Alternatives to war?

[zanket]

War is currently the ultimate way for nations to resolve disputes. But could it be, say, mediation? Do you think there is any good way to ensure that an alternate way is the ultimate way? Such as, a way where war would always backfire against the aggressor? Or a way where war is impossible, without having to genetically alter people?

Offhand, the only way I can think of is for there to be benevolent ETs who are far more powerful than any nation, who'd slap down any aggressors. Has some major drawbacks though.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We seem not to have noticed that the world has already reached the point that war is, in fact, not in vogue as a "way for nations to resolve disputes."

Look at the "wars" that are being waged at this moment. The U.S. against... well, against a vaguely defined but definitely transnational group of terrorists. Terrorism is not war, and neither is an action to suppress it. We've got some battles going on in Africa, but if that's what war has devolved into, it won't be long before it's extinct. Chaotic, poorly funded, waged primarly against civilian targets, it has more in common with terrorism than with true warfare.

The U.S. was at war with Iraq, but only for an eyeblink before we defeated a hopelessly inferior enemy force. That wasn't so much warfare as bullying. Ditto for Afghanistan, and in that case we even admitted that we were making "war" on the Taliban, not the whole country.

What was the last real honest-to-Ares war? Our previous bullying of Iraq over its bullying of Kuwait? The five-sided donnybrook in the former Yugoslavia? The flyweight stalemate between Iraq vs. Iran?

Yes, I suppose any of those could be called war and it would be an insult to the people who died therein to deny them that strange sort of honor.

But still... Sixty years ago we had just finished a war that killed tens of millions of people, involved nuclear weapons, and resulted in the abject destruction of two of the world's most powerful nations and a complete reorganization of global politics.

Then Korea, Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli War.

Then Bosnia, Somalia, Chad, Afghanistan, Iraq.

I see a trend here. I don't think that nations are finding war to be the ultimate way to resolve disputes any more. For one thing, the most recent wars haven't really resolved anything.

We now have violence on a much smaller scale. Terrorism. All in all, a vast improvement.

 

[zanket]

Well, it's true that less people are being killed compared to past wars. That may be largely due to better targeting than less waging of war.

I think the Iraq war is very much a war today and wasn't won in an "eyeblink". Without a draft I think it's very possible that the US will lose, by losing control of the oil. With the US' military superiority, wars just look different today. The US needs an army to keep the oil (or whatever resource it's stealing at the moment) flowing, but the other side needs only a lot of little bombs and cell phones for detonators.

We have the only superpower on the warpath. Clearly Iran is next and that was predictable two years ago, when the propaganda dept. started ramping up the pretext. Given that the majority of Americans are now gullible and dumb, giving up key rights for little or no gain, I give it about 50/50 odds that democracy will fall worldwide within a century. I foresee more war than ever in the future, until dictatorship reigns supreme again. Terrorism will remain as mostly what it is today--the oppressed vs. the oppressors, for independence or revenge. Let's not forget that George Washington was a terrorist.

Probably there is no alternative to war as the ultimate solution. But education can get us most of the way. Unfortunately the would-be dictators know that, so they work hard to replace education with religion; e.g. "intelligent design".

 

[TW Scott]

Show me which rights the Republicans took away....

 

[zanket]

The fourth and fifth amendments. Both are optional now.

 

[draqon]

Zanket instead of war, massive suicide can be commited by one side, and the computer will decide what party that is based on random selection.

 

[one_raven]

How about education, communication, respect and understanding?

I also think abolishing Capitalism would go a hell of a long way.

 

[TW Scott]

The fourth and fifth amendments. Both are optional now.

Really? I hadn't noticed such things, but then again I am here in reality.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Let's not forget that George Washington was a terrorist.

It's important, especially now, to maintain the distinction between terrorism and acts of war.

Terrorists disguise themselves as civilians and blend in with their civilian population in order to avoid being targeted by their enemy's forces. Terrorists deliberately attack non-military targets for the shock value and because they're less well defended. Terrorists attempt to win support for their cause among their enemy's civilian population by extortion because their cause is too unpopular there to gain support any other way and because their enemy's military is too strong to defeat.

Warriors or soldiers identify themselves clearly to reduce the chances of their civilians being targeted by accident or out of frustration. They attack military targets or at least targets of strategic military importance like bridges. They don't much care what their enemy's civilians think of them or who supports their cause. Their mission is to render their enemy's military incapable of controlling them, or at least making military control too costly for the enemy to justify.

George Washington was a soldier, not a terrorist. Being a rebel doesn't automatically make you a terrorist, as long as you fight with honor.

 

[zanket]

Zanket instead of war, massive suicide can be commited by one side, and the computer will decide what party that is based on random selection.

That's good, now we're getting somewhere. But how can it be assured that both sides will adhere to this method? Suppose the side the computer picked won't abide it? Your method seems based on agreement. How is the agreement enforced, if not by war?

 

[zanket]

How about education, communication, respect and understanding?

I also think abolishing Capitalism would go a hell of a long way.

Agreed. I think war can be mitigated through education, which helps to lead to the other things, but war will probably always be the ultimate way to resolve disputes. I don't see a way to enforce an alternative.

 

[thedevilsreject]

how about sitting everyone around a table and have a nice cup of tea :bugeye:

 

[zanket]

Really? I hadn't noticed such things, but then again I am here in reality.

Clearly your reality is but a fantasy or you failed to notice. If you're an American, your home can be searched without your knowledge or a warrant. And you can be held in solitary confinement without charge or access to counsel for years. Neither was the case before 2001.

 

[zanket]

Terrorists disguise themselves as civilians and blend in with their civilian population in order to avoid being targeted by their enemy's forces.

Like the CIA when they sneak in for an assassination?

Terrorists deliberately attack non-military targets for the shock value and because they're less well defended.

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Terrorists attempt to win support for their cause among their enemy's civilian population by extortion because their cause is too unpopular there to gain support any other way and because their enemy's military is too strong to defeat.

Like Abu Ghraib torture?

Warriors or soldiers identify themselves clearly to reduce the chances of their civilians being targeted by accident or out of frustration. They attack military targets or at least targets of strategic military importance like bridges. They don't much care what their enemy's civilians think of them or who supports their cause. Their mission is to render their enemy's military incapable of controlling them, or at least making military control too costly for the enemy to justify.

George Washington was a soldier, not a terrorist. Being a rebel doesn't automatically make you a terrorist, as long as you fight with honor.

That is a false distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. The dictionary definition of "terrorist" is "somebody using violence for political purposes". George Washington fit that definition to a tee. He overthrew his government via war.

Americans are taught the false distinction precisely so they'll think that they're on the righteous side even when they're not. It's simple brainwashing.

 

[TW Scott]

Clearly your reality is but a fantasy or you failed to notice. If you're an American, your home can be searched without your knowledge or a warrant. And you can be held in solitary confinement without charge or access to counsel for years. Neither was the case before 2001.

Is an American citizen and neither has happened to me or any of the thousands of citizen in my area. Hmmmm. Seems you are the one living a very ugly fantasy. Now please go tell the nurse that your medication needs adjusting.

 

[TW Scott]

Like the CIA when they sneak in for an assassination?

CIA are civillians

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

A Zero factory and a nuclear pile ARE military targets.

Like Abu Ghraib torture?

Torture? I have seen sessions of truth or Dare more intense than that. Doesn't make it right, but it was not government sanctioned at all. It was rogue military personel.

That is a false distinction between a soldier and a terrorist. The dictionary definition of "terrorist" is "somebody using violence for political purposes". George Washington fit that definition to a tee. He overthrew his government via war.

Actually what the ditionary states and what a legal definition is are quite often seperate things.

George Washington did no such thing. The British government is still alive and well. He merely freed a group of people being oppressed by a governemnt intent on breaking it's own rules about representation.

Americans are taught the false distinction precisely so they'll think that they're on the righteous side even when they're not. It's simple brainwashing.

Or perhaps you are brainwashed to believe that? Oh wait there is no supportive evidence of that nor is there of your claim.

 

[zanket]

Is an American citizen and neither has happened to me or any of the thousands of citizen in my area.

If it hasn't happened to you then it cannot be so.

CIA are civillians

Terrorists are not?

A Zero factory and a nuclear pile ARE military targets.

Yep, those pesky cities keep getting in the way.

Torture? I have seen sessions of truth or Dare more intense than that.

Don't just look at the pictures. Read the articles too.

George Washington ... merely freed a group of people being oppressed by a governemnt intent on breaking it's own rules about representation.

Yes, terrorists seek freedom from oppression.

 

[TW Scott]

If it hasn't happened to you then it cannot be so.

Well it obviously has not happened to you either, which leads me to believe that A you are a nutter and B that you are obviously worrying about nothing.

Terrorists are not?

Well, they claim to be at war, meanwhile the CIA don't claim a thing.

Yep, those pesky cities keep getting in the way.

Still a military target. I would never call Chicago Illinois or Midland Michigan a civillian target in a nuclear exchange. Why should those two cities be exempted.

Don't just look at the pictures. Read the articles too.

That was reading the article, well the even slight credible ones anyway. I think you have no clue how bad Truth or Dare can be.

Yes, terrorists seek freedom from oppression.

Now I understand! You are Dyslexic that is supposed to be Terrorist seek to OPRESS the FREE.

 

[Absane]

How about education, communication, respect and understanding?

Understand terrorists, for example? I sure hope not.

 

[draqon]

That's good, now we're getting somewhere. But how can it be assured that both sides will adhere to this method? Suppose the side the computer picked won't abide it? Your method seems based on agreement. How is the agreement enforced, if not by war?

all citizens have a small biological switch in their body that activates from a specific induced action and releases neurotoxins that kill the body.