Let's Ban War!

[Darnoc]

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.

 

No, I don't think this is the case. First, nobody is interested in attacking Switzerland. What for? And Secondly, the image of Switzerland is of an island of peace and neutrality, and Switzerland is accepted this way everywhere in the world. This is why a lot of negotiations take place there and why Swiss diplomats and helpers (like from the Red Cross) are also accepted everywhere in the world. So when the image stands why not make it even more true by truly taking away what hinders peace: weapons and an army. And let me remember you that Switzerland was never attacked by terrorists. The only thing which came close to it were the minor attacks of the Jurassian Seperatists against the people of Bern. After they achieved their goal, the foundation of Kanton Jura, the attacks stopped. They were never really dangerous at all.

[ohGr]

every country should have nukes to stop war?

 

thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard, if one country builds a nuke, the rest feel insecure, and build some of their own, the others feel threatened, and one big loophole begins, untill we all sit there thinking what to do with the damn things, in some cases, use them, but there is really no point to having nukes at all, sure, if there were no nukes, WW2 would have went for another year or more, and we wouldnt have protestors out on the street not really contributing to society, just making a mess.

[The Vagrant]

The world and war can end two ways:

 

An uncontrolable fource enters (a disease, bambardment of meteors, aliens, ect.)

 

or

 

Complete destruction of absolutly everyone.

 

As long as there are people there will be the possability of war. Even a slight possability is an eventuallity if the subject is not wiped out by an uncontrollable fource.

 

Say that the odds of some nation starts a system wide nuke war are about 1:1,000,000,000 in the next 10 years

 

Consider that odd a dice roll that is rolled every 10 years that the human race isn't completly wiped out by some uncontrolable force and you'r eventually roll a winner.

 

Do the same to the odds that the war started wipes out everyone, a bit higher but still a possability.

[Wookiee]

or we break everyones thumbs off lets see em build wepons of mass distruction without thumbs

[ohGr]

i could imagine that

 

"quick, push the emergency button"

"i cant....lost me thumb"

 

or while building a nuke

 

"spanner..."

"whoops...dropped another one"

 

the possibilities are endless there.

[Shakkara]

Triple post fixed. Don't do it again.

-Peregrine

Cannot do it any other way because the QUOTING SYSTEM SUCKS!

 

Cannot quote multiple posts, cannot edit quoted before posting (since they appear in the seperate window), so for every post I want to quote I have to make a new post.

 

Fix it.

[Shakkara]

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.

 

Wrong. I don't mean giving every country one or two nukes, I mean giving them at least 20, 50, 100 whatever. This way the US cannot bully Iraq around in the first place, nor invade it at all, or else SH will just wipe the a large part of the US off the earth. No more war, because when one side starts losing there is a large chance they'll launch because they lose anyway.

 

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.

Then other countries will launch against them before they can deploy it.

 

"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.....

In other countries they bullied around, something they can no longer do now.

 

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?

Don't give a damn where they come from. Let the UN provide them for free if they have to or sponsor North Korea :P

 

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.

Well people shouldnt be so damn selfish... And there won't be an arms race because there isn't any need for more weapons.

 

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...

 

There would be much less terrorism because no-one will interfere with them and no-one is able to bully them around. And you only look at the small chance that something goes wrong. You do not take into account that mankind could finally grow up and just live peacefully. It's a chance we should take, because the current course of action leads no-where anyway.

 

I'll reply to the rest of you when I get home.

[Malchik]

I think I'll have to give the thumbs down to that Wookiee :lol:

 

I think we need to be a bit careful not to confuse ignorance and idealism. Ignorance means not knowing, it is not the same as deliberately ignoring what you don't like because it doesn't suit you. The idealist will say, it doesn't matter, there will be a way around it. And indeed there probably will, though whether in a means acceptable to the majority is another matter.

 

So I will not accuse you of ignorance, Shakkara. However I think you are ignoring rather a lot. I saw a post elsewhere in which you wondered why groups of people could not be left to live in isolation. As with the question of balance of nukes, it all comes down to economics. To survive, most societies have to trade, even if only at the bartering level. The moment a society needs another's goods it cannot remain isolated. And any contact brings with it the threat of conflict. It is the same with nuclear weapons. Societies with money can build them. Those without cannot (or not in sufficient numbers to bring about balance.) And it is not simply 'having' them. It is maintaining them, having launching capacity, having secure storage etc. So even if your idea worked in theory (and I have already voiced doubts about that) it is certainly not practical.

 

As others have pointed out, having a nuclear arsenal has not stopped wars. It only means they are conducted using conventional weapons.

 

Finally, you seek a return to fighting using melee weapons. In parts of Africa machete's and the like have been used to perpetrate genocide. Wars are not fought using a code of rules. Using machetes did not stop innocents being killed.

 

If your real wish is for people to be different it is certainly one I can share but it's not going to happen in the short term!

 

BTW I was working on this while you were posting the last post and so I had not seen it.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

(Peregrine @ Mar 18 2004, 09:16 PM)

 

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.

 

 

Then other countries will launch against them before they can deploy it.

 

which, again, is a rabid anti-United-States statement. The whole premise is that this wont work. We need everyone in the world to get rid of their differences and weapons to become completly "peaceful" as you put it. But, weapons, like everything else, are tools. And, likewise, real tools, such as hammers and screwdrivers, can be used as weapons. Its man who is a primate by using tools. We became sentient by making the first step and picking up a stick to use to get food. And, that stick was a weapon too. Man hunted with it. In fact, if we ate all their radioactive corpses, wed get the sickness too.

[Zmid]

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.

 

Wrong. I don't mean giving every country one or two nukes, I mean giving them at least 20, 50, 100 whatever. This way the US cannot bully Iraq around in the first place, nor invade it at all, or else SH will just wipe the a large part of the US off the earth. No more war, because when one side starts losing there is a large chance they'll launch because they lose anyway.

A few problems with this. Firstly, who, exactly, is going to give away nukes to everyone? There are very few countries, if any at all, with the capability to produce enough nukes to supply the entire world with the amounts you're talking about here, certainly in a short time. Also, can you really see America, or Britain, for example, giving nukes to, say, Iran? Or Syria? Or Iraq as it was under Saddam? Or even allowing them to get nukes from elsewhere? I most certainly don't.

 

Secondly, as Malchik has already pointed out, the nukes themselves are only half the battle (no pun intended).

 

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.

Then other countries will launch against them before they can deploy it.

 

Then we have America's allies launching against those countries' date=' then those countries allies launching against America's allies, and so on and so forth. Result? Bye, bye humanity, nice knowing you.

 

Why would the people with power want to hand more weapons to their (potential) enemies? Who would maintain and operate those nukes' date=' not to mention providing them to begin with? You think all that comes free?[/quote']Don't give a damn where they come from. Let the UN provide them for free if they have to or sponsor North Korea :P

 

OK' date=' fair enough, that's what you think, but it doesn't really answer the question. Despite the fact the UN is essentially committed to peace, in that situation, it would only supply nukes to countries the main members could trust. Where would the other countries get their nukes? You say to sponsor North Korea, but the simple fact of the matter is that it will take quite a significant length of time for North Korea to be in a situation where it is [u']physically able[/u] to supply all these countries, and this time would probably be measured in decades, not years, even if nobody stood in their way and everybody simply stood and watched them do it.

 

The benefits of this system are simply worth that risk.

Ugh' date=' 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...[/quote']There would be much less terrorism because no-one will interfere with them and no-one is able to bully them around.

 

Except that nukes are absolutely useless against terrorists, and they know it. The thing about nukes is they generally cause damage on a massive scale over a large area. Terrorists are small, elusive targets that fairly often operate within the borders of the target country or a country that does not knowingly harbour them. You can't exactly launch a nuke at them in that situation, can you?

 

And you only look at the small chance that something goes wrong. You do not take into account that mankind could finally grow up and just live peacefully. It's a chance we should take' date=' because the current course of action leads no-where anyway.[/quote']

 

You have a point that Peregrine (and me) look on the risk of something going wrong. Speaking personally, this is because, from what I have seen, that's no risk, that's a certainty, sooner or later.