What about some plakate/collage dedicated to the (future) Gay Republic Armed Forces? [..]
Vicky!
I hope your idea of "Gay armed forces" was tongue-in-cheek! 
Jaix
No, I am entirely serious about this subject - the Gay State will need armed forces, and very good ones. Considering our low popularity among much of the present states, our physical survival will depend on our ability to defend ourselves. To be sure: we are talking about armed forces of an independent state, not about guerila fighters like IRA within an existing other state. Though gay self-defence paramilitary units might appear as a suitable solution for certain countries, I wouldn't advocate them on this forum.
At this point in time, any reference to gay military forces would, of course, be a purely rhetorical device.
Armed forces are a customary part of the apparatus of the state, however. International law is largely founded upon the threat of armed conflict. Indeed, the current definition of territorial sovereignty requires military control of the territory in question. Without this control, no state is likely to acknowledge a people's sovereignty, no matter how remote the physical location might be.
The role of the military in the function of the state is a controversial topic -- there are many arguments to be made in favor of eschewing such practices. [..]
A state without armed forces is entirely on the grace of its neighbouring states - or enjoys protection by military forces of another state. Few examples are known when states by free pieces abandoned armed forces - mostly those states decided to re-install their military withinn few years thereafter. Recent examples are Germany and Japan, which both were defeated in the WWII and subsecuently occupied. Both countries choosed not to have armies at first, but now they again have good armies. Another example is Costa Rica, but the safety of this country seems to depend from the benevolenth of the United States, therefore is bought by surrendering a part of its souvereignity. But even Costa Rica has armed police.
Surely, military withdraws precious ressources which could be better used elsewhere. Unfortunately, the relpolitiks of the international system do not care much of well-meaning appeals, therefore any responsible government must take precautions that the country is able to defend itself. It is good to pursue non-violence politics, but efficient armed forces are extremely usefull to persuade other countries that they better do not think of using violence as well. Some countries even regard it necessary to posess weapons of mass destruction to withhold other countries from assaulting them. Being a pacifist and a military at the same time is no contradiction - one solely must ensure that the good guys are in a condition to keep the bad guys without weapons.
I have studied diplomatic and military history for the last 35 years.The armed conflict I know best is WWII,especially the part that has to do with the operations on the Russian front.My favourite series of battles is the one of Operation Bagration (Byelorussia,june to august 1944).I am always interested in a discussion about geopolitics.Even better if we can make the connection with a future gay State,its alliances and diplomacy. [..]
Though we are not planning some military operations in the next future (how shall we come to this?)
the military itself is an interesting subject, isn't it? The consensus so far is that we refuse use of violence to find a solution of our territorial question, therefore the hypothetic military doctrin of the future gay state would mostly deal with defence, I guess. The details would depend much of the location - an archipelago inmids of Pacifics requires very different conception from an enclave in Africa.
