Who thinks that an army is unnecessary?

1) That's right, he could have hurt someone.
2) They have good police, so a fence with spikes isn't necessary. And thieves should be punished by the court, not by vigilante justice with fences and spikes.
3) This kind of idiocy is better than our idiocy.

1) On an electric car with a maximum speed of 5 km/h?
2) The police have nothing to do with it; criminals exist everywhere, and what does vigilante justice have to do with it? A person has the right to protect their property in any way they can, and the fact that the thief cut himself on the iron frame is just his problem.

Idiotism (colloquial: idiocy) (from Ancient Greek: ἰδιωτεία (idioteia) — "ignorance") is the deepest degree of mental retardation.

Thanks, Wikipedia. I don't think that's better.

Back then, there were defenders, yes. Back then, there was a different army.
But now it's not the 20th century. THERE WILL BE NO WAR!

What defenders and army? Peasants who were suddenly dragged into the war, and the army was just as it is now, with problems with supplies, weapons, and hazing (and when wasn't there hazing?). Now everything is approximately the same; if anything happens, even the last Euroset manager will be dragged into the war. And as mentioned above, war can happen at any time, especially since in the 21st century, the consumption of resources is constantly increasing, and they are not infinite. Therefore, future wars may well be over resources that Russia has in abundance, and consequently, there is something to defend.

:smile01:

Australia is a former English colony, just like the USA; I don't think they are fundamentally different. As the light bulb case shows, they don't differ at all.