Let's Ban War!

[Luxar]

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?

 

Thanks for such a positive comment on my country, I am honored :D . The whole affair was that in Kanton Bern (where I live) a minority of the population was French speaking. Those are the people who lived in the part of Bern which lied in the Jura (a chain of hills in the north of Switzerland; the jurassic geologic period is called after those hills). Now a minority of those "Jurassians" are Protestants, like the rest of the people living in Bern. But the majority of Jurassians are Catholics and they have a whole different culture than the one of Bern. So they demanded (reasonably) independence and their own Kanton.

 

A seperation movement was founded and they launched some attacks against Bern and the Bernese government. Also they destroyed some monuments or stole cultural important stuff (like the "Unspunnen-Stein", a very important cultural item to the people of the Bernese Oberland, my people). The Bernese and the Swiss government agreed that their wish was reasonable and gave them their own Kanton Jura 1979. So Jura is the youngest of all Kantons of Switzerland. But the Protestant minority of Jurassians stayed with Bern. Unlike in Northern Ireland, you can draw clear borders in Switzerland where which religion is. So it was also in the Jura, there you can draw a clear line where the Protestant and where the Catholics live.

 

Now my question is: What is so wrong about demanding independence? And why have some nations so much problems giving independence to minorities, like the Bascians in Spain and France or the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Iran?

The problem with granting independence to these people is the way those trying to gain freedom go about doing it. Taking lives and stealing things is not a good way to go about getting what you want.

 

Take for example a very small scale thing:

Your brother wants to be given his own room. A reasonable enough demand from a teenager. However, instead of appealing to his parents to be given this, he sets fire to the kitchen or steals his mom's jewelry. There is NO WAY your parents are going to give your brother his own room now. Its basically the same thing that the Bascians are doing, only on a much grander scale.

[Malchik]

This idea of giving independence to groups of people sounds fine in theory but is not always as easy to implement as it sounds. In the Swiss example Jura became a canton with a certain autonomy. However it is still part of Switzerland and subject, I presume, to Swiss federal law. In the UK we have regional parliaments for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland but they are still subject to the central government on many issues. It should be possible to devolve a level of autonomy to small ethnic groups, provided they live in an easily defined area, but full independence may not be practical. Except where some form of subsistence economy is accepted as the basis for living, many such groups are not economically viable. Secondly, where the ethnic group is a majority, the history of treatment of minority groups is far from positive. (Take Kosovo as a recent example.) Thirdly, realistically, which nation is going to approve the setting up of a fully independent country within its own borders, and who would want to be a nation so surrounded? There could be no 'independence' as such.

 

There may be cases where a group is large enough and the land covered of sufficient size to permit full independence (Kurdistan, maybe) by they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

Once when I was in the US I was talked to by a group of individuals in western Oklahoma State. Their county disgreed with State (and effectively Federal) policy on a particular matter and they were in conversation with like other minded counties in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and IIRC Colorado with the idea of trying to form their own state. I cannot see the US government taking kindly to the establishment of a quasi-autonomous 'state' that was promoting policies in direct contravention of the national constitution.

 

People all want different things and are usually unwilling to uproot their lives to find them. We have to seek compromise on all sides. Sadly, independence for every group that wants it is not a realistic answer.

[Darnoc]

This idea of giving independence to groups of people sounds fine in theory but is not always as easy to implement as it sounds. In the Swiss example Jura became a canton with a certain autonomy. However it is still part of Switzerland and subject, I presume, to Swiss federal law.

 

Yes, this was the whole idea. The Jurassians never wanted independence from Switzerland, they only wanted their own Kanton and independence from the Bernese kantonal government. And this is what they got.

 

And I also see that sometimes it is not reasonable. But in ethnical, cultural and religious minorities large enough it is reasonable, like the Kurds or the Basques or the Palestinians.

[Zmid]

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' date=' so you have a point there' date=' but if it is maintained as a PERMANENT solution, as I said, sooner or later, someone will launch. This means MAD [u']guarantees[/u] the destruction of the Human Race if it is used as a permanent solution.[/quote']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.

 

This is assuming, of course, that every human in a position of power, whether it be as the leader of a country, or simply being in charge of a nuclear missile silo, is sensible, peace-loving and cares about the welfare of the Human Race as a whole, and is not willing to pay in their countrymen's blood to achieve their goal. This is simply not the case. A quick glance at the leaders of the countries of the world will tell you this.

 

And, of course, assuming those in charge of missile silos, etc, are mentally stable and accidental launches never occur.

 

Also' date=' as Peregrine quite rightly pointed out' date=' 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.[/quote'']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.

 

Which is surely a reason why MAD won't work? As we have seen, MAD doesn't eliminate wars, so surely this means MAD makes nuclear war MORE likely, not less?

 

I wasn't 18 then' date=' 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' date=' 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).[/quote'']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.

 

First of all, I am a bit puzzled as to where you think I said, or even implied, that 'terrorists attack for fun'. I am well aware that terrorists take their activities very seriously. Secondly, whilst I do agree with Darnoc's principle, that there should be no need for an army, the sad fact is that there is, even if it's a relatively small one. My point was that if Switzerland announced their army was abolished and would be disbanded, the terrorists would think, 'Switzerland is now weak. It has no army, so it probably won't catch us if we try to plant a bomb there.' Yes, Switzerland has a reputation for neutrality, but the terrorists don't really care about that. They just want to bring attention to their cause.

 

Wrong. I don't mean giving every country one or two nukes' date=' I mean giving them at least 20' date=' 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.[/quote'']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).

The US has too much nukes, and yes, I expect them to give their excess away to countries like Iran or Syria. Would at least stop them from EVER interfering with their business again.

 

You have said you expect the US to give their nukes to Iran or Syria, but why would they do this? Would someone force them to do so? If so, who? The UN? Unlikely. NATO? Again, unlikely. Any other suggestions?

 

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' date=' and so on and so forth. Result? Bye, bye humanity, nice knowing you.[/quote'']No, the US wouldn't be so stupid to develop a defense shield in the first place.

 

Frankly, if you think that this is the case for the US government and every other government on the planet, I think you are incredibly naive.

 

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']

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 physically able 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.[/quote']We simply need to develop them globally. The US, China and Russia can all produce a lot and then give them to countries that are unable to create their own. Plus, they already have large stockpiles they can hand out.

 

First of all, who is 'we'? Secondly, to reiterate my point, given that countries will NEVER just give nukes to countries they feel they can't trust, who will supply nukes to the countries who can't develop them themselves and aren't sufficiently trusted by any country that can?

 

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' date=' and they know it. The thing about nukes is they generally cause damage on a massive scale over a large area. Terrorists are small' date=' 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?[/quote'']There would be hardly any terrorism because everyone can now fight the bully. I said it before, terrorism exists BECAUSE of some nations being so powerful that they cannot be defeated in conventional ways, but those nations continue to INTERFERE in other people's affairs. This would be completely impossible in my scenario.

 

Terrorists are terrorists for many reasons. For some, it is because they believe their religion demands it. For yet others, it is basically because they have been given a raw deal in life and blame the West/the East/the Arabs/Palestine/Israel/whoever for it. For yet others, they believe they're fighting to protect their country. For yet more, they believe they're fighting to free their people from oppression. I could go on, but that gives you a taster of what I mean. Your scenario would eliminate one reason for terrorism. There are many others.