This is pretty much what world peace activists look like. Good intentions(?) but idiotically unrealistic. The only way to obtain world peace is through total destruction or absolute slavery.
Even so, it still is something that one can try to dream about. It's the same thing as seeing people happy. Of course it's impossible for everyone in the world to be happy but it doesn't mean that you should give up on trying to.
Besides, once the robots rise up and enslave us all I'm sure we'll have a "sorta" world peace. Although most of us will be dead by then. Or probed.
This is pretty much what world peace activists look like. Good intentions(?) but idiotically unrealistic. The only way to obtain world peace is through total destruction or absolute slavery.
Absolute slavery would be excessive. It's sufficient to have institutions that are strong enough to maintain an effective monopoly on warfare. If there is only one army, then that army will either have to remain at peace or run around killing civvies for the hell of it. Sweden, for example, has not been a war zone in 200 years. The US and Canada, basically an entire continent, have not been a war zone in 150 years. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be scaled up to the whole planet. And once that happens, the possibility of foreign aggression will also have been eliminated.
The big mistake of pacifism is that it tries to get rid of weapons first and conflicts later, instead of doing it the other way around. As long as people believe - rightly or not - that there are other people out there who seek to destroy them and everything they believe in, they are not going to disarm.
This is pretty much what world peace activists look like. Good intentions(?) but idiotically unrealistic. The only way to obtain world peace is through total destruction or absolute slavery.
Have you ever been in a real war? I am a fan of everything military, but even I know that war is hell and not having one is better. And is pretty idiotically unrealistic to expect war to solve the world problems. War is not a remedy, is a consequence. Even the top tier military men know that a war well fought is a war never fought at all. That's why the tendency these days is to send in small groups of special operatives supported by superior technology armament instead of large scale armies. You speak like some peasant from the middle ages son...
Have you ever been in a real war? I am a fan of everything military, but even I know that war is hell and not having one is better. And is pretty idiotically unrealistic to expect war to solve the world problems. War is not a remedy, is a consequence. Even the top tier military men know that a war well fought is a war never fought at all. That's why the tendency these days is to send in small groups of special operatives supported by superior technology armament instead of large scale armies. You speak like some peasant from the middle ages son...
Yes, and I also know of a war where it was avoided until it was too late and the strategic advantage against the OpFor was lost. It turned into one of the largest modern conflicts in the world known as World War II. Also if you were active in any first world military you would know that we use special forces not because they are ideal forms of fighting, but because they offer the promise of big results for little cost. Same reason "drones" (glorified RC planes) were established. They aren't better than a manned aircraft but they are cheaper and with less political backlash if a human is downed. In truth special operations have to be supported by a large armed force in order to be effective. We are literally sending our best men into the fray to die because we have them peck at a superior OpFor without proper support, and that is because we are too wishy-washy to commit our forces to the conflicts that need to be fought. Ever wonder why the middle east conflict has dragged on for so long or the rise of PMCs? Because we aren't willing to officially go to 100% power since the beginning. We take territory and then give it back to the very people we fought over it. Sure, Sun Tzu teaches to have other forces fight your wars, but he said to do so once you completely assimilate them into your own. Setting up local milita groups is pointless when most of these guys were never on our side but pretend that they sympathize with us. We restrict our own tactics by establishing and following ROE which don't focus on our own forces survival, but our enemies. We don't seize assets like burning their crops, poisoning their water wells, taking their oil and waiting for them to crawl back to us to surrender unconditionally. Instead, we actually aid their war machine by helping everyone with humanitarian aid which is the only reason muslim terrorist organizations have even survived this long. We negotiated when we could have had the upper hand. Ever wonder why Japan is such a loyal ally of the US? We completely dominated and obliterated their empire physically with bombs and island hopping, and then politically by utilizing their emperor as our in-between to establish favorable relations.
I'm not advocating starting wars, but the fact of the matter is that people are different and resources are limited (Thomas Malthus). Conflicts will occur, and if they don't that is usually because one faction is stepping down and crushing another. Either commit to your war when the problem first arises, or be prepared to be run over and assimilated by whoever is dominant.
Peace for your own country is fine. But trying to get peace for the world is where problems start and ironically good intentions lead towards that bloody road. Hitler and Stalin definitely were advocates of world peace. That is, peace under their flag.
Peace for your own country is fine. But trying to get peace for the world is where problems start and ironically good intentions lead towards that bloody road. Hitler and Stalin definitely were advocates of world peace. That is, peace under their flag.
Yes, and I also know of a war where it was avoided until it was too late and the strategic advantage against the OpFor was lost. It turned into one of the largest modern conflicts in the world known as World War II. Also if you were active in any first world military you would know that we use special forces not because they are ideal forms of fighting, but because they offer the promise of big results for little cost. Same reason "drones" (glorified RC planes) were established. They aren't better than a manned aircraft but they are cheaper and with less political backlash if a human is downed. In truth special operations have to be supported by a large armed force in order to be effective. We are literally sending our best men into the fray to die because we have them peck at a superior OpFor without proper support, and that is because we are too wishy-washy to commit our forces to the conflicts that need to be fought. Ever wonder why the middle east conflict has dragged on for so long or the rise of PMCs? Because we aren't willing to officially go to 100% power since the beginning. We take territory and then give it back to the very people we fought over it. Sure, Sun Tzu teaches to have other forces fight your wars, but he said to do so once you completely assimilate them into your own. Setting up local milita groups is pointless when most of these guys were never on our side but pretend that they sympathize with us. We restrict our own tactics by establishing and following ROE which don't focus on our own forces survival, but our enemies. We don't seize assets like burning their crops, poisoning their water wells, taking their oil and waiting for them to crawl back to us to surrender unconditionally. Instead, we actually aid their war machine by helping everyone with humanitarian aid which is the only reason muslim terrorist organizations have even survived this long. We negotiated when we could have had the upper hand. Ever wonder why Japan is such a loyal ally of the US? We completely dominated and obliterated their empire physically with bombs and island hopping, and then politically by utilizing their emperor as our in-between to establish favorable relations.
I'm not advocating starting wars, but the fact of the matter is that people are different and resources are limited (Thomas Malthus). Conflicts will occur, and if they don't that is usually because one faction is stepping down and crushing another. Either commit to your war when the problem first arises, or be prepared to be run over and assimilated by whoever is dominant.
Peace for your own country is fine. But trying to get peace for the world is where problems start and ironically good intentions lead towards that bloody road. Hitler and Stalin definitely were advocates of world peace. That is, peace under their flag.
Jesus Christ. You really need to read some history books son...
The fact that you quoted Malthus makes any effort in my part to "elaborate" and enlighten your way of thinking pretty much pointless...
Socrates via the writings of Plato once said (and I paraphrase) that it isn't the fault of the idiot for his rants, but that of the enlightened for holding back knowledge.
Then again, it is quite easy to say how knowledgeable you are without providing any reasoning that can survive under scrutiny. Kind of like John Kerry and his "smarter plan". We still don't know what that smarter plan is, but he has it.
Socrates via the writings of Plato once said (and I paraphrase) that it isn't the fault of the idiot for his rants, but that of the enlightened for holding back knowledge.
Then again, it is quite easy to say how knowledgeable you are without providing any reasoning that can survive under scrutiny. Kind of like John Kerry and his "smarter plan". We still don't know what that smarter plan is, but he has it.