World peace

[Samildanach]

Perhaps instead of getting rid of nuclear weapons we should just share out the ones we have. If we gave every country five nukes then everyone would be too scared to go to war with each other. On the upside it would probably also solve the Iran/ Iraq conflict through mutual annilation.

[Osborn F Enready]

Man = Competition

There will never be world peace while more than one man is on Earth.

We are born in to competition, with nature. We always die and lose that battle.

In between there are many skirmishes and movements, but every choice in life is a matter of competition against either our fellow man, or nature itself.

World peace is the equivalent of Utopia. Not possible.

[Samildanach]

Anything is possible people just have to believe is all. IF you distributed nukes to every country for example no one would invade anybody anymore.

[bishop]

assuming that the countries' leaders wouldn't be psychotic enough to push the red button.

this idea could eliminated state-state conflict.. it definitely won't do much for solving internal problems. suppose everyone had the bomb before ww2 kicked off.. hitler could've done whatever he wanted to the jews, because they'd all know that he had nukes to threaten them with.

[oranged]

Quote by: Samildanach Perhaps instead of getting rid of nuclear weapons we should just share out the ones we have. If we gave every country five nukes then everyone would be too scared to go to war with each other. On the upside it would probably also solve the Iran/ Iraq conflict through mutual annilation.

Mutual annilation is always good isn't it. I think it's about time we send all the nukes to the sun. One well placed nuke could really destroy the world by hitting other nukes and causing a chain reaction.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: oranged Mutual annilation is always good isn't it. I think it's about time we send all the nukes to the sun. One well placed nuke could really destroy the world by hitting other nukes and causing a chain reaction.

I don't think it's that easy to start a chain reaction, at least not in the way you mean. Actually it is a chain reaction that makes them explode. The bomb goes off when you blast one piece of Uranium into another, making the chunk big enough to reach critical mass.

Now, a hydrogen bomb needs an atomic bomb as a detonator but I'm still not sure if a nearby a-bomb explosion would do it.

Anyone far enough along in physics to help out?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: bishop assuming that the countries' leaders wouldn't be psychotic enough to push the red button.

That's the problem. MAD only works when both sides know they will lose FAR too much no matter who wins. If you have some psycho thinking he will prevail if he just hits first then all bets are off. The entire population of the ME doesn't impress me as being all that stable, to be honest. At least not those in a position of power over others. If there ARE good, decent people in the Middle East those scumbag leaders just give them a bad name.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Scribbler1 That's the problem. MAD only works when both sides know they will lose FAR too much no matter who wins. If you have some psycho thinking he will prevail if he just hits first then all bets are off. The entire population of the ME doesn't impress me as being all that stable, to be honest. At least not those in a position of power over others. If there ARE good, decent people in the Middle East those scumbag leaders just give them a bad name.

Kind of like here at home, huh?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Kind of like here at home, huh?

Sort of. The difference is they are for the most part told what to do because they have little freedom while we beg our leaders to tell us what to do while forgetting we have a lot more freedom than our Middle Eastern counterparts.

[Milton Bradley]

Got irony?

[Osborn F Enready]

Samdilnach said:
Anything is possible people just have to believe is all. IF you distributed nukes to every country for example no one would invade anybody anymore.

I say:
I disagree. All wars would still happen, there would just be a new "agreement" to not use nuclear weapons in armed conflict. Mutual annhialation is long past being workable, because there are too many now who just want to see the globe go boom. Not everyone is interested in saving the world, the people, or the peace, if it can't be theirs, or all their way of thought at least.

[Samildanach]

I disagree. All wars would still happen, there would just be a new "agreement" to not use nuclear weapons in armed conflict. Mutual annhialation is long past being workable, because there are too many now who just want to see the globe go boom. Not everyone is interested in saving the world, the people, or the peace, if it can't be theirs, or all their way of thought at least.

Actually I disagree with that.....what you have is a complete standoff similar to the US/North Korea situation. Nukes tend to neutralise large scale invasions and you are correct in saying there would be a treaty to agree not to use nuclear weapons...but if I was a small country I would definitely add the clause EXCEPT in case of a large scale invasion...and there are a LOT of small countries out there. Can you imagine if you tried to mobilise troops to invade Iraq and Saddam had had nuclear capability? Say goodbye to 300k soldiers.
At best I would say that it forces countries to use covert action as a primary weapon which would be a good thing.
There is no point launching nukes against tens of soldiers after all. This would also pretty much negate civilian casualties as covert ops tend not to target civilians being closer to a scalpel for specific objectives rather than an all purpose meat cleaver.

[Osborn F Enready]

So what you are saying Sam, is that you want all CURRENTLY existing nations to have nukes, so that the map stays exactly the same.

I disagree with that. All nations develop and have internal strife as a natural progression of advancement or "domestication" of society. Most of the arguments in the Middle East for example, are over lines on the map that weren't even drawn by them, or agreed to by them. If it weren't for FOREIGN intervention, these people would have settled this THEMSELVES, as all other nations should.

Soverignity doesn't "only apply" when you are acting in accordance with the "more powerful" nations.

[Samildanach]

So what you are saying Sam, is that you want all CURRENTLY existing nations to have nukes, so that the map stays exactly the same.

What would be so bad with that? If anything it would cause the US to start to concentrate on internal problems along with just about any other nation that keeps a standing army....over time armies would be reduced to purely covert ops forces driving things like cloaking and stealth technology...and possibly a lot of the military budget would be put into research and aerospace technologies.

If every country had nukes everybody is forced to concentrate more on their internal affairs and stop interfering in everyone elses. Effectively negotiation becomes the primary form of conflict resolution.

also if I remember correctly Osborn you are a gun supporter...(could be wrong) but if you are then surely a lot of the arguments about being able to own a gun apply to countries with nukes....the interesting bit is I don't actually believe guns ensure peace when millions of individuals own them ( there is just too much of a chance some psycho will get one) but with countries I reverse my position and say yes it does work because there are roughly 192 countries on the planet. I would even trust gun control with that number of people.

I disagree with that. All nations develop and have internal strife as a natural progression of advancement or "domestication" of society. Most of the arguments in the Middle East for example, are over lines on the map that weren't even drawn by them, or agreed to by them. If it weren't for FOREIGN intervention, these people would have settled this THEMSELVES, as all other nations should.

Yes note the Internal bit. As for the middle east lines...the longer the amount of time they are held for the more and not challenged the more they will become solid boundaries.

[Osborn F Enready]

Samdilnach said:
What would be so bad with that?

I say:
Nations are made up of people who have rights, whether or not they recognize them. If a people has a disagreement with another people that leads to oppression by force, those oppressed people will lash out using force. Many of the problems today are because people who make up "large" nations, have large amounts of the populace that want to fragment due to their nations piecemeal power concentration, and the marginalizations of the choices allowed by the power structures, and the lines that still exist from colonialism, world wars, and ancient empires. The more fragmented the power becomes (the nations) the more equal the power of the citizens will be. Much like a free market, the more choices there are, the more peace there will be, and a LARGE portion of the people will migrate to where their way of life is most easily afforded and obtained.

IF the people who made up the areas drew the lines on the map, it would be much different than it is now, which is enough to say that until these disputes are settled by forces of THEIR OWN, there will be NO settlement of disagreement. I believe the term is "irreconcileable differences".

Samdilnach said:
If anything it would cause the US to start to concentrate on internal problems along with just about any other nation that keeps a standing army....over time armies would be reduced to purely covert ops forces driving things like cloaking and stealth technology...and possibly a lot of the military budget would be put into research and aerospace technologies.

I say:
That to me sounds like a world from one of my worst nightmares. The less transparent, the more evil and limitless will the national conscience, due to lack of exposure, and lack of public remorse.
It also limits the decisions to few, as opposed to many, which leads to power concentration even moreso, and leads to despotims or tyranny.

Samdilnach said:
If every country had nukes everybody is forced to concentrate more on their internal affairs and stop interfering in everyone elses. Effectively negotiation becomes the primary form of conflict resolution.

I say:
Negotiation is only possible if both sides can reach a measure of appeasement or personal gain.
I disagree with the philosiphy, because it would simply result in more marginalization, and less citizen support.

Samdilnach said:
also if I remember correctly Osborn you are a gun supporter...(could be wrong) but if you are then surely a lot of the arguments about being able to own a gun apply to countries with nukes....

I say:
I am not saying any country CAN'T have a nuke. I am saying that not all countries SHOULD have nukes. If a nation develops to the level where it can support the creation, implementation and use of nuclear technology ON THEIR OWN, they should do as THEY see fit. I could care less if Iran gets a nuke, or any other nation for that matter. I just don't believe we should be encouraging or discouraging EITHER.

Samdilnach said:
the interesting bit is I don't actually believe guns ensure peace when millions of individuals own them ( there is just too much of a chance some psycho will get one) but with countries I reverse my position and say yes it does work because there are roughly 192 countries on the planet. I would even trust gun control with that number of people.

I say:
I am of the same opinion across the boards. I believe every person has a RIGHT to own a gun for self defense. I believe every soverign nation has a right to a REASONABLE DEFENSE that they can effectively support economically, technologically.

For instance, do you think Papua New Guinea should have a Nuclear Missile Defense, even though their economy and technology don't support the concept? I don't think so, but I wouldn't stop them if THEY chose to pursue it.

[xyzer]

World peace is the equivalent of Utopia. Not possible.

That says it all Osborn!

Humankind cannot be peaceful because of envy, greed, and a host of other human traits.

Safest position seems to be one of power. Recent events show some challenge the preeminent power in todays world(USA) but none can really match it. We may be criticised by those who envy or resent our power but that is to be expected. What else can we do but continue what is successful and helps our citizens?

[Scribbler1]

It is also a matter of preventing accidents. In the days of the Cold War people were alternately afraid the USSR would deliberately launch a nuclear attack and whether either side would ACCIDENTALLY launch even ONE missile, thereby starting WW3.

You want fear, watch the old movie "Fail Safe" and expand it to include a couple dozen tin pot dictatorships and theocracies and that would pretty much cover a situation where ANYONE could have a nuclear arsenal.

[Osborn F Enready]

XYZ'er said:
Safest position seems to be one of power.

I say:
The safest position is to be neutral, and maintain a healthy defense. We are in no way being neutral in the United States currently, nor have we been for a LONG time.

The safest position for any nation is to keep its intrests INSIDE its borders, and keep a defenseive posture ready to strike at any and all comers, big or small, with equal ferocity, but at the same time stay politically and economically neutral.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Samildanach Anything is possible people just have to believe is all. IF you distributed nukes to every country for example no one would invade anybody anymore.

And if we all clap we can save the fairies.

Keith

[lili462]

when pigs fly, we will have world peace. or when hell freezes over..sorry to be pessimistic but it will never happen. I would love for world peace to happen, i also want a million dollars