Your point on America's hegemonic experience is well taken and I guess we need to define a little better the problem we're trying to solve. Because insurgencies from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan were not at all effective in stopping US forces from entering their countries, toppling their governments and seizing whatever critical assets or positions. But they were effective at outlasting and exhausting US forces to ultimately render an occupation ineffective. So, if you have a lot of time and a high tolerance for casualties, then I'll admit I'm wrong about this -- you can indeed eventually win a war with small arms. But, this discussion of Poland started with you saying it's a more efficient way of repelling hostile countries (in contrast to the war mongering of the previous poster who was Dadakota whose opinions on Ukraine I have not been tracking). But there is nothing efficient about sacrificing a generation to resisting a foreign occupier on your own land. Countries turn to insurgency as a last resort. It is better to make sure they don't come in in the first place. I think you'd say that a trained populace is a deterrent. But I can't think of an example in history where that's been the case (help me out if you can). A more proven deterrent is the one NATO has been pursuing that you disapprove of -- multilateral treaties for common defense, backed where necessary with a show of force so that the resolve of participants is not in doubt. The best thing Poland has going for it is the promise of NATO countries to come fight for them. So maybe the mandatory gun training is some tertiary layer, after alliances and after the conventional army. Basically, after everything fails, at least you have a lot of citizens who can join the resistance and suffer and struggle for 20 years. The eventuality is so remote at this point, the benefit is hard to see. The bigger benefit that I can see is the cultivation of Polish nationalism, which is the sort of thing a guy like President Duda would be interested in. My suspicion is that is the primary motivation (and, to be fair, some Poles will probably get super-psyched about fighting the Russians in gun class and decide to join the army and become professionals). On your last point, I think you're right. Giving a soft teenager a rifle in an emergency and telling him to fight professional soldiers probably won't go well. To that end, practicing with lasers doesn't go far enough. They won't be familiar with the kick of live ammo, or what it's like to split a dude's head open and be responsible for his death. I assume they do other useful things in this class than just pointing at targets, like disassembling and cleaning your gun, maybe an intro to tactics. But how much military value can you really store up in a 14 year old? It can't be like the Israeli model of having everyone do a couple of years of actual military service. In that model, you can do some real training. If Poland does need to resort to an insurgency, I'm not that confident that handing a rifle to a young adult who once had a little experience shooting lasers at a screen is going to go much better than handing that rifle to one that did nothing at all.
Feels like the whole “teach youth how to shoot gun angle” is just more a way to try and dismiss the importance of alliances. Like should be part of the total package of security? Sure, but a standing army and alliances are far more effective. Especially when you have to essentially be like “warmongers hate this one trick”.
It’s just one component of national defense. It benefits any army to have young recruits familiar or even proficient with firearms before they join. Some of the lost effective soldiers and marksmen in history learned from a young age. They didn’t just start at basic. Alvin York, Vasily Zaitsev, Simo Hayha.. etc etc.. all skilled with firearms before joining their militaries. Same concept with other skill sets and pools of people. Good for a country to have a robust pool of civilian trained pilots so if/when they maybe needed in a war you’re not starting from scratch. Nobody is asserting that it is all that is needed for Polands defense. People acting like people are suggesting it’s the only necessary component of national defense are doing so in bad faith.
This is what prompted this particular discussion, bolded emphasis mine: Clearly it's not efficient and as a poster above said, it's more a tertiary measure of national defense. Perhaps @Space Ghost can elaborate on why this is more efficient than providing munitions to a country being invaded.
He didn’t say it was the only thing a country should do towards their national defense. Some of the criticism I have read in here has tried to criticize the measure by isolating it and acting as if its futile effort… but its simply one part of broader movement in the Polish body politic and totally worthwhile.
No he claimed this sort of gun training was more efficient than providing munitions to repel an invasion. These munitions are for the Ukraine army.
Sad news for Putin, Trump, Musk, Kim North Korean soldiers getting obliterated Pyongyang has sent thousands of troops to reinforce Russia's war effort, including to the Kursk border region, where Ukrainian forces seized territory earlier this year. "Several hundred casualties is our latest estimate that the DPRK has suffered," the official said on condition of anonymity. This "would include everything from... light wounds up to being KIA (killed in action)," the official claimed, with soldiers of "all ranks" among the casualties. "These are not battle-hardened troops. They haven't been in combat before," the official said, which explains "why they have been suffering the casualties that they have at the hands of the Ukrainians." The comments, echoing similar statements made by Ukrainian officials, came after Ukraine's commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrsky said Russia has used North Korean troops at the heart of an "intensive offensive" in Kursk over several days. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also posted footage on X claiming to show North Korean soldiers on the battlefield.
I honestly dont think Kim or Putin care. I'm pretty sure "to make an omlet you have to send several thousand innocents to slaughter" is the traditional Russian saying.
I thought Daddy Trump was going to make one phone call to his Daddy Putin and this whole Ukraine thing was going to be over?
Well, he can't officially sell Ukraine down the river and have Poland menaced as the next potential Russian target----er, I mean, "end the war"---until after the inauguration.
They should care. The North Koreans were killed trying to recapture Kursk, because apparently the state of the Russian military is that Russians can't be bothered to reclaim Russian territory on their own, and I also read that North Korea's conventional arms stockpile (the kind they use to routinely threaten South Korea - "we have 10 zillion artilllery pieces that can vaporize the SOuth in minutes") has been sold off to Russia and is now depleted. Regimes around the world are collapsing as society reaches the breaking point - this includes Russia's & North Koreas and the Trump-Musk fascist alliance as well.
Sadly you might be kind of right here. Meaning- -Kim knows his troops have no battle experience, and needs to get them combat action for whatever he thinks might be coming, or at least to propagate "war heroes" internally if a hot conflict never happens. Throwing a few hundred troops into Ukraine makes sense for him. -Putin probably needs time more than anything to allow new troops to be trained, and for their industrial complex centric economy to truly take footing for the long term. So the blood letting, and the time earned for both of these tyrants makes sense. I doubt Putin really wanted NK Troops to earn any glory in Ukraine anyways. It would have been an embarrassment for him if NK troops made end roads, and took territory where his Russian troops could not. This was always about buying time for Putin, and Kim getting his guys some experience, and war hero propaganda. Makes sense.... in an evil dictator tyrant kind of way.
Been hearing the Baltic States are important geographically for NATO and standing armies and having munitions for said army are much more important than training 13 years on small arms.
I took @Space Ghost 's point to be that, in the hierarchy of measures to take in national defense, training the civilian population was cheaper/easier/more accessible -- thus more "efficient" -- than supporting a would-be ally in their war with your common enemy -- the "war mongering" (though again, I am a little vague on what he's calling war mongering here). So he's weighing relative values and finding training civvies to be relatively more valuable. And I'm arguing it's less valuable. And in fact, so much less valuable that it needs to be weighed against other, non-defense effects. I don't think there is any bad faith argument here on either side, though everyone might not have given full treatment to every facet of a complicated topic given the bbs' form factor.
To clarify - When I use the term war mongering, I mean it to be war mongering = war profiteering. We understand most of the money given to Ukraine actually stays in the US in the form of goods and services to provide Ukraine munitions. Americans get jobs. Congress elect get kudos for bringing these jobs, MIC funds the congressmen's campaigns with their profits, ect ... There is a lot of money being throw around and a lot of people in the US are benefiting. What is for certain is Russia and Ukraine is certainly not benefiting, so there lies the conflict of interest. War profiteering at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people. This is highly unethical. The first and foremost goal should be pushing for a resolution to the war. The war mongers want an all-or-nothing solution because they do not give a **** about people dying or suffering. Sometimes we dont always get what we want and sometimes we get nothing at all. But at least if we end the war today, tens if not hundreds of thousands will keep their lives. In regards to Poland, the goal is not to defeat Russia in an insurgency but to make it clear to Russia that if they do invade, they will lose a war to insurgency. As Poland is on the border of this, they are making the right decision stock piling reserves instead of donating it to the army of the walking dead.
I'd agree except for the idea that Ukraine doesn't benefit. Ukraine does benefit by defending itself. And it has a legitimate government that can make the choice about whether it is worth it to sacrifice lives and wealth to keep Russia out. They said they're willing. So I don't see that it is unethical to give them the tools to do the thing they want to do. I'm down for ending the war. Ukraine needs to find terms they find acceptable. I think it would be unethical for the US to leverage it's aid to force upon Ukraine peace terms to which they object. It has to be Ukraine's deal.
I view government as necessary, but its anything but altruistic. Its often filled with parasites to the detriment of its constituents. I dont view the government of Ukraine as the holy Matrimony. I am of the opinion Zelensky is a parasite and should be replaced. Again, it is only my opinion that I believe Ukraine would do better under different leadership. I am not a nationalist. I believe in our species as a whole. No group is more special than any other. I would be perfectly fine stripping the rights and wealth of every American if it made the entire world better off. But we are self serving people and we would rather have our children fight to the death or exterminate the opposition if there was ever a threat to the great US entitlement mentality. In the 60's, we were lied to and told we must stop the spread of communism ... or else the great American hegemony would come to an end. Translation: Wealth entitled Americans might lose the riches. The North Vietnamese must be defeated at all cost, or else the entire world would slip into darkness. History has spoken. Multiple generations of Vietnamese were destroyed between two bad factions controlling Vietnam. The 'bad guys' won. But it only took three full generations to restore Vietnam to a respectable nation. What I really want to point out is that a human life is vastly more important than an idea. War is a bigger threat to humanity than religious or political ideology. I fear Putin dropping nukes (which is pretty low as is) than Putin rolling through Europe establishing a fantasy 1000 year reign. We shouldn't be so flippant with human lives. Ukraines sovereignty is about meaningful to me as a native americans claim on my house. Simply because stupid people want to give their lives for a cause doesn't mean we should be funding it. I say this three years into this war and no end in sight.
For first time, Ukraine attacks Russian positions using solely ground, FPV drones https://kyivindependent.com/for-fir...ian-positions-using-solely-ground-fpv-drones/
