Guns or butter?

[IglooDame]

Butter, in a heartbeat.

Mr. Heston is not amused.

Mr. Heston might well agree with me. We're not talking self-defense (at least I assume we're not, the OP references Canada as the "butter example", not Kuwait). If we're positing Canada, or Japan, or Switzerland, or Iceland, or Australia, then I see no need for military power projection. If we're positing Kuwait, or an IDF-less version of Israel, or Nepal, or Taiwan, where there are powerful nearby enemies, then obviously the butter must be sacrificed for retaining sovereignty, not just staying off the late-show cue cards.

 

[Berrie]

hmm, butter...

 

[El Koeno]

For all you who have said that as a developing country in an unstable region it is practically impossible to do without guns, I suggest reading up on Costa Rica: It is located in Central America, not exactly the most stable region in the world, but still has managed to do without an army for almost sixty years. The country isn't wrecked at all, it has the highest per capita income in the region.

So I say: Butter!

 

[IglooDame]

For all you who have said that as a developing country in an unstable region it is practically impossible to do without guns, I suggest reading up on Costa Rica: It is located in Central America, not exactly the most stable region in the world, but still has managed to do without an army for almost sixty years. The country isn't wrecked at all, it has the highest per capita income in the region.

So I say: Butter!

A good addition to the "can make do without an army" list, though I'd submit that while the region isn't extremely stable, Costa Rica itself does not have offensive neighbors that bear it ill-will - and it also benefits from the remnants of the Monroe Doctrine and being in the US' backyard.

 

[Atlas14]

Butter for me

 

[Verbose]

If you've got butter, guns become an option. If you lack butter, you will soon find that guns are becoming increasingly out of your reach.

For security reasons, Israel needs to be be able to bring home the butter to maintain it's position at the top of the heap in the Mid East. Should the Israeli economy tank, it won't be able to maintain the relative military security it has at the moment.

So it's guns AND butter. That said, Israel is probably as close to a real life case of the situation the OP describes as we are likely get.

 

[Swedishguy]

Butter, as long as I get Knäckebröd.

I think Sweden is pretty buttery.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Both, like the Swiss.

 

[Leonel]

I think the point is that there has to be a delicate balance of guns and butter depending who your neighbors are. If you have more butter than guns, you could run the risk of a warlike neighbor marching through so they would have all the guns and butter while you'd have none.

But you don't want more guns than butter either 'cause what are those guns for anyway if you have so little butter in the first place?

 

[El Koeno]

What's the use of guns if you haven't got butter?

 

[The Ninja]

If you had guns, you could get all the butter you want...

The Ninja

 

[Leonel]

If you had guns, you could get all the butter you want...

The Ninja

Now you're thinking S-Mart! Just invade the butter countries and alternate whether to convert it to guns or keep it as butter and then take on the guns countries after you got lots of butter and guns!

 

[ArneHD]

Now you're thinking S-Mart! Just invade the butter countries and alternate whether to convert it to guns or keep it as butter and then take on the guns countries after you got lots of butter and guns!

But if everyone thought like that, there would not be enough butter going around to satisfy everyone, and uncomfortably many guns.

 

[Leonel]

But if everyone thought like that, there would not be enough butter going around to satisfy everyone, and uncomfortably many guns.

All the more reason to get as much of your neighbors butter as you can before others get it! If you luck out on a battle with your neighbor with guns, you could convert half their stuff to butter and keep the other half as guns.

You know this should be a strategy game.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Strategy game? This sounds like a crazy idea for a strategy game! I can see it now... "I spent 100 years trying to construct that hospital, then those thieving nomadic Aztecs came in with their army of Riflemen and Cannons and took it strait off of me!"

I mean, what sort of a crazy game could work like that?

 

[mrt144]

butter. there is a point of marginal return on guns, but butter is never going to melt away.

 

[Ansar]

Butter.

xcl

 

[Leonel]

Strategy game? This sounds like a crazy idea for a strategy game! I can see it now... "I spent 100 years trying to construct that hospital, then those thieving nomadic Aztecs came in with their army of Riflemen and Cannons and took it strait off of me!"

I mean, what sort of a crazy game could work like that?

It doesn't have to be a serious strategy game! The only things in it would be guns and butter. It would work kind of like Risk. Each province on a game map would be randomly specified a percentage of guns and butter. You and an opponent start out with all guns. Then you invade your neighbors and decide whether to turn all the butter/guns in a conquered province to either all guns, all butter or a percentage of either. This continues until you face off with your opponent that has been doing the same thing.

It could even be a simple Flash game too.

 

[CaptainF]

Looking at the OP makes me think a bit of Switzerland.

The OP essentially states that choosing guns means that your armed forces have power projection across the globe. Something which isn't really necessary to ensure worldwide respect (in the case of the U.S. it may have even backfired).

Switzerland, as a nation which the OP would probably describe as "Butter" is doing just fine. They have great wealth, of course, but also a top notch military that is there strictly to defend the nation.

That said, I choose butter!

 

[Adamb0mb]

It doesn't have to be a serious strategy game! The only things in it would be guns and butter. It would work kind of like Risk. Each province on a game map would be randomly specified a percentage of guns and butter. You and an opponent start out with all guns. Then you invade your neighbors and decide whether to turn all the butter/guns in a conquered province to either all guns, all butter or a percentage of either. This continues until you face off with your opponent that has been doing the same thing.

It could even be a simple Flash game too.

Throw in points per turn based on the amount of butter you control and a 20 or so turn limit.

Players intially choose some combination of butter and guns and butter rich countries would score big initailly but would have less guns to defend with. This would force the butter hoarders to try to keep the fight on their terms in places where they have their few guns.

On topic... I'd take butter. If I already have butter I don't need to go to war to get it. If I start with just guns I've forced to obtain my butter by conquest which further decreases the quality of life.