the conflict be different to if Finland didn't have a military? More people would die and Russia would still win? Or you think the Finnish military would defeat the Russian military? If the only change in result is that more people die, is it serving a positive purpose or a negative purpose?

Those quotations above make me want to laugh and cry at the same time. Jeremy, do you have any idea how long it takes to introduce an army again if you have completely got rid of them? Neighbouring Russia, the signs of threat are always there. Guessing whether the signs are going to become a real threat, and making decisions like dropping the military, is useless. It may seem easy to judge the situations by the history books, but how often do you actually have all the information you'd need the moment you have to make the decision?
For example, before the Winter War in 1939-40, Boris Yartsev, a lower diplomat of some kind, offered that Finland and the Soviet Union would do some exchange some areas in the borderline. Finland didn't accept the offer, partially because Yartsev wasn't a highly-ranked diplomat, and the war began. Estonia took the offer and got invaded for 60 years. Later on it appeared that Yartsev was working under direct commands of Stalin himself. Also the contents of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret additional records were discovered later. What I'm trying to say is that the signs are always there, you just never know whether they're real or not until later.
If you, or some other people, seriously think Finland should drop its military because there are no threats and in a real war against, let's now say, Russia it would have no chance to win, I beg you to get real. For the whole history of independent Finland our military strategy hasn't been on beating the enemy completely. It's been on maintaining such a defensive force, that the losses of the attack to the enemy would be higher than its benefits. The independent Finland has fought twice against Russia, and both times the Russians could have undoubtedly won and invaded Finland if they had valued it that much. We have a term for it, a "defensive victory" or something like that: it describes that formally the war or battle has been lost, but the enemy has been prevented from reaching its objectives as well. The Battle of Thermopylae is an example you should know.

So if the purpose of your army is not to protect Finland from external threats, or if that's only a small part of the role, what is the purpose? Isn't it to instil a sense of national identity and give experience to young Fins (especially males)? Isn't it a traditional thing as well? Isn't the purpose about the benefit to the participants, rather than the need to protect Finland from external invaders?

I'm afraid that's the case and that's what I wanted to criticize in the first place. If the sole purpose of our army is to offer boy scout experiences to half the age group each year, then it's a very expensive way to do it. I'd understand training the troops for guerilla warfare (a bit like the Swiss army) - you've seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, you name the place, that "winning" a war isn't just about who's got the technically superior force.
I'd still prefer the NATO membership, not just because of the more credible defence, but for the other benefits of the stronger international relations as well.

Also a lot of people might say that it's having armies that creates conflict.

It doesn't suggest that armies be demolished, and nothing it suggests is "utopistic," it simply observes that you can't have a serious conflict between people without armies. Do you agree with this, or can you give examples of serious conflicts where there are no armies?

I probably misunderstood what you meant. The way I see it, having armies isn't even in the most cases the reason for the conflict. First there is a disagreement between two or more countries/groups, which then escalates into a conflict, where the armies have play a role. I see you meant a serious conflict, i.e. a lot of people getting killed, isn't possible without armed forces killing the people, but I thought this was so obvious that you must have meant something else.
However, a situation can be called a conflict before the armies step in. Isn't damming up a river that is the neighbouring country's most important water supply already a conflict even before a single shot is fired?

Maybe I'm just stupid or something, but one more thing I don't understand, Jeremy, are your observations: what value do they bring to these discussions? It's good to observe many kinds of aspects and try to learn from them, but a comment like

Also a lot of people might say that it's having armies that creates conflict.

has as much value as any other random statement does, if you don't even bother to tell what you personally think about it. Presenting them and them only makes other people presume that you think alike. Don't you think there's a difference between writing only
"A lot of people say it's the guns that kill people" and writing that and then adding "...but I don't respond in any way"?
It's rhetoric, it's easy and you don't get caught saying something you aren't saying but possibly thinking, but I don't think it's very honest.

[sniikeri]

Hey that was the longest post I've ever written in English anywhere, I think I deserve a reply.