NO!! We don't need some fucking global corrupt organisation telling what countries should do and not to do.
The world does need someone or something telling it what to do. It's proven thoughout history that large scale wars start when their is an absence of a global hegemon or two superpowers balancing each other out. With the decline of the USA and Russia in economic and military terms and the advancement of poers like China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, there is a real danger of a large scale war in the near future.
Are you suggesting that we have less wars thanks to UN? I rather believe it has to do with nuclear technology. However, lets say we have a global government with a millitary monopoly and the government becomes fascist. Not much to escape to then.
No I'm suggesting we have less wars when there is a world hegemon And how many countries now have nuclear technology, it's not the deterrant it once was. Who suggested that?? Have you been reading 1984?
Nukes prevents wars since both parts relise that nobody would really go winning out of the war. I think, there's a big chance that etc Cuba would have been attacked otherways. If there's no powerbalance in the world. The leaders gets more freedom to do whatever they want without facing any consequenses. Just a suggestion what can happen if we go to far with this.
America will never bomb north korea, unless north korea attacks Japan which they wont because they will mess with america, America will not attack north korea because They would have to worry about China, Also Russia because Russia is an ally of north korea America would be fucked if they ever did that.
Yeah, that works in the hands of rational governments and as a deterrent when one party was nuclear and the other was not. When you get to the suuation when many countries have gone nuclear you start getting into the realms of pre-emptive strikes. Exactly, and very soon you have cahos when countries feel they'll get away with attacking whoever they like with no consquences. Go and read up on International Relations, Realism and Plurualism
Well.. do they have any leaked plans/documents/witness reports regarding this that you can reffer to?
Yep.. it can totally abolish wars(or turn them into cold wars) between nuclear opponents but can cause an armageddon if irrational behavior appears. Thanks, I will take a look.
You can wrap this whole "How to keep the world peaceful" and this topic's bullshit into the following: Human nature always proves to end peace where peace is possible. Therefore, we as human beings, do not have the capacity to remain peaceful over a certain amount of time, because someone with a cynical personality will be born, and will want power. Thus, you have to come to the depressing conclusion, that peace is equal to: Impossible. World war 3, will go to world war 4, and will continue going, because we will always be fighting the evil in the world, while sometimes serving evil itself. This only took simple logic to figure out.
I fear that's the way we're heading. Nuclear weapons may have been a deterant before this decade, but with the increased proliferation we're heading past that stage. I'd actually argue the Cold War was a period of peace when at the time it didn't look that way. Hot wars erupted by proxy (Vietnam, Korea), though compared to the consequences had the USA and the USSR fought, then yes it was a peaceful period in recent world history. Two superpowers balance each other out, and a hegemon polices, many powers mean many wars on a lrage scale and we're heading that way now.
way to revive a year old thread..... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/24/turkey.kurds/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2730803.ece http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne..._L13546086_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-TURKEY-IRAQ-COL.XML http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7059721.stm http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/10/24/afx4254880.html