More Valuable: Military or Police

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 0TheSwerve0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Military
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the comparative value of military forces versus police forces, exploring their respective roles, effectiveness, and societal importance. Participants engage in a debate that touches on theoretical implications, practical applications, and the nuances of security and law enforcement.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that a strong police force is more valuable in a country facing no significant military threats, emphasizing the role of police in preventing local crime and terrorism.
  • Others contend that the military has capabilities beyond those of the police, particularly in dealing with external threats and broader security issues.
  • One participant suggests that comparing military and police is akin to comparing unrelated entities, indicating the complexity of the question.
  • There are humorous exchanges about the impracticality of military responses to local crime, highlighting the everyday role of police in society.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of police in preventing terrorism, suggesting that military and intelligence capabilities are necessary for broader security.
  • One viewpoint posits that a military can fulfill police functions if allowed to operate domestically, while a police force lacks the capacity to defend against military threats.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of minimizing state law enforcement powers, suggesting a preference for a minimalistic approach to governance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the value and roles of military and police forces remaining unresolved throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying assumptions about national security needs, the effectiveness of different forces in addressing crime and threats, and the implications of military presence in civilian contexts. Participants also express differing opinions on the appropriateness of analogies used in framing the debate.

On which do you place more value, military or police force?

  • Military

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Police Force

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • Total voters
    11
0TheSwerve0
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
On which do you place more value? Would you rather have a better military or Police Force? I realize this value changes in the real world, but I don't think it's a worthless or unanswerable question. Feel free to post reasons, or dissect/flesh out the question further.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would rather have a good police force since my country faces no real military threat. I also think having a big military in this day and age isn't of much use for a defensive country.

A few nuclear weapons as a deterant will prevent just about any invasion and the police force should be responsible for preventing terrorist threats.
 
Both have drastically different purposes, its way too hard to make any real judgements on such a thing. That's like asking what's more important, education or physical activity.
 
I don't think that is the most fitting analogy. Obviously, though, you can make judgements on this, look at the first response. I thought about putting a third option for "both," but I think that's too obvious and doesn't take us into meaningful discussion. I did make the disclaimer on that point so we wouldn't get bogged down.
 
Well I believe the first post didn't take into account that police forces are in no way capable of preventing terrorism, only doing local level reactionary measures in most situations. A good military and it's agencies are more capable of dealing with situations outside borders and keeping a larger "eye" out on things. Both really have their places in society.

I suppose if one were not to think too much into it, a police force would have more value since the nature of police forces today compared to military forces is more direct towards the public. We see the police everyday and they help us with real world problems. When someone robs your house, you don't (although it'd be pretty sweet!) call in the Marines.

haha that would be sweet.

"911 emergency" "yes, someone just robbed my house!" "don't worry sir, the Marines are on their way!"
 
What would the Marines do? The crook's already in the next town. I'd rather have the CIA track him down (because they can!).
 
rachmaninoff said:
What would the Marines do? The crook's already in the next town. I'd rather have the CIA track him down (because they can!).

I don't know! But a tank coming down my street everytime i call 911 sounds pretty sweet!
 
This is not a very good poll, sorry. What do I like more, my left arm or my right arm? (You can only choose one)...yeah...O.K. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Duh, left arm. It's 2% stronger.
 
  • #10
I agree that this is a poll asking about two pretty unrelated things. And the fact of the matter is, a strong, safe, secure country requires both.
 
  • #11
Duh, left arm. It's 2% stronger.

I know why its stronger, wink wink nod nod arooga arooga. Hah, only 2%, how sad!
 
  • #12
Alrighty, nevermind then. Feel free to lock/delete thread.
 
  • #13
Military can act as police, but police cannot act as military. :wink:

It's like asking if a car is better than a house. Of course is it. You can live in a car, but you can't drive a house.
 
  • #14
It's like asking if a car is better than a house. Of course is it. You can live in a car, but you can't drive a house.

What about mobile homes, houseboats, airplane houses?
 
  • #15
Airplane house?
 
  • #16
Yeah, some people live in their airplane, like they own a 737.
 
  • #17
Yah what about mobile homes!
 
  • #18
Cant you read?
 
  • #19
Pengwuino said:
Well I believe the first post didn't take into account that police forces are in no way capable of preventing terrorism, only doing local level reactionary measures in most situations. A good military and it's agencies are more capable of dealing with situations outside borders and keeping a larger "eye" out on things. Both really have their places in society.

But preventing terrorism imo doesn't require any offensive military capability. Just inteligence gathering and good border security. So a bloated military budget doesn't seem justified in my eyes, for my country that is. I am not comparing the states to sweden in anyway and your policies over there must be very different offcourse.


Pengwuino said:
When someone robs your house, you don't (although it'd be pretty sweet!) call in the Marines.

haha that would be sweet.

"911 emergency" "yes, someone just robbed my house!" "don't worry sir, the Marines are on their way!"

parachute troppers cracking down on the alley grandma robbers:-p

Busting up the local meth lab with tanks and rpg's :bugeye:
 
  • #20
You don't need an rpg to blow up a meth lab. People seem to be blowing them up accidentally :biggrin:
 
  • #21
I think it would milltary.If we got rid of the police force and kept the milltary we can it can still do what the police can do(if we let them opperate on u.s. soil)but if we got rid of the milltary and kept the police froce they won't be able to defend the country very well and they don't have fighters/bombers.
 
  • #22
Actually minarchy would be best, not giving the state too much law enforcement powers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
18K