Let's Ban War!

[Shakkara]

All weapons can have their unfortunate side effects.

In duel circumstances personel weapons have none.

For those that cannot behave there are still melee weapons.

 

If you have to do warfare then do it with melee weapons and duels, and if someone breaks the rules use nukes. Nothing in between. I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

[Malchik]

Off topic, but in response to Shakkara's last post:-

 

If every country had nukes it might stop wars between coutries with sane govenments. Sadly there are those out there who would not care what happened to their own people. Indeed they might even have a misguided view that they would end up in paradise.

 

Years ago there was a film called War Games in which the computer worked out, on its own, that there could be no winner in a nuclear war and that no one would therefore be stupid enough to start one. While I agree with the first conclusion I am not so sanguine about the second.

[Peregrine]

In duel circumstances personel weapons have none.

For those that cannot behave there are still melee weapons.

 

If you have to do warfare then do it with melee weapons and duels, and if someone breaks the rules use nukes. Nothing in between. I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

 

Now there's a brilliant idea... if you're living in some imaginary world where reality doesn't apply. Just who do you intend to enforce the rules? And why would the people in power (and with the nukes to enforce the laws) give up their military power for your idealism?

 

Lets deal with reality here. Melee weapons in war are a distant memory.

[Zmid]

I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only is the acronym (MAD) very apt for this, but when you think about it, so is the full name - if we go back to this, sooner or later someone will launch through madness, stupidity or simply not thinking anyone else will actually retaliate, and it will be a case of 'bye, bye humanity, nice knowing you'.

[Shakkara]

Off topic, but in response to Shakkara's last post:-

 

If every country had nukes it might stop wars between coutries with sane govenments.  Sadly there are those out there who would not care what happened to their own people.  Indeed they might even have a misguided view that they would end up in paradise. 

Wars usually comes from interfering with others. This is no longer possible when everyone has nukes, since you cannot force any other country to do anything anymore. Every country can turn isolationist and exist in peace.

 

Years ago there was a film called War Games in which the computer worked out, on its own, that there could be no winner in a nuclear war and that no one would therefore be stupid enough to start one.  While I agree with the first conclusion I am not so sanguine about the second.

"the only way to win is not to play"

Well India and Pakistan have done very well until now, and a lot of Islamic states simply want the west to stop interfering with their business, which is exactly what will happen. I give it a good chance that we'll be fine.

 

 

=================================================

 

In duel circumstances personel weapons have none.

For those that cannot behave there are still melee weapons.

 

If you have to do warfare then do it with melee weapons and duels, and if someone breaks the rules use nukes. Nothing in between. I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

Now there's a brilliant idea... if you're living in some imaginary world where reality doesn't apply. Just who do you intend to enforce the rules? And why would the people in power (and with the nukes to enforce the laws) give up their military power for your idealism?

Who enforces the rules? Everyone does, and no-one does of course. Everyone can simply make the choise to use agreed-upon rules (which may change over time) or face destuction by their 'opponent'. Why those in power want to give it up? Because they no longer have to police the world, and they can drastically decrease militairy spending and use the money for better things.

 

Lets deal with reality here. Melee weapons in war are a distant memory.

Well time to make it reality then.

 

But all this is getting off topic. The subject for debate here is depleted uranium, not war in general.

 

Then do some moderation and fix my triple post!

 

=====================================================

 

I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only is the acronym (MAD) very apt for this, but when you think about it, so is the full name - if we go back to this, sooner or later someone will launch through madness, stupidity or simply not thinking anyone else will actually retaliate, and it will be a case of 'bye, bye humanity, nice knowing you'.

The benefits of this system are simply worth that risk.

 

=====================================================

 

Triple post fixed. Don't do it again.

-Peregrine

[Peregrine]

Wars usually comes from interfering with others. This is no longer possible when everyone has nukes, since you cannot force any other country to do anything anymore. Every country can turn isolationist and exist in peace.

 

Except you're wrong. Are you honestly ignorant enough to think some country that can't even afford to feed its people is going to have enough nukes to stop an invasion? All that would do is make the nukes the first target. Lets look at the Iraq war in your dream world:

 

Negotiations fail, and Bush decides it's time for war. Let's even be overgenerous and say Iraq has missiles capable of reaching the US. Now, what happens? Well, maybe Iraq decides to nuke an American city or two then gets turned into a glass crater as the US replies with a hundred times more nukes. Or perhaps Bush and Saddam both see that would be the outcome, and Saddam doesn't want his country erased from the map. So he doesn't fire first, Bush doesn't want American casualties and a useless conquest, so he doesn't fire either. Now we've got the exact same war anyway, but with the rist of massively increased casualties.

 

Look at history. All giving every side nukes does is make them fight with other weapons.

 

 

And what happens when the US (or even any other country) deploys its missile defense system in however many years? There goes your balance of power.

 

"the only way to win is not to play"

Well India and Pakistan have done very well until now, and a lot of Islamic states simply want the west to stop interfering with their business, which is exactly what will happen. I give it a good chance that we'll be fine.

 

And the US and Soviet Union did pretty well for 50 years. Not a single nuke launched. But we sure managed to kill each other just fine in at least two major wars....

 

Who enforces the rules? Everyone does, and no-one does of course. Everyone can simply make the choise to use agreed-upon rules (which may change over time) or face destuction by their 'opponent'. Why those in power want to give it up? Because they no longer have to police the world, and they can drastically decrease militairy spending and use the money for better things.

 

Please, don't be such a blind idealist. Why would the people with power want to hand more weapons to their (potential) enemies? Who would maintain and operate those nukes, not to mention providing them to begin with? You think all that comes free?

 

Well time to make it reality then.

 

As I said, it's never going to happen. The only people that would benefit are the people without power right now. The people with the power to change the system are the ones that benefit the most from it! And even if they did, all that would happen is a new arms race and everyone ignoring the rules.

 

The benefits of this system are simply worth that risk.

 

Ugh, are you really that ignorant? It's not a risk, it's suicide. We didn't survive 50 years of it because it was a good system. We survived because we got lucky!

 

What happens if some terrorist decides the unholy Americans must die? Or maybe the wrong military officer wakes up depressed and decides that if he's going to commit suicide he's going to make the world notice?

 

A nuclear missile takes about 30 minuites to reach its target. Of course with no missile defense system, there's nothing you can do to stop it and no time for evacuations, but you've got plenty of time to figure out exactly who's going to die.

 

Now what happens while it's in flight? First the target knows they're dead anyway, so they launch all their missiles at every enemy they can think of. And the new targets do the same, then the allies get into the fun.

 

End result? Say goodbye to the world. For someone who claims to value the lives of innocent civilians so much, you sure don't act like it...

[Breton Thief Oriana]

I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only is the acronym (MAD) very apt for this, but when you think about it, so is the full name - if we go back to this, sooner or later someone will launch through madness, stupidity or simply not thinking anyone else will actually retaliate, and it will be a case of 'bye, bye humanity, nice knowing you'.

 

The benefits of this system are simply worth that risk.

ya dont seem to get it. If everything is gone, then it would have been better having either: 1.) nothing there in the first place, or 2.) no weapons to CAUSE it. at least that way all the resources arent tampered with if aliens need to use them.

 

"the only way to win is not to play"

Well India and Pakistan have done very well until now, and a lot of Islamic states simply want the west to stop interfering with their business, which is exactly what will happen. I give it a good chance that we'll be fine.

 

which is BS becayse they WOULDVE played had it not been dealt with be anyone at all. Not that america is the country for this, the UN is the thing for this.

 

Who enforces the rules? Everyone does, and no-one does of course. Everyone can simply make the choise to use agreed-upon rules (which may change over time) or face destuction by their 'opponent'. Why those in power want to give it up? Because they no longer have to police the world, and they can drastically decrease militairy spending and use the money for better things.

 

you would have a country commit millitary suicide? Thats what happens when they give up power. We need SOMEONE to police the world from doing wrong. Provided, we dont want them to make a profit off of it. But, without a nation in power, all the others, be them blindly rabid fanatics (ya know, like you?), or insane, ruthless dictators, theyd still kill EVERYONE on the PLANET for NO REASON! which would be HORRIBLE! someone seriously needs to give you a clue.

 

Well time to make it reality then.

 

Eventually, as soon as you get your triggerhappy nuke wish, and they all go off, if there is a group of survivors, they will come to a point of having melee weapons to use, once they get to that point.

[Darnoc]

Some years ago there was a voting in Switzerland. It was an initiative and its goal was to abolish the army. The arguments were that Switzerland doesn't really need an army and that it only costs money which could be used for better things than for weapons. And they also said that Switzerland as symbol of peace and neutrality should be an example to the rest of the world in doing what is right, meaning to abolish weapons and armies.

 

Of course the voting failed. Elderly Swiss people are very proud of Swiss history and it was written with the blood of Swiss freedom fighters, who fought against the tyranny of the foreign rulers. And the problem is that mostly elderly people go to votings. And that is why the initiative had no chance.

 

I wasn't 18 then, so I couldn't vote. But I would have voted to abolish the army. Switzerland is a role model and a symbol to the rest of the world. It shows how things could be and how the problems could be solved. We have the most direct democracy in the world, we are neutral. And here such organizations as Red Cross have their origin. Here several cultures live together mostly peacefully (at least compared to other countries around us).

 

When we have so much to be proud of, why not add something more? Switzerland the first nation in the world officially abolishing the army and showing the rest of the world that you can live without army and peacefully. It is sad that the voting didn't get the "yes" from the people of Switzerland. But wait ten years, perhaps then we are ready...

[Hayabusa]

I think the problem with wars and aboslihisng the army is there are some principles that must be present.

In case of Switzerland, yes, it could be possible as there is no true enemy in sight. Who would TODAY attack the Switzerland? Italy? France? What for?

the problem is there are just a few countries in so good situation.

We here do have a dictature just at the border - it`s Belarussian President Lukaszenko. He`s not so bloody as Saddam, but it`s hard to say what can he do in next few years and if he`s reliable or not.

 

With nukes, there is another problem - it`s hard to say that noone would dare to use it. I remember some books about the last few months of the third reich and it was obvious if Hitler had had the nukes ho would have used it just for venegance, without care for the future.

Again, it`s hard to say that a dictator wouldn`t use it`s nuke arsenal rather to make the doom than to give up.

 

There is a better way, though. The democracy. I remember an article describing coincidencies between spreding of democracy and wars. There are no cases two democratic countries are on war with each other, democracy is really good to make the situation stable with no more fights.

 

Well there`s still a question if it is possible to make all countries democratic. But that would be off topic.

And another, little problem is WWI, when, after long peaceful existence the democracies voted for war, that was supposed to be quick and resulted in endless carnage and another conflicts. It could be a lesson that is to be remembered all over the world, but is it? I wish it was.

[Zmid]

I still say every country should have nukes, would stop a lot of wars.

The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only is the acronym (MAD) very apt for this, but when you think about it, so is the full name - if we go back to this, sooner or later someone will launch through madness, stupidity or simply not thinking anyone else will actually retaliate, and it will be a case of 'bye, bye humanity, nice knowing you'.

The benefits of this system are simply worth that risk.

I can't really see how you can say that. MAD may work as a TEMPORARY solution, so you have a point there, but if it is maintained as a PERMANENT solution, as I said, sooner or later, someone will launch. This means MAD guarantees the destruction of the Human Race if it is used as a permanent solution.

 

Also, as Peregrine quite rightly pointed out, even if MAD does work as intended, it only really means that more conventional weapons are used in the wars that break out. In fact, I would go further and say it could even encourage countries to develop massively powerful non-nuclear weapons which cause almost the same amount of damage and use them instead.

 

I wasn't 18 then, so I couldn't vote. But I would have voted to abolish the army. Switzerland is a role model and a symbol to the rest of the world. It shows how things could be and how the problems could be solved. We have the most direct democracy in the world, we are neutral. And here such organizations as Red Cross have their origin. Here several cultures live together mostly peacefully (at least compared to other countries around us).

 

I agree with the principle you are putting forward here, but the sad fact is that there are many countries who would view this as a weakness, and this would hurt Switzerland politically. Not only that, there is a chance terrorists would see this as an opportunity, and if you did this, you may find your country suffers wave after wave of attempted or actual terrorist attacks.

 

EDIT - Response to Darnoc's post.