caesar777;495673 wrote: 1/10.
I do want global govt. but through choice, not force. Anyway, that's a completely different argument.
First I want world peace and disarmament.
Through choice or force of law?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Accountable;495698 wrote: Through choice or force of law?
Laws, brought in by govt. which is elected by the people. If any nation's people wished to leave a world nation then it would be free to do so.
Aren't we getting off the topic here?
Ban the bomb, save the planet and humanity.
Laws, brought in by govt. which is elected by the people. If any nation's people wished to leave a world nation then it would be free to do so.
Aren't we getting off the topic here?
Ban the bomb, save the planet and humanity.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Weapons of Mass Destruction
caesar777;495772 wrote: Laws, brought in by govt. which is elected by the people. If any nation's people wished to leave a world nation then it would be free to do so.
Aren't we getting off the topic here?
Ban the bomb, save the planet and humanity.
I don't think we're off-topic at all. If you try to force another government to disarm, you risk war - the very thing you're trying to avoid - aren't you?
Aren't we getting off the topic here?
Ban the bomb, save the planet and humanity.
I don't think we're off-topic at all. If you try to force another government to disarm, you risk war - the very thing you're trying to avoid - aren't you?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Accountable;495777 wrote: I don't think we're off-topic at all. If you try to force another government to disarm, you risk war - the very thing you're trying to avoid - aren't you?
Yes. Most nations must first agree to disarm, then all should impose sanctions on nations who don't disarm. If this led to war so be it, if the country used nuclear weapons it would be very stupid. But better one small nuclear war than one big one.
Yes. Most nations must first agree to disarm, then all should impose sanctions on nations who don't disarm. If this led to war so be it, if the country used nuclear weapons it would be very stupid. But better one small nuclear war than one big one.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Weapons of Mass Destruction
caesar777;495788 wrote: Yes. Most nations must first agree to disarm, then all should impose sanctions on nations who don't disarm. If this led to war so be it, if the country used nuclear weapons it would be very stupid. But better one small nuclear war than one big one.
So correct me if I'm wrong. You're willing to risk nuclear war - killing possibly millions - to save future generations from war. Is that about right?
So correct me if I'm wrong. You're willing to risk nuclear war - killing possibly millions - to save future generations from war. Is that about right?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Reminds me of the Islamic fundies who're willing to destroy the earth to "save" us for "peaceful" Allah!
Right.
Makes PERFECT sense, doesn't it?
Right.
Makes PERFECT sense, doesn't it?
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Weapons of Mass Destruction
caesar777;495788 wrote: Yes. Most nations must first agree to disarm, then all should impose sanctions on nations who don't disarm. If this led to war so be it, if the country used nuclear weapons it would be very stupid. But better one small nuclear war than one big one.
Accountable;495811 wrote: So correct me if I'm wrong. You're willing to risk nuclear war - killing possibly millions - to save future generations from war. Is that about right?
Caesar, I'm really not trying to poke you with a sharp stick, even though I have in the past. I'm simply trying to point out that the world is not as simple as you wish it to be - or as simple as I wish it to be, for that matter.
We can't unring a bell. Nukes are reality. The technology is published. Now we have to deal with it. World Peace is an ideal worth striving for, but peace at any price is no peace at all. We can't force peace and happiness on others. Iraq stands as a shining example of that. We can only stand as the best examples we are able, and support others to follow.
Accountable;495811 wrote: So correct me if I'm wrong. You're willing to risk nuclear war - killing possibly millions - to save future generations from war. Is that about right?
Caesar, I'm really not trying to poke you with a sharp stick, even though I have in the past. I'm simply trying to point out that the world is not as simple as you wish it to be - or as simple as I wish it to be, for that matter.
We can't unring a bell. Nukes are reality. The technology is published. Now we have to deal with it. World Peace is an ideal worth striving for, but peace at any price is no peace at all. We can't force peace and happiness on others. Iraq stands as a shining example of that. We can only stand as the best examples we are able, and support others to follow.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
AND, we can never forget that wars based on territory and economics are apparently part of our nature! Expecting the world to disarm just because "it's the right thing to do" is so unrealistic it's terrifying!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Accountable;495811 wrote: So correct me if I'm wrong. You're willing to risk nuclear war - killing possibly millions - to save future generations from war. Is that about right?
I am willing for sanctions to be applied against nations who refuse to disarm.
This could lead to a small scale nuclear war, yes, if said nations were to use nukes because they were having sanctions used against them. Any nation which would do so should certainly not have nukes.
Although abhorrent, a small scale nuclear war is much better than a large scale nuclear war which would destroy humanity. That is what I want to prevent from becoming possible by disarming all nukes.
I am willing for sanctions to be applied against nations who refuse to disarm.
This could lead to a small scale nuclear war, yes, if said nations were to use nukes because they were having sanctions used against them. Any nation which would do so should certainly not have nukes.
Although abhorrent, a small scale nuclear war is much better than a large scale nuclear war which would destroy humanity. That is what I want to prevent from becoming possible by disarming all nukes.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
caesar777;496380 wrote: I am willing for sanctions to be applied against nations who refuse to disarm.
This could lead to a small scale nuclear war, yes, if said nations were to use nukes because they were having sanctions used against them. Any nation which would do so should certainly not have nukes.
Although abhorrent, a small scale nuclear war is much better than a large scale nuclear war which would destroy humanity. That is what I want to prevent from becoming possible by disarming all nukes.
OK, like accountable, I don't want you to think I am getting at you, I am sure you are a decent fella, but seriously.
How are you going to "enforce" any sanctions or for that matter any system of law on anyone, if you are attempting to remove all ability for anyone to use force? The countries that were enforcing these ideas no doubt would have to "promise" all the other countries they were threatening with destruction that they themselves completely intended to "disarm" themselves (as soon as no-one else was left who could prevent them from not doing it, as of course they would have already disarmed), what country in its right mind would sign up to such an idea? No one of course, except under the threat of Nuclear destruction, what a chilling thought.
Its a case of "Peace and Love, or Else" enforced by "who" exactly?
Who would have the authority to carry out such a scheme? I remind you that the UN does not have an army or nuclear weapons, and is treaty-bound not to be able to have them as its not a sovereign government representing a people, its an international institution that represents governments. Would it be the U.S., or Russia, or China, France, or Britain, that would get to be the last person with the stick to beat everyone else into line, while promising that it would also follow suit, (as soon as there was no way to prevent them doing anything they liked)? What nonsense!
What sort of surreal justification would it be to launch a nuclear war to prevent an alleged worse nuclear war? There is no guarantee that there will be one now, (unless we adopt your plan, when we will be bombing all the countries that are not the 5 established nuclear powers). Thats India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, etc.
I think your ideas perfectly sum up why the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" was invented in the first place, think about it.
This could lead to a small scale nuclear war, yes, if said nations were to use nukes because they were having sanctions used against them. Any nation which would do so should certainly not have nukes.
Although abhorrent, a small scale nuclear war is much better than a large scale nuclear war which would destroy humanity. That is what I want to prevent from becoming possible by disarming all nukes.
OK, like accountable, I don't want you to think I am getting at you, I am sure you are a decent fella, but seriously.
How are you going to "enforce" any sanctions or for that matter any system of law on anyone, if you are attempting to remove all ability for anyone to use force? The countries that were enforcing these ideas no doubt would have to "promise" all the other countries they were threatening with destruction that they themselves completely intended to "disarm" themselves (as soon as no-one else was left who could prevent them from not doing it, as of course they would have already disarmed), what country in its right mind would sign up to such an idea? No one of course, except under the threat of Nuclear destruction, what a chilling thought.
Its a case of "Peace and Love, or Else" enforced by "who" exactly?
Who would have the authority to carry out such a scheme? I remind you that the UN does not have an army or nuclear weapons, and is treaty-bound not to be able to have them as its not a sovereign government representing a people, its an international institution that represents governments. Would it be the U.S., or Russia, or China, France, or Britain, that would get to be the last person with the stick to beat everyone else into line, while promising that it would also follow suit, (as soon as there was no way to prevent them doing anything they liked)? What nonsense!
What sort of surreal justification would it be to launch a nuclear war to prevent an alleged worse nuclear war? There is no guarantee that there will be one now, (unless we adopt your plan, when we will be bombing all the countries that are not the 5 established nuclear powers). Thats India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, etc.
I think your ideas perfectly sum up why the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" was invented in the first place, think about it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Galbally;496681 wrote: OK, like accountable, I don't want you to think I am getting at you, I am sure you are a decent fella, but seriously.
How are you going to "enforce" any sanctions or for that matter any system of law on anyone, if you are attempting to remove all ability for anyone to use force? The countries that were enforcing these ideas no doubt would have to "promise" all the other countries they were threatening with destruction that they themselves completely intended to "disarm" themselves (as soon as no-one else was left who could prevent them from not doing it, as of course they would have already disarmed), what country in its right mind would sign up to such an idea? No one of course, except under the threat of Nuclear destruction, what a chilling thought.
Its a case of "Peace and Love, or Else" enforced by "who" exactly?
Who would have the authority to carry out such a scheme? I remind you that the UN does not have an army or nuclear weapons, and is treaty-bound not to be able to have them as its not a sovereign government representing a people, its an international institution that represents governments. Would it be the U.S., or Russia, or China, France, or Britain, that would get to be the last person with the stick to beat everyone else into line, while promising that it would also follow suit, (as soon as there was no way to prevent them doing anything they liked)? What nonsense!
What sort of surreal justification would it be to launch a nuclear war to prevent an alleged worse nuclear war? There is no guarantee that there will be one now, (unless we adopt your plan, when we will be bombing all the countries that are not the 5 established nuclear powers). Thats India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, etc.
I think your ideas perfectly sum up why the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" was invented in the first place, think about it.
I am not proposing war, I am proposing trade sanctions, which would I hope be enough to convince a small country. Larger countries would already have to be disarmed of nukes before they could tell smaller ones to disarm. It would only come to war if the country being sanctioned against was to declare war.
I am not saying that this is what the world should do, I know you are right, things don't work like that. My posts are usually describing how I would like things to be in a perfect world. It is also very interesting to read people's arguments against me.
By the way, I don't take any responses personally, and neither should anyone who I respond to. I just like to be different and am used to being in the minority. To be honest I like it that way.:sneaky:
How are you going to "enforce" any sanctions or for that matter any system of law on anyone, if you are attempting to remove all ability for anyone to use force? The countries that were enforcing these ideas no doubt would have to "promise" all the other countries they were threatening with destruction that they themselves completely intended to "disarm" themselves (as soon as no-one else was left who could prevent them from not doing it, as of course they would have already disarmed), what country in its right mind would sign up to such an idea? No one of course, except under the threat of Nuclear destruction, what a chilling thought.
Its a case of "Peace and Love, or Else" enforced by "who" exactly?
Who would have the authority to carry out such a scheme? I remind you that the UN does not have an army or nuclear weapons, and is treaty-bound not to be able to have them as its not a sovereign government representing a people, its an international institution that represents governments. Would it be the U.S., or Russia, or China, France, or Britain, that would get to be the last person with the stick to beat everyone else into line, while promising that it would also follow suit, (as soon as there was no way to prevent them doing anything they liked)? What nonsense!
What sort of surreal justification would it be to launch a nuclear war to prevent an alleged worse nuclear war? There is no guarantee that there will be one now, (unless we adopt your plan, when we will be bombing all the countries that are not the 5 established nuclear powers). Thats India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, etc.
I think your ideas perfectly sum up why the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" was invented in the first place, think about it.
I am not proposing war, I am proposing trade sanctions, which would I hope be enough to convince a small country. Larger countries would already have to be disarmed of nukes before they could tell smaller ones to disarm. It would only come to war if the country being sanctioned against was to declare war.
I am not saying that this is what the world should do, I know you are right, things don't work like that. My posts are usually describing how I would like things to be in a perfect world. It is also very interesting to read people's arguments against me.
By the way, I don't take any responses personally, and neither should anyone who I respond to. I just like to be different and am used to being in the minority. To be honest I like it that way.:sneaky: