Take a Quiz
Take a Random Quiz
What is your ideal military spending (% of GDP)
We face an instable world and many enemy threats: We need >4% GDP (Russia, Israel)
Its better to be overly prepared than defenceless: 3-4% GDP (USA)
A certain military spending is important & reasonable, but its not the top priority: 2-3% GDP (UK, France, Woreld Average)
We should limit our military spending for more important sectors, we are not an immediate target: 1-2% GDP (Germany, China)
Everything beyond a basic defensive military spending is a waste: 0-1% (Japan)
When are military interventions generally justified in your opinion?
Military intervention is murder and this is never justified
Military interventions are only justifiable if backed up & organised by the whole global community (UN)
Military interventions are justifiable to defend human rights, fight authoritarian regimes & protect civil population
Military inrterventions are justifiable to weaken enemy threats that dismiss our liberal democratic way of life or threaten our allies
Military interventiojn is always justified if we need to protect the national interests, protect our economic goals or expand our borders
How do you think about military service?
Every citizen should obligatory serve at least 2 years in our national military. Those who serve longer, deserve special honour
Compulsory military service is a good thing to shape our citizens and keep our military vivid: 1 year for everyone
Military service should be encouraged but not compulsory
Im against compulsory military service or encouraging it: its the decision of the individual
If a military exists at all, only professional soldiers should get into contact with military action. No civil military service!
Lets look at specific situations: Xinjiang and the supposed human rights violations. How would you act?
Any military intervention would only harm the people and force China to threaten their population even more. It produces more harm than good
Until we dont know about the exact circumstances in Xinjiang yet & until we dont have the global community behind us and until we havent used any possible diplomatic or economic action, a military action is not justified
We should try diplomatic or economic pressure first, but a militaric intervention is definitely justifiable regarding the circumstances
Diplomacy doesnt help with authoritarian regimes, so we should create a global alliance first until we can make a targeted militaric intervention, but with as little unnecessary harm as possible
The human rights situation there doesnt give us any other choice and obligates us morally to intervene with militaric means immediately
What do you think about the current US military budget? (778 billion UDS / 3,7% GDP)
The US should even expand its military to protect its goals and allies. The current situation is still too instable
The current US military budget is definitely justified regarding its enemies and the global terror
The US military budget is understandable but could be lowered to set free money for other fields
The US military budget is definitely too big and should be lowered, most of the missions dont reach their intended goal and the money is needed elsewhere
The US military budget should be drastically lowered, it cant be justified to spend all the money into "World Police" but fail to provide its citizens with essentials
Regarding the "Waron Terror" in the middle east after 911, how do you think about interventions and actions in Iraq, Syria, Lybia,...
Any militaric action is a threat to a peaceful world and none of these nations that have beenm intervened into are better off now. Lybia f ex is far worse off than under Ghaddafi
The militaric interventions mostly werent helpful, as the situation is barely any better than decades before and I agree to the army leaving Afghanistan
Some of the military action was justified but the used strategy failed andc has to be rethought
Intervening in the middle east was necessary after global terror threatened the civil security and without our action, the situation would be out of control
Every military action in teh middel east was absolutely necessary and the fact that the situation is still critical only shows that we would need to intervene way more into the war on terror
Do you agree that European NATO members should rise their budget to 2% GDP as they agreed to do so?
I find it unacceptable that the US needs to spend almost 4% to protect Europe while they spend their money elsewhere. Every european country needs at least 2% GDP military spending
European countries should increase their budget gradually to at least 2%, if not higher to be strong and independant against foreign threats
I am happy with the current spendings of many european countries below 2%, but they agreed to have at least 2% GDP military spending, so its the correct thing to do
No, european military spendings are good as they are right now or should be even lowered a bit. I oppose this 2% GDP goal within NATO
No, every additionally spend money into military is money that lacks in other important fields. We dont need that much protection and we also dont need that many US soldiers in Europe. The 2% goal is a waste of money
You are a country in ca 1938 shortly before WW2. The German Reich has installed an authoritarian fascist regime and is about to integrate Austria and the Sudetenland. How do you react as a country? (Note: do not consider the Holocaust in this scenario because it isnt reality or theory yet at this time)
I would not intervene. The German people chose their politics and the integrated territories joined on free will and peaceful. We cant provoque an unnecessary european war like in 1914-1918 again
I would stay cautious but Im not convinced of the rumours of an expansionist german state yet. I would observe the situation and try any diplomatic means first
I would stay highly cautious, try to pressure Germany diplomatically and economically and connect with the international community to have a strong counter-force to use if necessary. I only would use military action defensively tho
We have to actively connect with the international community, strenghten our armies and pressure the hell out of Germany to prevent them from running over Europe. If necessary, I would consider a first militaric attack action too if anything else fails
We cannot allow any fascist authoritarian state that even annexes foreign territories. If we dont act immediately by atatcking Germany united, then we will face a dystopian scenario that we have to do anything to prevent it
You face the threat of a geopolitical concurrent with an inherently different political system and contradicting interests. (You are not yet at war with this country). How should your military budget be in comparison to theirs?
We need to dominate them by spending 1,5-2x as much as them. That way they wont even think about attacking us and we have thzem in our control
We shpould seek to spend a bit more than them always, so that we are in a tendencial control situation without excessively spending too much
We always should have the same military spending than them and get an advantage through superior technology. Thats an efficient way to not be in danger while not spending too much money
It is sufficient to have 70-80% of their spending, this way they will still see an atatck as very expensive and wasteful
Every military spending increase will increase the tensions between us and also make them increase their spendings even more. We have to decrease our military spending as a consequence
You are a country deep within WW2 and the rumours of Holocaust have made it through already and have been confirmed. How do you act?
We dont have the moral obligation to care for every suffering because its not our fault, but we have the moral obligation to not make the situation worse for our citizens by dragging them into the war. We have to stay neutral
We have the obligation to act upon this most cruel act in human history, but we have other means than militaric, such as underground networks, refugee shelters, counter-propaganda
If its possible and realistic, we should make targeted single militaric actions to liberate the concentration camps and else to defend our & allied citizens. But we shouldnt actively take part in the bigger war that involves bombings of towns & citizens and kills millions of innocent people
We should join the war with the allied countries to defeat Germany, but we shouldnt support or take part in civil bombings
We should do everything possible to quickly and effectively defeat Nazi Germany, including the demoralisation of the civil population. This way we end the war most effectively and prevent further years of suffering
In case an enemy nation seeks to make a neutral nation with geopolitical strategic importance an ally of them (as with Vietnam & Afghanistan and the Soviets). How would you act?
We have absolutely no right to intervene in neutral nations and make the lives of their citizens worse just for fighting another nation
The most we should try is to peacefully try to get the population and politics of this country to our side but we shouldnt militarily intervene
We should seek to make an agreement with the enemy nation to split up the neutral nation. That way we avoid a war, have a quick solution and keep up the geostrategic balance
We should consider and prepare for a militaric intervention but firts try to negotiate with the enemy and the neutral nation for a peaceful solution
We must intervene with militaric means to ensure our geostrategic dominance in thsi region