How would you improve national security?

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Disclaimer: this isn’t supposed to be a political thread, so if you’re one of the tards who usually turns it into one, piss off.



Let’s say you were creating your own country or were a dictator of one; what would be one the first things you’d do? I have a couple of ideas but I’m wondering what you guys think.

 

[Black Widow Void]

Be prepared. I'm sure there's at least a mod (maybe two?) that's just waiting for the opportunity to close this thread.

I'd meet with other dictators to see if good middle ground could be established. Naturally, I'd still have back up, but would prioritize good relations over unnecessary combat.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I'd meet with other dictators to see if good middle ground could be established. Naturally, I'd still have back up, but would prioritize good relations over unnecessary combat.

What are your thoughts?

So you’re focused more on foreign relations. What about in the event of an aggressor nation, like say the former Soviet Union? Historically-speaking, appeasement rarely, if ever, works to resolve issues in regards to aggressor nations. But at the same time, M.A.D. is most definitely not a viable alternative either.

 

[Georgepithyou]

Do what Switzerland does, always stay neutral and sell weapons to both sides.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Do what Switzerland does, always stay neutral and sell weapons to both sides.

And keep extremely low interest rates with great money laundering laws and an overall very appealing banking system to the ultra rich so that they always send their money to your country.

Although the staying neutral part, what if the nation you were in control of was a super power? I’d ask non-neutral nations that explicitly ask me for help if they would like to become a territory of mine, and only if they agree would I help them. There’s also a good chance that I’d take over the enemy nation as well and add it as a territory.

Of course, there may be potential downsides to this that I’m not seeing. I understand that you’d have to take logistics into consideration, i.e. monetary & non-monetary expenditure, alliances, chance of victory, support for war (which can be dealt with in other ways), occupied territories’ resistance to occupation, etc. but in a general sense, this is what I’d do. I also would do it directly and make it be known as a territory of mine rather than covertly install a leader who is favorable to me, like how the West does lol. Too many problems with covert methods imo; a top-down approach works better in the long term rather than a fake bottom-up approach.

What are your guys’ opinions?

 

[Who Dares Win]

I would try to keep my citizens as happy as possible to have them back me up and do not side with invaders or intruders...you know kinda the opposite of what western governments do.

You can have the strongest walls but they are not gonna work if pissed off citizens open the gate at night.

Also the more homogenous the population is, the more it will hold strong against invaders.

Nations with two big religious groups often see one of those to side with the neightbours who share the same fate rather than with their own countrymen.

 

[Poonani Maker]

Anyone see Coach Redpill's vid this morning?

I generally have refrained from watching his vids on women and various other subjects for the past couple of years, but his being Chilean and knowing his Own ethnicity's past through and through, I've watched (or listened to) his last two vids and you can't overlook that the guy knows history. I know different history and not "other" Civil War history (only our unique one(s) here in America have I read about extensively, especially in the past 5 years). He knows Communism as well. The history I've read about generally entails ancient like before man and 3000 BC written record Sumar, up until 1920s. What I mean is, I've really only ever read about modern Communism (that is post WWII) via the book "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. I may have read a few others but it was not the focus of the book.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Anyone see Coach Redpill's vid this morning?

I generally have refrained from watching his vids on women and various other subjects for the past couple of years, but his being Chilean and knowing his Own ethnicity's past through and through, I've watched (or listened to) his last two vids and you can't overlook that the guy knows history. I know different history and not "other" Civil War history (only our unique one(s) here in America have I read about extensively, especially in the past 5 years). He knows Communism as well. The history I've read about generally entails ancient like before man and 3000 BC written record Sumar, up until 1920s. What I mean is, I've really only ever read about modern Communism (that is post WWII) via the book "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. I may have read a few others but it was not the focus of the book.

Not abusing part of your population is surely a way to improve security and safety...."getting even" or "teach them some" is the opposite, nice video btw.

 

[zekko]

I have a feeling this is leading to supplying men with women and sex to keep them pacified.

 

[thinker]

@samspade I agree with you on some things but I think borders are very important for national defense. I would also add being as self sufficient as we could be both as a country and individual citizens. I am talking about energy , manufacturing, agriculture and anything else we would need. We should also cut off all foreign aid or at the very least get a better return on investment for it, we should stop paying countries to hate us if they are willing to do it for free. @zekko that won't work at least for me, I can get women on my own and in reality I need more than that to be pacified.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Disclaimer: this isn’t supposed to be a political thread, so if you’re one of the tards who usually turns it into one, piss off.



Let’s say you were creating your own country or were a dictator of one; what would be one the first things you’d do? I have a couple of ideas but I’m wondering what you guys think.

A whimsical and very simplistic answer to a question that really does require deep, sustained thought:

The first thing I would do would be to focus on crime.

Death penalty for anyone who commits a robbery with a weapon. If you threaten someone's life, you forfeit yours.

I would work to make punishments fit the crime, and would administer absolutely equal punishment for men and women. No pvssy pass. I would standardize punishments as much as is possible.

False rape accusation = serious mandatory prison time equal to what a rapist would receive were he or she convicted.

Death penalty for child molesters.

Encourage the safe use of firearms for private citizens and make them readily available to a well-trained populace.

Enact new stringent requirements and rigorous training for police officers. Police would be trained to respect the community and any officer who displayed a proven adversarial attitude would be fired. No female police on the streets, however there would be a secondary female presence at the stations to deal with females who are brought in. Occasionally they might be called into the field for police dealing with females (pat-downs and such). Females would in no way be directly involved with street-level law enforcement.

Police would be required to actually know the law, and believe me, few really do. Perhaps there would be specialists available who handled certain aspects of law who could be called by cops out on the streets to check about legal issues.

The main armed forces would be comprised of men only. There would be no female pilots. Women would be mandatorily drafted into a special female division of the armed forces in order to equalize the free ride they've been given for the past 245 years. All women would serve two years at least in this secondary role of support for the men in uniform. This would serve to begin to dismantle the horrific female privilege we suffer through today.

The entire judicial system would be overhauled. There would be no female judges, but there might be a consulting panel of well-vetted females with whom judges could discuss cases in order for them to avail themselves of the female experience. Since I am the dictator of this beautiful imaginary world, all appointments to the bench would be approved by me.

Teachers would be required to be trained in treating boys and girls equally in terms of accountability, ethics, and schoolwork. Boys would be required to learn to use tools and would study leadership. Girls would be taught their role as homemakers and support for males. Both genders would be taught to care for and respect the other gender. Both genders would be taught that they are of equal value, but have different roles according to their natural wiring.

The idea of creation would be taught with equal weight as the theory of evolution. I wouldn't force the teaching of creation but it would be mandatory to assign it equal merit with other theories.

In Atom-Land, the problem of the assault on our children's sexual identity would be addressed directly, and eradicated. I'd have to think about the steps of implementation, but believe me, little Johnny wouldn't be sitting in a library being read to by transvestites. Boys would be taught to be proud to male, and girls would be taught to be proud to be female.

This is all just sort of whimsically and very simplistically off the top of my head, not having had time to really think it through, but it's a fun exercise.

Of course, I would likely grow corrupt over time and would have to hire @logicallefty to keep his eye on me until I went far enough off the deep end (some would say I'm very close to that even now)! He would then be authorized to flip a switch to neutralize me and would either take my place or install a worthy successor from a pool of young men who have been groomed for leadership. All that will be necessary will be to hear him quietly utter, "It's time, Atom" and I will go willingly.

Finally, I would order that SoSuave provide generous retirement benefits to its moderators.

 

[Georgepithyou]

And keep extremely low interest rates with great money laundering laws and an overall very appealing banking system to the ultra rich so that they always send their money to your country.

Although the staying neutral part, what if the nation you were in control of was a super power? I’d ask non-neutral nations that explicitly ask me for help if they would like to become a territory of mine, and only if they agree would I help them. There’s also a good chance that I’d take over the enemy nation as well and add it as a territory.

Of course, there may be potential downsides to this that I’m not seeing. I understand that you’d have to take logistics into consideration, i.e. monetary & non-monetary expenditure, alliances, chance of victory, support for war (which can be dealt with in other ways), occupied territories’ resistance to occupation, etc. but in a general sense, this is what I’d do. I also would do it directly and make it be known as a territory of mine rather than covertly install a leader who is favorable to me, like how the West does lol. Too many problems with covert methods imo; a top-down approach works better in the long term rather than a fake bottom-up approach.

What are your guys’ opinions?

Keep in mine before ww1 America was isolationist and it worked perfectly. Why would you soend resources on other nations? Geography helps too, like Switzerland is surrounded by mountains so its hard to invade. Australia is one huge island with a small population which makes invading it pointless.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Keep in mine before ww1 America was isolationist and it worked perfectly. Why would you soend resources on other nations? Geography helps too, like Switzerland is surrounded by mountains so its hard to invade. Australia is one huge island with a small population which makes invading it pointless.

Isolationism doesn’t work. Ignoring the world around you going to shvt doesn’t make you safer. Foreign aid and alliances fosters peace. Countries that become destitute are more likely to be problematic.

 

[Alvafe]

Foreign aid and international trade are great for peace. Turns out going to war in foreign lands is really bad for peace.

that is relative, mostly wars are fights of territory or resources, some was for simple killing, but these never really did well, also note sometimes having war is preferential to peace if that give you something you need, remember warlords still exist TODAY.

if this thing is really something like city states, it owuld give some thing, in a country scale chances are you will hardly have full control, and will only keep power if you serve your purpose, with means keep certains group in power.

end of day everything you really think in doing would NOT leave the paper, unless it would give you more control and power, so even though we belive we do ahve the best interest in mind and would help people, you wouldn't and if you was not changed by it you would hate yourself for it

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

All property is private property except for government buildings.

Every body owns as many guns as they want.

Uninvited strangers on your land are open season.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Foreign aid and international trade are great for peace. Turns out going to war in foreign lands is really bad for peace.

Yup. It’s amazing how quickly humans forget history.

 

[Georgepithyou]

Isolationism doesn’t work. Ignoring the world around you going to shvt doesn’t make you safer. Foreign aid and alliances fosters peace. Countries that become destitute are more likely to be problematic.

Tell that to Switzerland, i rather stay neutral and only spend money on self defence. Let other nations fight among themselves like two crabs in a bucket.

Death penalty for anyone who commits a robbery with a weapon. If you threaten someone's life, you forfeit yours.

I think instead they should be given years of hard labor, might as well put them to work. If they steal something make them work to pay it back.

Death penalty for child molesters.

Death penalty is too lenient, they should have to suffer a long time. Hard labor for them as well make them work 15 hour days mining or cleaning sewage with zero breaks.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Your points are well taken.

 

[The Red Crow]

Is this one of those "asking for a friend" situations?

Honestly, I would focus less on border security and more on cyber security.

From an invader standpoint, it's much easier to mess with another country's resources using high tech methods, than by sending in guerillas or agents who will just get arrested or fukk things up. Plus think of all the machinery at the mercy of online technology...the military, energy, finance, utilities. If you can keep these resources' defenses robust and keep Joe Sixpack happy/comfortable, it's better than worrying about a few randos sneaking across a border.

Haven't totally thought this through, that was just my initial reaction. I'm sure it's more complex than that.

Why not focus on both border security AND cyber security?

And why would they send in a handful of secret operatives, when they can just flood the U.S. border with their most useless poor?

See, they release their tax burden, while we take it on our backs.

Countries with real leaders play the long game; just look at how many of our politicians are in China's pocket. That's 30 years of long game there!

 

[The Red Crow]

To truly improve national security, I would first have to build a time machine.

My first jump would be to the first slave ship headed from Africa. I would turn it around.

Why should they have to suffer, you know? White supremecy has kept them from being kings. I feel like they would have had a better shot in their homeland.

My next Bill and Ted would be to stop the U.S. from interjecting themselves into 2 world wars. Europe has been at war for centuries. Let that sh1t play out.

But time machines don't exist, and now I'm apparently a racist, for thinking like my grandfather, who fought nazis for being racists.

Good luck understanding that. If you can't, you're probably a transexual secretary of health.