Undecided on who to vote for - try this...
- Thread starter Shooms
- Start date
I'm not saying we don't need something - we already have untold other ways of creating misery for an enemy. And I'm sure we will never stop developing more.
And I'm not saying put the genie back in the bottle. I'm saying let it out of all 8/9 bottles.
But with the proviso that all countries recognise that they have a global responsibility never to develop or use them, by being bound to a global organisation that can act decisively against any that wish to swing the lead.
The world just seems far too small with ever dwindling resources to have any country or group of countries having the ability to use such a ridiculously globally destructive weapon as means of asserting power. The thing with bigger weapons is that it only creates peace on your terms for a short time whilst the competition catches up.
I do wonder if CERN manages to identify some new even more powerful material, whether one of the European powers might try to create it for themselves. Thus sparking a new arms race.
Nobody in Europe's got any cash.
If anyone's gonna spark an arms race it'll be the right wing mentalists in America, the Russkies, China, or some mad despot in a closed-shop country somewhere who will just throw the required obscene amounts of money at it with no regard for the consequences or the bigger picture.
I'm all for a powerful UN in principle. The problem is you need every nation to agree to it, or how can it possibly be enforced? You'd only need someone like China to pull out and who would/could stand up to them? You'd end up creating the very problem you're trying to solve.
I would envisage the UN presenting it as an idea to it's members to take away to it's countries to be voted on/ratified/told they are doing this. Bit like a Maastricht. If the countries say no, then they don't get on the global council, and they just get eyes turned upon them.
If they say yes, then their country and any future leaders know the consequences of breaching "no-brainers". Effective removal by a delegation from the council. Or deadly action against the leaders. Let's stop pissing about having countries going to war. It is only ever the leaders that decide to declare war(backed by public or not). And so it is the leaders that should pay the ultimate price; not the civillians.
Yeah, like I said before, in principle I totally agree. Wars are horrific tragedies without exception. Man's inhumanity to man and all that jazz. It would be truly amazing to think there may be an agreeable equilibrium between altruism and self-interest, and that it could be made a reality for every living thing on earth. There can be no higher or finer goal for us to work towards on a global scale. I'm just not sure it even exists, let alone the task of making it happen. It isn't a perfect world, and human beings have faults & frailties.
At the risk of going a step too far into esoterica, perhaps it's that very conflict within each of us that defines who we are, and if it were resolved we'd actually be nothing? Great things (and great people) often come from great adversity & great struggle.
Yes I agree. I'm not saying war could ever be eradicated, or that I would want any country to give up it's right to bear arms. Or even that I believe that man could ever achieve some sort of harmonious utopia with the rest of the world.
I'm only asking try to eradicate the big red button and any future development of planet killers.
Also wars of late seem to be a bit of an oversized boxing match. Countries acting as the worlds police/sticking their nose in where it's not wanted (but only when it suits them).
So wouldn't be more ideal to have a fully mandated global organisation that does the policing decisively and unilaterally. Which isn't that far removed from what the UN tries toothlessly to do at present.
Sadly, I can't see that ever happening. Pandora's box was opened and it'll never be shut again. Imagine all the nuclear countries in the world all agreeing to destroy their stockpiles. Would you trust them all to keep their word? I wouldn't. And if I was in charge of a country with nukes, I'd say I'd destroyed them and then keep a few back for a rainy day, just like all the other leaders would.
- Jul 18, 2001
- 17,768
- 23
- 27
- 53
Sadly, I can't see that ever happening. Pandora's box was opened and it'll never be shut again. Imagine all the nuclear countries in the world all agreeing to destroy their stockpiles. Would you trust them all to keep their word? I wouldn't. And if I was in charge of a country with nukes, I'd say I'd destroyed them and then keep a few back for a rainy day, just like all the other leaders would.
YouTube - Kim Jong II and Hans Blix
