Let's Ban War!

[Ancalagon]

My Two Cents:

 

Mankind, no matter what the idealists may say, will never give up War. Even if we find peace here on Earth it is unlikely unless all are under control of a Government like that of Orwell's 1984. There is just too much money to be made in weapons R&D, and if anyone recalls what the Wartime economy in WWII did for the US, well there's your other factor. War is a huge producer of money, convenient that Bush should declare a War on Terrorism with 'No forseable end in the near future' or an un-ending total and all out war.

 

War is still possible, regardless if you give everyone nukes. Why do you think we are trying to set up a Missile Defense Shield? Obviously the Pentagon has forseen that Nukes will be used at some point in the future (it's ineveitable anyways) and so they are attempting to once again tip the balance of power in our favor. It's only a matter of time before other countries develop a Nuclear Weapon, and so to make sure that no one uses them (aaginst us, anyways) we decide to establish a Missile Defense System. If the MDS proves infaliable and testworthy they won't be able to touch us (again, if the MDS works at all).

 

So regardless of giving everyone Nukes, or not giving everyone Nukes I say that (with the exception of third world countries) these Nations that are without Nukes will obtain Nuclear Capabilities, either through Arms Trade or R&D, regardless of what we attempt to do.

 

~A.

[Mojlnir]

The idea of supplying every country in the world with an equal amount of nuclear weapons is assinine. The mention of MAD earlier in this discussion needs to be revisited, and seriously. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the general policy pursued by the Soviets and the Americans during the Cold War. This doctrine succeeded in preventing nuclear conflict between the two super powers, not in preventing conflict in general (Vietnam & Afghanistan for starters). MAD is a clinically insane program borne of the misconception that nuclear weapons provide security. Deterrence, which is what you all are arguing in this forum, is the product of Realist thinking that predominated during the Cold War and exists today as a central tennet of the neocon foreign policy.

Giving every country in the world nuclear weapons guarentees nothing other than there are a lot more nuclear weapons floating around than we really need. Every country (including and especially the US) needs to make serious efforts to reduce the stockpiles of weapons and to decrease the importance placed on these weapons. The research of, ownership of, or use of nuclear weapons must be banned by international treaty and enforced by very severe penalties. Also, the Missile Defense Shield (which is a giant piece of crap waste of money...it does not work regardless of what the "government" says) should be heavily developed and then offered to every nation in order to make ICBM's obsolete.

As for war, it will always exist. Perhaps not always in the form of full scale international conflict, but in tribal feuds, territorial disputes and the like. If humanity should be unified under a single Federation, then war-spending will be directed towards making the conquest of other planets possible. Humanity will always be warlike, there is simply nothing for it.

[All]

i would like to add a few comments to the mix here... war under my definition is fighting for a purpose and if you believe in that purpose enough to give your life then you should be able to... terrorism is the attack of inocent pople who are not willing to give their lives for their beliefs or who probab ly wouldnt if asked to...

 

personaly i would give my life if it meant defending my country.

 

another comment... each generation has its enemys germany for old folks russians for younger old people vietnam for younger younger old people and the middle east for me.. and you cant honestly say that during those greatly described generations there wasnt some one afraid of and ready to kill those people.. and right now i am afraid of the middle east and i am ready to go to the middle east and die if i have to

 

 

so i close with a phrase that should be embedded in our minds forever

 

as patrick henry said at the virginia convention

 

 

"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"

[Mojlnir]

It heartens me to see that people have given so much thought to choosing their enemies. Apparently we must go to war out of fear of others who are different from us and our desire to kill them for those differences. The existence of such a mentality will only work to ensure that war continues to plague human existence.

 

Iraq, let alone the entire Middle East, has never once challeneged the liberty or freedoms we enjoy. The only entity that seriously threatens our freedoms are those within our government who would seek to create a police state and trod on the Constitution.

[Malchik]

right now i am afraid of the middle east and i am ready to go to the middle east and die if i have to

'The Middle East' just like that? Anywhere? Is it all the same one homogenous people, one religion, one politics? Of course not. You do yourself a severe disservice if you see it like that.

 

To die in defence of one's country is a fine ideal. Dying in Iraq where the US made an illegal attack on a country that was no threat to it is hardly dying in defence of your country, it is merely a waste of a life. If the current terrorist threat operates from the Middle East for expediency that is not the same as saying 'the Middle East' is a threat. In time I am sure the Al Quaeda threat from Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever it is, will be eliminated. It will not end terrorism. That will move on more subtly disguised.

 

Personally I think the concept of war as we have known it up to now is changing. The world is moving more and more towards terrorism. To go to war, one country has to mobilise national feeling against another (as someone pointed our earlier this is difficult in a democracy). Terrorism can be carried out by small groups of apparently law-abiding citizens in the heart of these democracies. War requires millions of pounds, dollars or whatever. The resources for effective terrorism can be much lower. In war the enemy can be seen and attacked, with terrorism the enemy is often invisible. Nuclear weapons if deployed by terrorists in the US are not going to be launched at it. They will be stolen and detonated in cities by terrorists who do not care if they die in the explosion. How secure are your nukes? Can the sites be hacked into? Can the minders be bought?

 

Giving nukes to every country in the world simply makes this easier.

 

The 'attackers' have moved the goal posts. In order to win the new war the defenders will have to adapt to the new risks. Replying by going to war in the conventional sense will get precisely nowhere.

[Shakkara]

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.

You really should rephrase that in a more coherent form, I don' t understand what you're trying to say.

 

"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.

Same here...

 

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.

Someone needs to police the world? That's utter bullshit, because THAT is the main cause of war! People interfering with others! Nukes are a deterrant, you can turn completely isolationist, and no-one will dare to bother you. You no longer need a real military, and you no longer have to be afraid to be invaded by your neighbours or Rogue State America.

 

 

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.

I don't think it will have to come this far before humanity finally learns... But you never know, humans continue to disappoint me...

[Shakkara]

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.

This is not a problem at all, its one of the GOOD sides. This way, no-one would attack the so-called dictator. No more war you see...

[Shakkara]

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.

Absolutely untrue. Because they can no longer solve their problems in a violent way without getting destroyed themselves, humanity can simply come to understand that they have no reason to hurt eachother and start to coexist peacefully. Maybe after a while they feel completely secure with eachother and dismantle their arsenal.

 

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.

And what does it matter which weapons are used? As soon as a country starts losing a war they'll probably launch to take the other side down along with them. Conventional weapons are useless.

 

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.

Terrorists do not attack for fun, they just use terrorism as a method of warfare because they have no means to do the real thing and openly confront their enemy/oppressors. Fighting them only will bring you more terrorism.

[Shakkara]

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.

Look, that's the way you must deal with these people. I really applaud Switzerland here. These so-called terrorists merely wanted their independance I presume. Now why is that so hard? Why not make Chechenya and Pays Basque (or whatever it's called in Spanish) or Kurdistan (you will get A LOT of problems there later) independant too? Why keep oppressing them in one way or another?

[Shakkara]

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.

There wont be a arms race since everyone will get their stuff at the same time. And a conflict like WW2 would have been ended outright because Germany/Japan would have threatened to use their nukes against the yanks. And they would never occur in the first place since Japan would have been nuked as soon as they invaded China and Germany would have gotten the same once they started rolling into Poland.