A world without war
-
xerox
Re: A world without war
...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A world without war
I think you are being a bit too optimistic as far as understanding human nature goes. By your own admittance you don’t have much firsthand information or experience of the rest of the world.Laird: I agree that human nature poses a problem but I believe that this is a workable plan assuming that human nature at the same time improves.
Yes, our nature is improving, but it is an ongoing process and with every new generation we are progressing; we may take two steps forward in a certain direction but we take one step backwards in another, however, unfortunately the process requires a certain balance, and ironically, sometimes it takes war to keep the peace.
In any case, that does not mean we should not strive to achieve the highest level of peace possible against all odds, but odds we will definitely face and that will not disappear as long as humans have that animal instinct, which is extremely difficult to eliminate.
Ultimately, each individual has his own values, and I need to respect them just as I would expect mine to be respected, although there might be no agreement. In my opinion, the bottom line is, unless and until majority of the world population receives proper education, and does not have to scavenge for food in the garbage, have a relatively safe roof over their head, much will not change. And the rich and powerful are hell bent on maintaining that gap. Education on a global level will take hell of a time; but something is better than nothing; one step at a time; one cannot expect to see real major change or result in ones own life time at this level. We have to think of humanity as a whole, and its future passed us.
So the goal to achieve a global peace is definitely a worthwhile pursuit, but I think greed and irrational selfishness needs to be tackled first, considering that the global army itself would be comprised of people, and any kind of extreme power corrupts; the global army will not be immune to it.
So, Laird, who monitors the Global Army if it itself becomes corrupt? Remember, since they would be the only ones with all the firepower, can you guarantee that they will abide by and respect human values? What if the major players within the Global Army decide to take over world “administration� Who or what can get in their way?
---------
Re: A world without war
I am not saying reality on Earth cannot change, only that the sort of change talked about here cannot be legislated into effect under current conditions. You see this as pessimism. I see it as reality.Sapius wrote:Carl, no offence, but if we all think pessimistically the way you do, then God save humanity.Carl G wrote:You keep using the word "solution" as if you think there is a problem. Why do you see war as a problem? War is an accepted way of life here on Earth. Same way that disease, insanity, and corrupt elections are a way of life.
So your verbose test tube hypothesis is simply large scale wankery, is it not? You have that much time on your hands?
Exactly. Is there war in you? What sort of war? Peace begins with consciousness but first must go through a war of the eradication of errant thinking in the individual. Demobilization of physical armies is not the issue.We have to work it all out for ourselves mate,
Warmongers. People are generally unaware of the level of corruption in their leaders and mind control in their lives. The solution, if it can be called that, has to do with individuals becoming conscious and then assuming self-responsibility.and we generally do, otherwise we wouldn’t have the UN or NATO.
Good Citizen Carl
Re: A world without war
Laird, can you explain how what you are proposing is different from the United Nations and its peacekeeping forces?
Re: A world without war
Fair enough sear, I respect a hunter who kills for a specific purpose - food/culling - far more than one who kills for idle sport.
I've lived in both a highly armed society (South Africa) and a largely disarmed one (Australia) and I can tell you which one I prefer by far in terms of peace of mind. It's not South Africa.
It's my opinion.Laird: We are here to nurture and protect, not to kill and destroy.
sear: Says who?
OK, so not all idealism is virtuous. I don't see what's to be denigrated in idealism that doesn't involve death or other negative consequences though. There's nothing bad to be said about a world without war.sear wrote:Adolf Hitler is credited with killing "6 million Jews". He killed millions of others too."... idealism is a virtue." Laird
But Joseph Stalin killed more than Hitler did; to maintain his ruthless totalitarian rule.
But Chairman Mao killed more than Stalin did. But Mao killed with is agricultural reforms. He starved his own People to death by the tens of millions.
Chairman Mao was an idealist.
Think about it.
That's about the most solid thing that you wrote, and even at that, it's not saying much, because guns also further empower the strong against the weak. Everybody being armed is the same as everybody being disarmed except that there's more danger to any one individual that s/he is going to be killed. Where's the sense then in everybody being armed?Laird: An armed society is one in which there are regular high school massacres, in which people in big cities live in fear of walking the streets late at night.
sear: Guns can empower the weak against the strong.
I've lived in both a highly armed society (South Africa) and a largely disarmed one (Australia) and I can tell you which one I prefer by far in terms of peace of mind. It's not South Africa.
Who said anything about "against their will"? A country would sign up to the global army of its own volition.sear wrote:Democracy."Why should this situation not be extended to the level of countries?" Laird
For those that want it that way, I have no objection.
For those that don't, I believe disarming them against their will is a step that should be considered carefully before acting upon it.
Re: A world without war
In terms of the global army itself, there's probably little to no difference, except that it would probably be more integrated so that troops weren't so separated into national groups. The main difference to the scheme though is that whilst the UN Peacekeeping forces exist in addition to national armies, the global army that I'm proposing would exist instead of national armies.DHodges wrote:Laird, can you explain how what you are proposing is different from the United Nations and its peacekeeping forces?
Re: A world without war
Ah well, you're apparently not the only one.Sapius wrote:I think you are being a bit too optimistic as far as understanding human nature goes.
No one in particular monitors it, although I suppose that in a sense the whole world does. There are no "major players" - the Global Army would be entirely democratic as I wrote before - one country, one vote - and if that's not enough to prevent corruption then I'm not sure what's required. Nothing can get in its way, true, but on the other hand all of the governments of the world are in its way.Sapius wrote:So, Laird, who monitors the Global Army if it itself becomes corrupt? Remember, since they would be the only ones with all the firepower, can you guarantee that they will abide by and respect human values? What if the major players within the Global Army decide to take over world “administration� Who or what can get in their way?
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: A world without war
Laird,
I would change Lao Tzu’s quote to this –
Sometimes with persistence the soft force can overcome the hard force, but in rare cases, one must become the hard force in order to overcome an incorrigible hard force. In other words, as seen in figures like Winston Churchill – sometimes, one must become a wolf in order to destroy a wolf.
outside of the Federal Reserve, Halliburton and Exxon. Tell me how that works out for you.
Guns control laws are great in nations with very little corruption, crime, a strong economy and lack of corporate imperial elites, but in a country such as the US I’m not so sure taking away the people’s guns is such a good idea at such a volatile period. For instance: I bet the US people will eventually march on Washington against the world bankers, and other business elites that are destroying their economy, and if civil disobedience doesn’t work then armed militias maybe necessary. The US constitution even calls for armed resistance against corrupt powers if that is necessary. However, such an action should only be a last resort after civil disobedience and non-violent protests have been crushed or silenced by elite powers. However, I'm optimistic that the current mayham in the US can be solved by intellectual pressures, but then again, perhaps things have gone too far, it is difficult to tell at this stage, as I need more time to see how things unfold.An armed society is one in which there are regular high school massacres, in which people in big cities live in fear of walking the streets late at night.
I would change Lao Tzu’s quote to this –
Sometimes with persistence the soft force can overcome the hard force, but in rare cases, one must become the hard force in order to overcome an incorrigible hard force. In other words, as seen in figures like Winston Churchill – sometimes, one must become a wolf in order to destroy a wolf.
Perhaps you should get out your guitar and sing peace songsThere's nothing bad to be said about a world without war.
outside of the Federal Reserve, Halliburton and Exxon. Tell me how that works out for you.
Yes, but Austrailia has a strong economy and the causal conditions are suitable for strict gun control laws. However, in South Africa poverty, drugs and crime are rampant because the economy is very weak. And so, gun protection is much more necessary. You fail to realize that guns manifest in hellish causal situations that call for guns. You cannot just idealize no guns in an area that needs guns for people to defend themselves. The problem is that the environmental conditions are not ripe for no guns in South Africa, and that is why there are still guns.I've lived in both a highly armed society (South Africa) and a largely disarmed one (Australia)
Re: A world without war
Laird:"We are here to nurture and protect, not to kill and destroy." Laird
"Says who?" sear
"It's my opinion." Laird
Please do not state your own personal opinion as unqualified, universal truth.
Correct. And thus your "... idealism is a virtue" formulation may apply in some cases; but is not in any way a universal inoculation against counter-argument. It is not correct simply because you think it's virtuous."OK, so not all idealism is virtuous." Laird
Piffle."I don't see what's to be denigrated in idealism that doesn't involve death or other negative consequences though. There's nothing bad to be said about a world without war." Laird
Laird:
I'm trained as a warrior. I'm an honorably discharged United States military Vietnam era veteran. I have held the dead in my hands.
I am NOT an advocate for War.
BUT !!!
Though I am opposed to War in general, and stridently opposed to Bush's War in Iraq in particular; there are worse things than War, albeit on the margins.
Cold War for example, was a monumental binge of wasteful military procurement & spending excesses. But the death toll was relatively low (in proportion to spending).
Being without War is a noble, sensible goal.
BUT:
At issue here is not whether or not being without War is a good idea. The issue here is: HOW?
"The devil is in the details."
I disagree."Everybody being armed is the same as everybody being disarmed ..." Laird
You watch a 72 year old women being mauled by a few teen aged boys and then try to tell me that.
Without guns, she has little if any chance.
I'm not saying she should carry a gun at all times. But if the boys don't know if she, or her 60 year old chums on the street are "packin'", they may be inspired to more polite conduct.
In addition, I own a significant amount of land inside the Adirondack Park of New York State. It's Black Bear country here. I pity the man innocently out for a stroll in the forest that inadvertently gets between a sow and her cubs.
Him being without a gun in that instance is actually more cruel to the bear.
He can't out-run an angry sow.
He can't climb a tree and wait her out (she can climb trees better than he can).
And if he simply allows himself to be eaten, the Forest Rangers will end up tracking the animal down, and killing it anyway.
Loud noises can scare a bear away. And guns can make loud noises.
I'm not asserting that everyone on Earth should carry an elephant gun everyplace they go.
I'm observing that generally, humans tend to act in their own enlightened self-interest.
I don't carry a gun every place I go.
But I like the option to bring a gun with me, when I'm in the forest, camping by the stream.
OK"I've lived in both a highly armed society (South Africa) and a largely disarmed one (Australia) and I can tell you which one I prefer by far in terms of peace of mind. It's not South Africa." Laird
I'd probably agree with that judgment.
But your extrapolation from those two data points is weak.
I've never been to Africa. But I've traveled some in the U.S., and spent years in Europe.
I didn't find relatively disarmed (then West) Germany significantly better than the far more heavily armed Switzerland. If your formulation were valid, then the rule should apply in all cases.
It doesn't.
Therefore, please exercise some critical self-analysis here in your own position. There's a substantial difference between legitimate objective reasoning, and merely reinforcing your own prejudice.
Given the history between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Sunni and the Shi'ah, and the Americans and just about everybody; do you really think voluntary disarmament is a likely prospect everywhere on Earth?"Who said anything about "against their will"? A country would sign up to the global army of its own volition." Laird
Unless they ALL do it, it's not likely that any of them will.
In addition, there are some legal hurdles to contend with.
For example:
The United States Constitution is:
So what?ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So the United States Constitution says the U.S. President is Commander in Chief (of the military).
To change that chain of command would require amending the Constitution.
That is deliberately a difficult hurdle.
And the notion that the U.S. would willingly surrender its military power seems implausible.
30 character limit on sigline?
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: A world without war
So, under your definition, one individual who acquired one of the nuclear devices that went missing when Russia collapsed, and holds some kind of religious grudge against the entire United States, could hold a one-person war?Laird wrote:I define war as the act(s) of violence perpetrated by an army against another army and/or against a country's infrastructure and/or against civilians. Under my slightly unorthodox definition, a war can consist of a single act of violence and needn't involve reciprocal violence...
For simplicity's sake, I define an army to consist not only of soldiers and equipment, but also of all associated armaments including nuclear weapons. Under this definition, an army could consist solely of nuclear weaponry and of the personnel required to launch those weapons.
Reminds me of when the airline wouldn't let me take my nail clippers on my honeymoon.Laird wrote:War under my definition entails at least one army. It follows then that a world without armies is a world without war. The disbanding of all armies (and the prevention of the assembly of new armies) is therefore one means of achieving the stated aim of this thread: a world without war.
Actually, the availability would increase due to the decreased number of armed forces. If the forces are no longer armed, the weapons don't just vanish into thin air, so that makes the weapons that used to be in the stores of armed forces "available."Laird wrote:As armed forces globalised, the general availability of armaments would decrease owing to the decreasing number of armed forces in the world.
Yes, general satisfaction would be the best defense against war.Laird wrote: the generally more peaceful nature of the world would discourage the formation of militia. The ultimate goal would be a world where people were so generally satisfied enough with the state of their lives/nations that militias and rebel forces were unknown.
Add "receives proper medical care, including mental health care" and expand to "receives proper education including training in practical logic and critical thinking skills, as well as personal and interpersonal skills training" - and I think we have the answer.Sapius wrote:unless and until majority of the world population receives proper education, and does not have to scavenge for food in the garbage, have a relatively safe roof over their head, much will not change.
The only way to stop war is to prevent or correct the desire for war.
Re: A world without war
Laird,
With what….? Power of the pen? Sticks and stones? They have all the firepower my friend... unless there is an equally strong opposition in place, total anarchy may be just waiting around the corner.Nothing can get in its way, true, but on the other hand all of the governments of the world are in its way.
---------
Re: A world without war
.
BTW, there is still hope for a single global army, Laird; as soon as we perceive an alien threat, all world armies will become ONE in a day :D
BTW, there is still hope for a single global army, Laird; as soon as we perceive an alien threat, all world armies will become ONE in a day :D
---------
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: A world without war
Sapius,
that would be the ultimate false flag wouldn't it? deceive the globe into thinking there is an alien threat as a means to concentrate all military power into one global force that the elites control, I wonder if they are arrogant enough to pull such a stunt?BTW, there is still hope for a single global army, Laird; as soon as we perceive an alien threat, all world armies will become ONE in a day :D
-
brokenhead
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: A world without war
It's not as though I'm missing the spirit of this thread. I am aware that you are offering this scenario as a tentative step, and that it's not a finished proposal with all the language worked out.Laird wrote:As armed forces globalised, the general availability of armaments would decrease owing to the decreasing number of armed forces in the world.
But it seems fundamentally flawed in at least one huge respect: implementation. For there to be no armies, there would have to be no arms. Where would all the extant arms go? What would happen to the arms industry - the Military Industrial Complex? The MIC, which by definition has control of the arms production, sits by and watches while its source of revenue and power is somehow legislated away. If there is an historical precedent for this of any significance, it has passed under my radar. We can't even legislate handguns away from ordinary citizens. As long as there are arms, there will be armies. Even if the Global Army stage were achieved, what would be their mission? They would be by default a Global Police Force. If that stage were achieved, that would be a difficult one to move past.
You have not really indicated any sort of time scale for your scenario, Laird. I hope you are of the mind that your plan would have to be gradual. Because as I see it, as long as there are weapons, peace always comes in the form of a balance of power. You know, the "polite society" mentioned above. Which, BTW, is not much of an endorsement for the arming of the populace. An armed society may be a polite society, but so is a prison a polite society, where if you accidentally bump into another inmate, you are sure to apologize in no uncertain terms. I have a feeling that a thoroughly armed society would be just so, one with a prison-like feel.
We like to think and propound our ideas and ideals at GF, but this is one vision whose realization would face constant obstacles and never-ending opposition.
It seems to me a more likely scenario is more along sear's lines, where nations retain their standing armies, but spending on them is slowly contained and curtailed. You really can't legislate peace. As long as there are social and economic injustices, there will be people willing to die to address the injustices. And people willing to die are usually more than willing to kill - some how, some way, arms will find their way to these people. More to the point, as long as there are governments that can tax their citizenry and send other people out to kill and die, namely their armed forces, a Global Army and then No Army seem far away indeed.
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: A world without war
Here is another theory:
Proponents of Yogic Flying claim that world peace and many other social and environmental benefits can be generated by having at least seven thousand yogic flyers around the world hopping at the same time.
Re: A world without war
Alright sear, I must admit that your realism is taking a chunk out my idealism.
There are pros and cons to an armed society. With the pro of being able to defend oneself against unjustified aggression comes the con of guns being readily available to the emotionally disturbed, and the con of loss of life being such an easy option. In my opinion the cons far outweigh the pros. In my ideal world (yeah, yeah - I'm just crying out for you to call me back to reality...), people don't even consider physical violence as an option.
Fair call, perhaps I should have qualified it with "In my opinion".sear wrote:Please do not state your own personal opinion as unqualified, universal truth.
Hmm, I'm not quite sure how to square that "Piffle" with these later statements:Laird: I don't see what's to be denigrated in idealism that doesn't involve death or other negative consequences though. There's nothing bad to be said about a world without war.
sear: Piffle.
sear wrote:I am NOT an advocate for War.
I guess I'm supposed to assume that this: "there are worse things than War, albeit on the margins" somehow justifies it.sear wrote:Being without War is a noble, sensible goal.
Well you have more experience of war than me, not that I'd wish that experience upon anyone, myself included. My experience of war is limited to what I've seen on the TV and read in books, and that's bad enough. To be honest, if I'd been a USA citizen and been drafted to Vietnam (I'm far too young for that to have been a possibility anyway), I probably would have chosen to go to jail as a conscientious objector instead. I say that not to disrespect your choice, which I guess you believed was the honourable (is that the right word?) one to make, just to explore our differences. Just as a matter of interest, would you make the same decision in hindsight, assuming that you knew then what you know now?sear wrote:I'm trained as a warrior. I'm an honorably discharged United States military Vietnam era veteran. I have held the dead in my hands.
Yes, exactly! And now's your chance to elaborate - that's the very purpose of this thread.sear wrote:At issue here is not whether or not being without War is a good idea. The issue here is: HOW?
Having a gun is no guarantee that she'll be able to defend herself anyway. There's even a chance that she will be dispossessed of her gun and have it used against her. Maybe they come at her and she nails one of them and the rest of them dispossess her of her gun and beat her even more severely in retaliation for her willingness to take their lives and the life of their friend - or perhaps they even kill her in retaliation.Laird: Everybody being armed is the same as everybody being disarmed ...
sear: You watch a 72 year old women being mauled by a few teen aged boys and then try to tell me that.
There are pros and cons to an armed society. With the pro of being able to defend oneself against unjustified aggression comes the con of guns being readily available to the emotionally disturbed, and the con of loss of life being such an easy option. In my opinion the cons far outweigh the pros. In my ideal world (yeah, yeah - I'm just crying out for you to call me back to reality...), people don't even consider physical violence as an option.
I'm all in favour of polite conduct no matter what its motivation, but I'd rather it be motivated by a good upbringing based on parental teachings of mutual respect. Don't get me wrong, I know that it's no simple task to achieve this - it's a long, long-term goal - but isn't it something more worthwhile to strive for than "respect at the end of a gunbarrel"? That's where I believe that idealism comes in - to dream that one day we can actually achieve a society where all people respect one another even under trying circumstances. I don't believe, as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, that one day Christ will return to restore the Earth to a paradise - I think that we have to get there on our own. Now I'm guessing that your response will be something like "get real, not gonna happen - try to live in the real world mate" - but what do we lose in at least trying? Even if we only make it half-way there, it's better than nothing. Our dreams sustain us.sear wrote:I'm not saying she should carry a gun at all times. But if the boys don't know if she, or her 60 year old chums on the street are "packin'", they may be inspired to more polite conduct.
Sure, that's a legitimate use for a gun - I'd feel more comfortable with it being used to simply scare the bear off as you described rather than to actually kill it, but I gather that you would too - you don't seem to be one for mindless/needless killing.sear wrote:In addition, I own a significant amount of land inside the Adirondack Park of New York State. It's Black Bear country here. I pity the man innocently out for a stroll in the forest that inadvertently gets between a sow and her cubs.
Sure, it made a big difference that South Africa is a place of huge class differences and where (at the time that I lived there) racism maintained the majority of the population in a state of servitude and poverty, whereas Australia is for the most part an egalitarian, peaceful country. Still, the cons that I raised above apply no matter which country you live in. The Port Arthur massacre happened in Australia, despite that we are generally a peaceable lot. You guys have regular school massacres. Is this an acceptable price for you to pay?Laird: I've lived in both a highly armed society (South Africa) and a largely disarmed one (Australia) and I can tell you which one I prefer by far in terms of peace of mind. It's not South Africa.
sear: If your formulation were valid, then the rule should apply in all cases.
Not in the near future, no, and I noted in my thread-starter that there are some tricky situations where disarmament is a tough ask. It's definitely a long-term plan. Perhaps it's not a feasible or workable one - and from all of the reactions that I've had to it so far I get the impression that that's the case. Not one person that I've shared it with has been remotely enthusiastic about it. If I can't even convince friends, family and the forum community that it's a good plan then how can I expect world leaders to be convinced? So I guess I'm going to have to put it in the "unworkable/unrealistic" basket (damn, there's that realism seeping in and destroying my idealism again... gotta work on my confident optimism). But if that's not the solution, then perhaps we can at least use this thread to discuss what might be the real solution(s).Laird: Who said anything about "against their will"? A country would sign up to the global army of its own volition.
sear: Given the history between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Sunni and the Shi'ah, and the Americans and just about everybody; do you really think voluntary disarmament is a likely prospect everywhere on Earth?
Are you trying to tell me that what you quoted says that or that it's elsewhere in the constitution? I don't read what you quoted as saying that the President is Commander in Chief of the military. But even if it does say that there or elsewhere, does it say that the US is required to maintain a military?sear wrote:The United States Constitution is:So what?ARTICLE 6.
2 This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So the United States Constitution says the U.S. President is Commander in Chief (of the military).
Yes, and again I noted that in my thread-starter, but I'm an optimist.sear wrote:And the notion that the U.S. would willingly surrender its military power seems implausible.
Re: A world without war
I meant that as a real scenario, not duping the world into it. We always band together in the face of a common enemy; don't we?Ryan Rudolph wrote:Sapius,
that would be the ultimate false flag wouldn't it? deceive the globe into thinking there is an alien threat as a means to concentrate all military power into one global force that the elites control, I wonder if they are arrogant enough to pull such a stunt?BTW, there is still hope for a single global army, Laird; as soon as we perceive an alien threat, all world armies will become ONE in a day :D
---------
Re: A world without war
And perhaps you should simply take a gun to all of the corporate pigs and then watch as new ones come in to take the place of the old.Perhaps you should get out your guitar and sing peace songs
outside of the Federal Reserve, Halliburton and Exxon. Tell me how that works out for you.
There probably isn't a simple solution, but my allegiance lies with a non-violent war of ideology.
Yes, there are always practical considerations. Given a violent society where guns are already widespread in the criminal classes it's a tough call to disarm the masses. I'm not saying that it should necessarily be an immediate aim (although if someone were to work out an immediate solution I'd say let's go for it), just that it should be an ultimate aim.Yes, but Austrailia has a strong economy and the causal conditions are suitable for strict gun control laws. However, in South Africa poverty, drugs and crime are rampant because the economy is very weak. And so, gun protection is much more necessary. You fail to realize that guns manifest in hellish causal situations that call for guns. You cannot just idealize no guns in an area that needs guns for people to defend themselves. The problem is that the environmental conditions are not ripe for no guns in South Africa, and that is why there are still guns.
Re: A world without war
Yes.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:So, under your definition, one individual who acquired one of the nuclear devices that went missing when Russia collapsed, and holds some kind of religious grudge against the entire United States, could hold a one-person war?
Ah, good point. I guess I'm advocating that excess weapons be destroyed. As a national army disbands into the global army, any unused weapons are pulled apart.Laird: As armed forces globalised, the general availability of armaments would decrease owing to the decreasing number of armed forces in the world.
Elizabeth: Actually, the availability would increase due to the decreased number of armed forces. If the forces are no longer armed, the weapons don't just vanish into thin air, so that makes the weapons that used to be in the stores of armed forces "available."
I agree that those solutions would contribute to peace. They would be parts of the general path to a more peaceful world that I glossed over in my thread-starter.Elizabeth wrote:Add "receives proper medical care, including mental health care" and expand to "receives proper education including training in practical logic and critical thinking skills, as well as personal and interpersonal skills training" - and I think we have the answer.
Re: A world without war
What I meant is that the force would be democratically controlled by all of the governments of the world. There is no possibility for opposition when you're the entirety.Laird: Nothing can get in its way, true, but on the other hand all of the governments of the world are in its way.
Sapius: With what….? Power of the pen? Sticks and stones? They have all the firepower my friend... unless there is an equally strong opposition in place, total anarchy may be just waiting around the corner.
Re: A world without war
Laird,
-
Don't let our negativity discourage your dreams. My uncle was an idealist, and as such had some very unrealistic goals. He met every one of them, and that in spite of the fact that he was murdered when still young. No progress is possible in this world without visionaries.Not one person that I've shared it with has been remotely enthusiastic about it. If I can't even convince friends, family and the forum community that it's a good plan then how can I expect world leaders to be convinced? So I guess I'm going to have to put it in the "unworkable/unrealistic" basket (damn, there's that realism seeping in and destroying my idealism again... gotta work on my confident optimism).
-
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: A world without war
I'm having a hard time believing that all those people that would be assigned to weapons destruction would destroy all the weapons rather than keep or sell a number of them.Laird wrote:Yes.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:So, under your definition, one individual who acquired one of the nuclear devices that went missing when Russia collapsed, and holds some kind of religious grudge against the entire United States, could hold a one-person war?
Ah, good point. I guess I'm advocating that excess weapons be destroyed. As a national army disbands into the global army, any unused weapons are pulled apart.Laird: As armed forces globalised, the general availability of armaments would decrease owing to the decreasing number of armed forces in the world.
Elizabeth: Actually, the availability would increase due to the decreased number of armed forces. If the forces are no longer armed, the weapons don't just vanish into thin air, so that makes the weapons that used to be in the stores of armed forces "available."
I still think you're putting the cart before the horse. Make peace first, then there will be little use for weapons. Disbanding of armies would be a natural consequence of peace, but peace is not a natural consequence of disbanding armies. If it were, war would never have happened. I can't imagine that the first army was formed without the idea of war in someone's mind.
Re: A world without war
As I wrote to Elizabeth, they would be destroyed as a national army disbands into the global army.brokenhead wrote:But it seems fundamentally flawed in at least one huge respect: implementation. For there to be no armies, there would have to be no arms. Where would all the extant arms go?
It would end or change its focus. Weaponry depends on technology - I'm sure that all of that technological skill could be refocussed into peaceful endeavours.brokenhead wrote:What would happen to the arms industry - the Military Industrial Complex?
Obviously there's going to be significant opposition from the MIC. Overcoming that opposition and convincing them to change their focus is part of the ideological battle. Provide them with plausible alternative sources of revenue and the chances of winning the battle improve.brokenhead wrote:The MIC, which by definition has control of the arms production, sits by and watches while its source of revenue and power is somehow legislated away.
That doesn't apply to all countries, and whilst it might be impractical in the near future in the USA, there's hope that the violent/criminal tendencies of your society will one day be overcome in which case handguns will no longer be justifiable, with the exception of the sort of "out in nature protecting yourself from the wild animals" scenarios that sear has raised.brokenhead wrote:We can't even legislate handguns away from ordinary citizens.
The aim would be to largely eradicate the MIC, with the exception of providing the small number of required weapons to the Global Army, and to destroy any other extant weaponry as far as is possible.brokenhead wrote:As long as there are arms, there will be armies. Even if the Global Army stage were achieved, what would be their mission? They would be by default a Global Police Force. If that stage were achieved, that would be a difficult one to move past.
That's because there are too many variables to be able to make any realistic projections.brokenhead wrote:You have not really indicated any sort of time scale for your scenario, Laird.
Absolutely. For all I know it would take centuries to achieve.brokenhead wrote:I hope you are of the mind that your plan would have to be gradual.
Yeah - as I wrote to sear, I prefer respect borne of a good upbringing than that borne out of the fear of the barrel of a gun.brokenhead wrote:Because as I see it, as long as there are weapons, peace always comes in the form of a balance of power. You know, the "polite society" mentioned above. Which, BTW, is not much of an endorsement for the arming of the populace. An armed society may be a polite society, but so is a prison a polite society, where if you accidentally bump into another inmate, you are sure to apologize in no uncertain terms. I have a feeling that a thoroughly armed society would be just so, one with a prison-like feel.
Yes, I'm beginning to get that impression...brokenhead wrote:We like to think and propound our ideas and ideals at GF, but this is one vision whose realization would face constant obstacles and never-ending opposition.
Yes, that's a great idea. I don't know whether sear intended it as strongly as you put it though - perhaps he will clarify.brokenhead wrote:It seems to me a more likely scenario is more along sear's lines, where nations retain their standing armies, but spending on them is slowly contained and curtailed.
Yes, as I wrote in my thread-starter the path to a more peaceful world is a complex one, and I glossed over the sorts of things that you're talking about. It's good to see them brought up though. Poverty is a contributor to war, as is negative discrimination.brokenhead wrote:You really can't legislate peace. As long as there are social and economic injustices, there will be people willing to die to address the injustices. And people willing to die are usually more than willing to kill - some how, some way, arms will find their way to these people.
Ah well, you and I will have to convince them of its sense then, won't we? (/me tries to recruit brokenhead into the Global Army advocacy team :-P)brokenhead wrote:More to the point, as long as there are governments that can tax their citizenry and send other people out to kill and die, namely their armed forces, a Global Army and then No Army seem far away indeed.
Re: A world without war
Thanks Sher, my confident optimism just got boosted.Laird:]Not one person that I've shared it with has been remotely enthusiastic about it. If I can't even convince friends, family and the forum community that it's a good plan then how can I expect world leaders to be convinced? So I guess I'm going to have to put it in the "unworkable/unrealistic" basket (damn, there's that realism seeping in and destroying my idealism again... gotta work on my confident optimism).
Shahrazad: Don't let our negativity discourage your dreams. My uncle was an idealist, and as such had some very unrealistic goals. He met every one of them, and that in spite of the fact that he was murdered when still young. No progress is possible in this world without visionaries.
Re: A world without war
Well then we'll assign you as overseer of the destruction process. :-)Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I'm having a hard time believing that all those people that would be assigned to weapons destruction would destroy all the weapons rather than keep or sell a number of them.
I don't think that it's as simple as either weaponry being a cause of war or war being a cause of weaponry - the two are very entangled.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I still think you're putting the cart before the horse. Make peace first, then there will be little use for weapons. Disbanding of armies would be a natural consequence of peace, but peace is not a natural consequence of disbanding armies. If it were, war would never have happened. I can't imagine that the first army was formed without the idea of war in someone's mind.
The path to peace is a multifaceted one. Removing all armaments to a democratically controlled global army as far as is possible would in my opinion be a useful contribution to world peace. I agree (and I have already written) that it's not the only filament in the thread of world peace, and I like your ideas as to what those other filaments might consist of.
