The right doesn't care about national defense.

[HoreTore]

Yes, indeedy, that's what the title says.

The two parties(the conservatives and the right-wing progress paty) in this country who wants the strongest army and generally wants to increase the military budget are also the two parties, who, if in charge, would leave us with by far the weakest defense.

Why is that? Well, it seems that the right-wingers think that war is only a matter of soldiers, guns and fancy war machines. They forget that a soldier needs food if he's going to survive, and so does the civilian population if there's going to be anyone left to defend. They want to increase military spending, check. But they also want to reduce farm subsidies, which will terminate our agricultural sector(except the fish). It'll work fine to import food from Brazil now, but when World War 3 knocks on our door, that might be a tad more difficult.

The military the right wants can only do limited operations. It will literally starve in a prolonged war. And let's face it, if Norway gets invaded again, it'll be in World War 3. And that one isn't likely to be over in a hurry. So what will they do? We'll have to grow our own food again, of course. But the thing is, making food isn't as simple as putting some corn in the ground and waiting. To start using land that's been barren for some tens years will take time and resources, and you won't have much of either in World War 3.

So, I guess it's classic right-wing politics yet again, we'll take the short term benefits now, and screw the future. I mean, we can always blame the jews again, can't we?

[Lemur]

Hmm, I tend to be pretty negative on farm subsidies, especially since I've lived around plenty of farmers and know the ******* they pull on the government. (Trust me, no welfare queen has ever bilked as much money out of the Feds as the average corn farmer.)

But you raise an interesting point: Independent food supply as a security issue. Let's leave aside the rightwing/leftwing part of your post, and focus on this more tantalizing question.

Is it worth it to subsidize unprofitable farmers in order to maintain a trade-independent food supply? Should every nation be able to feed its own people? Is that a realistic and worthwhile goal in an age of interconnectedness and globalization?

Thoughts, please.

[Ice]

Hmm, I tend to be pretty negative on farm subsidies, especially since I've lived around plenty of farmers and know the ******* they pull on the government. (Trust me, no welfare queen has ever bilked as much money out of the Feds as the average corn farmer.)

But you raise an interesting point: Independent food supply as a security issue. Let's leave aside the rightwing/leftwing part of your post, and focus on this more tantalizing question.

Is it worth it to subsidize unprofitable farmers in order to maintain a trade-independent food supply? Should every nation be able to feed its own people? Is that a realistic and worthwhile goal in an age of interconnectedness and globalization?

Thoughts, please.

This is a great post, Lemur. Quite honestly, i highly doubt that World War III is any where close to happening, and the benefits gained from halting the farm subsidies far outweigh any national security issues.

[seireikhaan]

Hmm, I tend to be pretty negative on farm subsidies, especially since I've lived around plenty of farmers and know the ******* they pull on the government. (Trust me, no welfare queen has ever bilked as much money out of the Feds as the average corn farmer.)

But you raise an interesting point: Independent food supply as a security issue. Let's leave aside the rightwing/leftwing part of your post, and focus on this more tantalizing question.

Is it worth it to subsidize unprofitable farmers in order to maintain a trade-independent food supply? Should every nation be able to feed its own people? Is that a realistic and worthwhile goal in an age of interconnectedness and globalization?

Thoughts, please.
Lemur's got this nailed. At least in the US, these insane ag subsidies have to stop. Honestly, its not like we aren't competitive enough. Further, because of how the subsidies have been allocated, we're actually eroding our soil faster than we would have otherwise, because the gov't keeps throwing gobs of cash to grow MOAR corn, which dis-incentivizes farmers from letting a suitable portion of land lay fallow to allow for proper soil recuperation. Further, the fact that so many farmers are only growing corn means that even if they were letting some land lay fallow, they would have to let more of it lay fallow per year because crop rotation allows for better rejuvination than simply putting the same crop down year after year, which would actually offset a decent amount of ag output lost for being responsible farmers.


Now, as to that second question- I don't know Norway's situation very well, other than that it isn't exactly the most terribly fertile nation ever. With that caveat, I would say ag subsidies are just not a good idea. Farming capability has never been higher, and Norway should trade some of their own goods that they have a comparative advantage- oil, fish, timber, and I believe mining- to obtain needed food. Besides, it is not as though the agricultural sector is likely to completely collapse- local farmers *should* still be able to offer competitive deals on foodstuffs due to lesser transport costs.

[LittleGrizzly]

The point Lemur makes is the one thing that holds me back on agricultural subsidies.... well that and the fact the farms may be replaced by tower blocks...

Though realistically thinking there isn't world war 3 just around the corner, there could be other things that happen that could interupt the food supply to Norway, prices could rise dramatically through a series of events (earth warming, seas rising, growing fuels, lots of 2nd (and 3rd) world countrys increasing thier meat intake, population increases)

So maybe keeping a small subsidised agricultural sector isn't too bad an idea... in Nowray at least, from the sounds of it USA is worse off with subsidised agriculture...

[CBR]

Woah WW3? Well you should not worry too much as all the nukes will kill off most people anyway. The Norwegians who survive will be a better and stronger breed for sure! and with a less fatalistic world view...


CBR

[rory_20_uk]

Throwing money at farmers isn't going to help massively in extremis in any case. If uneconomic, inefficient practices get money now, why bother innovating - regardless if the leaders are right or left wing.

I think that Norway would be far better off spending money on research in areas such as harnessing heat and CO2 from industry / hardy plants / alternate ways of growing crops. The food isn't needed now, and the possible benefits would be applicable at home and an asset which can be sold abroad.

The USA is of course in a very different situation, but here again throwing money at rednecks is only ever a short term vote winner.

~:smoking:

[Marshal Murat]

To start using land that's been barren for some tens years will take time and resources, and you won't have much of either in World War 3.
What exactly do you mean when you say "barren"? Are we talking about land unsuitable for farming or land not recently used for farming?
I don't think Norway (coming from someone whose only experience of Norway is from Maelstrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maelstrom_(ride)) in Epcot) would have many problems with any conflicts, near or far. If a WW3 conflict were to break out, it wouldn't be impossible to begin planting food again while using a short-term import plan from outside the nation.

In response to subsidized agriculture: BAD IDEA
The original subsidies for farmers to grow corn were to help them (duh), but now latifundia-esque farms are using subsidies to grow enormous amounts of crops for profit to fatten Americans. It's disgusting and should be stopped, if only to preserve the rich texture of Middle America (and all those right-wing Farmer votes, which brings us back to the original topic)

[Louis VI the Fat]

they also want to reduce farm subsidies, which will terminate our agricultural sector Norway shouldn't produce food. It is bad for the environment. Save for a few square kilometers in the south, producing food in Norway (in any commercially viable way) is only possible artificially.
Locally produced food, counter-intuitively, is worse for the environment than producing food in more fertile lands and shipping it halway around the world.

Instead, Norway should focus on hightech biotechnology, to increase the output of tall blond girls with huge :balloon::balloon:

[HoreTore]

Norway shouldn't produce food. It is bad for the environment. Save for a few square kilometers in the south, producing food in Norway (in any commercially viable way) is only possible artificially.
Locally produced food, counter-intuitively, is worse for the environment than producing food in more fertile lands and shipping it halway around the world.

Environment? I was talking national defense here, stay on topic :whip:

But yes, it's true. Except for a few tiny dots* spread around, Norway just doesn't have the soil to produce large quantities of food, or food capable of competing with anyone but Iceland. The subsidies here don't "hamper innovation", there won't be any more innovation without subsidies, simply because there's just no way to grow food here at a competitive price. It's impossible. So, the choice we have isn't to "support it or not", it's a simple choice of should we grow food at all here, or not.


Instead, Norway should focus on hightech biotechnology, to increase the output of tall blond girls with huge :balloon::balloon:

Can't argue with that, obviously. But I propose an exchange, Louis. You can get my tall, blond girls, while I get your delicious french-speaking ones. Deal?

*and I do mean tiny. The farm I lived on last year was such a spot, but the good soil was just a kilometre or two.

@Marshall Murat: I was talking about land that hasn't been used for, say a decade or so. Or even better, old farmland now turned into something else.

As for how likely it is for us to get attacked; well, we're Russia's neighbor.... If europe gets attacked from the east again, we're likely to be the first meal.

But then again, that's my original point, isn't it? "Well, we can cut subsidies just fine, no worries, we won't get attacked"... But if we won't get attacked, then what the hell do we need that bloody army for....?*

*remember, this thread was originally a whine about right-wingers general incompetence, not about subsidies ~;)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Norway's national defence plan came up in another thread, didn't it? I'm fairly sure that the detail that Norway only had to hold for a few weeks for the defence plan to be a "success" against the Russians came up somewhere.

Nobody is going to starve to death in that time. I'd be more worried about Russians than grain in a WWIII.

[Ironside]

Woah WW3? Well you should not worry too much as all the nukes will kill off most people anyway. The Norwegians who survive will be a better and stronger breed for sure! and with a less fatalistic world view...


CBR



The loss of infrastructure and lack of food is the big killer in the early post-apocalyptic world and quite possibly on the same scale as the nukes themselves.

[rory_20_uk]

The loss of infrastructure and lack of food is the big killer in the early post-apocalyptic world and quite possibly on the same scale as the nukes themselves.

Without doubt.

Some parts of the world will go on as before. The parts of Africa that are doing OK for example. Almost everywhere else will at the very least see a c. 70% in population - the old will all die and the young will kill each other for resources.

What to do? Unless you want an agrarian economy that utilises everything from nearby the country is going to take a hit.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

I just don't know. There are vanishingly few countries that can claim to be energy independent, and having the lights go out would be as big a shock to some people as seeing super-expensive food at the store.

I really wonder if food independence is (a) worth the distorting effects of subsidies, (b) a proper national security goal, and (c) realistic for nations that have little arable land.

[drone]

The Norse will just raid mainland Europe for food if it comes down to it. :medievalcheers:

A few years back, I read that the UK could no longer feed itself due to population growth and reduction of farming capacity. Considering the situation in both world wars, I would assume that this would raise some concern, but apparently it didn't. The massive dependence on foreign oil here in the States bothers me a lot, reducing our consumption should be a top national security concern. Russia's control of fuel to much of Europe should be ringing alarms all over the continent. :shrug: Probably too many people making money off the short term status quo.

[Furunculus]

The point Lemur makes is the one thing that holds me back on agricultural subsidies.... well that and the fact the farms may be replaced by tower blocks...

Though realistically thinking there isn't world war 3 just around the corner, there could be other things that happen that could interupt the food supply to Norway, prices could rise dramatically through a series of events (earth warming, seas rising, growing fuels, lots of 2nd (and 3rd) world countrys increasing thier meat intake, population increases)

So maybe keeping a small subsidised agricultural sector isn't too bad an idea... in Nowray at least, from the sounds of it USA is worse off with subsidised agriculture...

small and subsidised are an oxymoron.

@ HT

yes, food-supply is a strategic issue to be considered in the context of security.

however, if norway occupies a similar situation to britain then the nation is incapable of feeding itself and thus dependent on imports, better to ensure the military muscle to preclude or deter other nations from trying to interdict food supplies.

but i'm presuming norway isn't in that situation, however i still oppose subsidised food production because for the 99% of time your nation is not at war there are much higher ROI's on industries other than food on which improve a nations wealth, and a little of that surplus can be fed back into defence to ensure that neighbouring nations don't choose to play silly buggers.

lets face it, if russia decides it needs a little more strategic depth what will prove the greater deterrent; greater agricultural self sufficiency or a better equipped military and nato membership?

[CBR]

The loss of infrastructure and lack of food is the big killer in the early post-apocalyptic world and quite possibly on the same scale as the nukes themselves.
Actually that is what I meant but I was just not clear enough.

If anyone has not watched the mid 80's BBC drama "Threads" about the post-nuclear effects in Britain then I recommend it. It is rather depressing though.


CBR

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another big point:
The farm subsidies in western nations seriously harm poor third world farmers. They could compete with western nations in agriculture and significantly better the lot of them and their families if there weren't so many subsidies. The subsidies keep them poor and enfeebled.

So, Horetore, what have you got against those poor third world farmers? Why do you insist they suffer because of your paranoia about WWIII?

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A little paranoid there Horetore.

[HoreTore]

Another big point:
The farm subsidies in western nations seriously harm poor third world farmers. They could compete with western nations in agriculture and significantly better the lot of them and their families if there weren't so many subsidies. The subsidies keep them poor and enfeebled.

So, Horetore, what have you got against those poor third world farmers? Why do you insist they suffer because of your paranoia about WWIII?

That point applies to a lot of countries, my country isn't one of them. Not because we don't subsidize enough, but simply because we're incapable of growing anything, so our competition is marginal at best. It's not a question of competing others away here, it's a question of whether to have any food production at all(again, except teh fishies).

And we already have zero toll on goods from poor countries.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That point applies to a lot of countries, my country isn't one of them. Not because we don't subsidize enough, but simply because we're incapable of growing anything, so our competition is marginal at best. It's not a question of competing others away here, it's a question of whether to have any food production at all(again, except teh fishies).

And we already have zero toll on goods from poor countries.

I do believe it applies. Without subsidies, it sounds like there would be a significant amount of food being shipped in. It's not the exports of your farmers (of the lack thereof) but the fact that dirt poor third world farmers would have a new market to sell goods in.

It's not just Norway, of course, but pretty much all western nations.

CR

[Beskar]

On the plus side, with the plans of a European Superstate, we can get all our food from the fertile lands of French, Germany, Ukraine and other areas.

Though if World War 3 happened, it would turn our world into something like Fallout 3 at best.

[Sarmatian]

Subsidizing isn't just throwing money at the farmers, it's supposed to keep them in agriculture. Let's face it, agriculture isn't the most appealing job and young people will try to do something else unless money's good. Ask a child of a farmer, would he/she rather make 10,000 euros a month working on a farm or the same amount from working in an export/import company in a big city...

You need to keep that land worked and you need to keep people there. Even in the most advanced countries significant number of people still work in the agricultural sector, most of them aren't educated for many other jobs. In the long run it's cheaper to subsidize them then to give them a new education or give them unemployment money. Food is produced, people have jobs, land is worked. It's not a coincidence all developed countries in the world subsidize agricultural production...

[rory_20_uk]

On the plus side, with the plans of a European Superstate, we can get all our food from the fertile lands of French, Germany, Ukraine and other areas.

Though if World War 3 happened, it would turn our world into something like Fallout 3 at best.

If Ukraine joins that would help increase the investment in their agriculture which has been starved of finance for upgrades for years.
France has rather antiquanted practices.

And of course if WW3 happens I'm sure these countries would shut their borders faster than you can say "co-operation".

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

Stop subsidizing unprofitable crops. Grow poppies and marijuana. With the profits, you can have Russian cavier and Kobe steak every night for dinner. When ww3 shows up, you can always plow those under and grow wheat, corn, barley, etc.*

Flexible, adaptable agricultural policy is what's needed, Norway, US or other, not vested-interest cash-cows that only serve big-agribusiness.**

* that bit is supposed to be funny.
** that bit, not

[Beskar]

US is self-efficient due to the size of the Country. It is effectively the size of the whole of Europe and with the plans of the European Superstate going ahead, Europe can be self-efficient as well.

As for Rory's comment, they wouldn't be countries, they would be states and wouldn't close their borders. If WW3 happens, we won't even be alive as Earth would be dead in a nuclear winter.

[Husar]

The Norse will just raid mainland Europe for food if it comes down to it. :medievalcheers:

A few years back, I read that the UK could no longer feed itself due to population growth and reduction of farming capacity. Considering the situation in both world wars, I would assume that this would raise some concern, but apparently it didn't. The massive dependence on foreign oil here in the States bothers me a lot, reducing our consumption should be a top national security concern. Russia's control of fuel to much of Europe should be ringing alarms all over the continent. :shrug: Probably too many people making money off the short term status quo.

You're one to talk, the last time we tried to secure russia's ressources for europe, you gave them money and tanks to stop us. :dizzy2:
I mean, being energy independant is nice but apart from water energy that isn't available anywhere, a lot of this green energy stuff is not all that reliable IMO. Sun is nice but not when it's cloudy, in a nuclear winter it would be completely gone, tidal waves are nice but when the chinese blow up the moon they're gone... :shrug:

[Beskar]

You're one to talk, the last time we tried to secure russia's ressources for europe, you gave them money and tanks to stop us. :dizzy2:
I mean, being energy independant is nice but apart from water energy that isn't available anywhere, a lot of this green energy stuff is not all that reliable IMO. Sun is nice but not when it's cloudy, in a nuclear winter it would be completely gone, tidal waves are nice but when the chinese blow up the moon they're gone... :shrug:

I am a big supporter of the ITER project.
http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

I think nations should seriously get involved with it and get it moving across the world in the style of five year plans just to get it asap.

[drone]

You're one to talk, the last time we tried to secure russia's ressources for europe, you gave them money and tanks to stop us. :dizzy2:

:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

For large countries, solid agricultural and manufacturing bases are important. Globalization can make these less profitable, but they are necessary for security. I'm not sure we are at a point where we can be sure that nation-states will no longer slug it out. Even if we are, it's always possible for a rival to attempt to isolate another through resource denial or financial warfare. If some form of subsidy is necessary to keep a vital basic industry active, it's probably a good long-term investment in security. And as we have seen this past year, basing your economy on finance and services is risky.

[rory_20_uk]

The problem with this is of course globilisation. America might be in a position to build items with no foreign parts (although considering the output of electronics fromt he Far East I find this unlikely) for other countries this isn't really viable, and certainly not in quantities that would be required.

I think that protecting the sources (as China is increasingly doing) is a far better strategy.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

America might be in a position to build items with no foreign parts (although considering the output of electronics fromt he Far East I find this unlikely)

at the height of the recession Intel managed to find the cash to invest $12b upgrading about five or their 20+ worldwide fab plants to 32nm.................. all happened to be in america!

subsidies in the name of "strategic national interest" methinks.

[HoreTore]

I do believe it applies. Without subsidies, it sounds like there would be a significant amount of food being shipped in. It's not the exports of your farmers (of the lack thereof) but the fact that dirt poor third world farmers would have a new market to sell goods in.

We already import the majority of our food.

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Banning subsidies and such won't do much to the dirt poor countries. It'll do wonders for countries like Brazil, but to get the dirt poor ones competing, there's only one thing to do, and that is to industrialize those countries.

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In light of this thread, do you still want to overwhelm Norway's five million inhabitants by importing ten million people from the Third World, HoreTore?

[HoreTore]

In light of this thread, do you still want to overwhelm Norway's five million inhabitants by importing ten million people from the Third World, HoreTore?

Yeah. We're still bummed by logistics.

And I don't give a damn about national defense, I want to disband the army. I'm just having a laugh at the right-wingers who think they care about national defense ~;) Also, I have to point out that I've never said I wanted 10 million new guys here, just 8-10 million total(ie. doubling our population), so around 5 million new imports is quite ok :yes:

[rory_20_uk]

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

So we have the power to decide to get rid of democratically elected, native heads of state that we don't like the look of? Rather Imperialistic methinks.

Other ones that come to mind include N. Korea's leader any takers, or do you advocate only picking on weak leaders who are destroying their country?

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I'm just having a laugh at the right-wingers who think they care about national defense ~;)

i'm not at all sure that you have managed demonstrate anything risible.

[HoreTore]

So we have the power to decide to get rid of democratically elected, native heads of state that we don't like the look of? Rather Imperialistic methinks.

Mugabe is democratically elected...? What have you been smoking?


Other ones that come to mind include N. Korea's leader any takers, or do you advocate only picking on weak leaders who are destroying their country?

Of course he's included. I've said it a million times on this forum, if there is one invasion I would support, then it's an invasion of North Korea.

[Crazed Rabbit]

We already import the majority of our food.

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.

Banning subsidies and such won't do much to the dirt poor countries. It'll do wonders for countries like Brazil, but to get the dirt poor ones competing, there's only one thing to do, and that is to industrialize those countries.

And get rid of people like Mugabe, of course.

Ah. I'm not so sure about the dirt poor countries being unable to compete. But I don't have the details.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

But here's the deal; we don't import from the poor countries. We import from the "medium" countries. Why? Simply because the dirt poor countries are unable to compete. Not because of subsidies, but simply because they can't make their goods cheap enough to compete with the countries one step uo the ladder.
Those countries one step up the ladder likely subsidize their agriculture...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yes, indeedy, that's what the title says.

The two parties(the conservatives and the right-wing progress paty) in this country who wants the strongest army and generally wants to increase the military budget are also the two parties, who, if in charge, would leave us with by far the weakest defense.

I admit, when it comes to Norway I am totally out of my element.

1. What military power are you threatened by? Russia couldn't attack the European Union without half the world coming to your rescue and the other staying neutral.

2. Why couldn't you get your food from the United States? Basically the only thing we export these days is food

and "Democracy" :rolleyes:

3. If food is in such demand in your country, why do the farmers need subsidies from the government? They should be rich.



But then again I haven't the foggiest idea what I am talking about half the time, so feel free to bring me up to speed.

[HoreTore]

Those countries one step up the ladder likely subsidize their agriculture...

That would be the countries one further step up the ladder.


I admit, when it comes to Norway I am totally out of my element.

1. What military power are you threatened by? Russia couldn't attack the European Union without half the world coming to your rescue and the other staying neutral.

The only scenario, in the current world, in which we could get attacked, is in a world war 3 scenario. Basically it would have to be an attack on europe(EU), in which case we would be dragged along(due to tasty oil, and a coastline to attack england).


2. Why couldn't you get your food from the United States? Basically the only thing we export these days is food

Because we're talking WW3 here. The world would be at war, including the United States, and well, relying on shipping in such a situation isn't ideal...


3. If food is in such demand in your country, why do the farmers need subsidies from the government? They should be rich.

Because it's very hard to grow something here, and thus very expensive. To explain a little further; let's say you have one acre of land, and you wish to grow wheat there. With the soil in Norway, you can get x amount of wheat from it. With one acre in a more fertile country, like say Brazil, you would get 10x wheat.

Also, 1000 USD is a fortune in some countries, while it's pocket change here....

[Askthepizzaguy]

The only scenario, in the current world, in which we could get attacked, is in a world war 3 scenario. Basically it would have to be an attack on europe(EU), in which case we would be dragged along(due to tasty oil, and a coastline to attack england).

The trouble I see here is this; you would have to spend a huge chunk of your economy on creating a vast military to even slow down a huge threat like Russia. It's unrealistic to expect to be able to do so... it would be like Denmark becoming the 5th greatest military on the planet. Even if you could do so, you'd collapse in on yourself like the Soviet Union.


Because we're talking WW3 here. The world would be at war, including the United States, and well, relying on shipping in such a situation isn't ideal...

I see your point. I really think we've gone beyond self-sufficiency here, though; few nations can support themselves individually. Some are too small or too poor to have a huge army, or cannot afford the space or the effort to grow their own food. What you should have is a stockpile of non-perishable food and containers of fresh water stored by the government in facilities all over the nation, which over time will accumulate and provide food and clean water in times of crisis like war or famine.

Or at least I think it's a good idea. We have gone too far; we cannot revert back to an agrarian economy. There are too many people and not enough arable lands for everyone. A tree cannot revert back into a sapling. The only realistic option to prepare for times of need is to store surplus goods. Take the money you would be spending on farm subsidies and use it to buy non-perishable goods and you'll actually be making an investment in your future rather than spending money on expensive crops that will die and farmland which can be easily destroyed or devastated by conflict or weather patterns. Buy a lot of cheap crops and can them and store them.

Or perhaps a little bit of both. I suppose increasing your own food yield isn't exactly a bad notion; I just think it's expensive and inefficient to put all your effort in that one direction when it may not be practical for Norway.

I'd like to think the United States and other allies will be there to kick some invader butt... that is, if our economy doesn't collapse or we don't lose all credibility with the international community. But I guess you can't count on that.


Because it's very hard to grow something here, and thus very expensive. To explain a little further; let's say you have one acre of land, and you wish to grow wheat there. With the soil in Norway, you can get x amount of wheat from it. With one acre in a more fertile country, like say Brazil, you would get 10x wheat.

Also, 1000 USD is a fortune in some countries, while it's pocket change here....

I think I understand more clearly now. Thanks! :bow:

[rasoforos]

The trouble I see here is this; you would have to spend a huge chunk of your economy on creating a vast military to even slow down a huge threat like Russia.

You can buy a lot of Vodka and leave it at the borders :beam:



Forget resource independence. It is a dinosaur. The modern global economy is too interconnected for said independence to be a viable strategy. You may do it in theory but not without an immensely huge penalty on your GDP.

[HoreTore]

The trouble I see here is this; you would have to spend a huge chunk of your economy on creating a vast military to even slow down a huge threat like Russia. It's unrealistic to expect to be able to do so... it would be like Denmark becoming the 5th greatest military on the planet. Even if you could do so, you'd collapse in on yourself like the Soviet Union.

Hey, I'm pretty damn honest about not caring about national defense in the slightest, I've said a million times that I want the army disbanded(30 billion we could spend on something useful...).

However, the right-wingers want national defense. They want a huge army to defend our country. However, when they instead disband our agriculture, their national defense plan is useless, which is what my original post was about :yes:

[rory_20_uk]

Hey, I'm pretty damn honest about not caring about national defense in the slightest, I've said a million times that I want the army disbanded(30 billion we could spend on something useful...).

However, the right-wingers want national defense. They want a huge army to defend our country. However, when they instead disband our agriculture, their national defense plan is useless, which is what my original post was about :yes:

Who is going to attack these dictators then?

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Who is going to attack these dictators then?

I think it should be pretty damn obvious now that invading a country to remove an unwanted dictator isn't going to work, Iraq is proof of that.(North Korea would be the exception to that rule).

So, it's time to start thinking about new approaches.

[KukriKhan]

So, it's time to start thinking about new approaches.

Maybe some of the super-smart science-types who are working on "climate change" could put more effort into devising a way to neutralize nuclear warheads, a much more imminent threat to humanity.

[HoreTore]

Maybe some of the super-smart science-types who are working on "climate change" could put more effort into devising a way to neutralize nuclear warheads, a much more imminent threat to humanity.

Nah, they can continue working on environmentalism, they're not needed.

All we need to solve that issue, is around 7 guys. And all we would need them to do, is to simply want all nuclear warheads to disappear, and so it shall be done.

Unfortunately, those 7 guys we have don't want that....

[Kralizec]

Norway's national defence plan came up in another thread, didn't it? I'm fairly sure that the detail that Norway only had to hold for a few weeks for the defence plan to be a "success" against the Russians came up somewhere.

Nobody is going to starve to death in that time. I'd be more worried about Russians than grain in a WWIII.

Agreed...

And agricultural welfare = bad.