Jump to content

World security framework needs total remaking


myata

Recommended Posts

From scratch. It isn't working. It's empty, hollow. It's helpless and powerless to do anything in reality, impo- you got it.

And it has Hitler speaking on the planet Security Council. That's new. Never happened yet. Wonder what happened to intelligent planets which allowed that.

So, empty as much as pretty words aren't working. What can and will? And what if we still couldn't figure that out?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • myata changed the title to World security framework needs total remaking
50 minutes ago, myata said:

From scratch. It isn't working. It's empty, hollow. It's helpless and powerless to do anything in reality, impo- you got it.

And it has Hitler speaking on the planet Security Council. That's new. Never happened yet. Wonder what happened to intelligent planets which allowed that.

So, empty as much as pretty words aren't working. What can and will? And what if we still couldn't figure that out?

What democratic leader wants to see their soldiers dying somewhere on some foreign shore to enforce international order?

Which assumes they are even able to assert such order given decades of neglect towards their militaries as the likes of China and Russia increased their military spending year after year after year after year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. What democratic leader wants to see their soldiers dying somewhere on some foreign shore to enforce international order?

2. Which assumes they are even able to assert such order given decades of neglect towards their militaries as the likes of China and Russia increased their military spending year after year after year after year.

1. None, and yet alliances are necessary to ensure peace 

2. Of course NATO could assert force if they wanted to.  This is why Russia didn't invade a NATO country.

1200px-U.S_-_China_-_Russia,_Military_Sp

From Wikipedia

 

--- ---

Since WW2, I'm guessing that there have been fewer wars, so I don't agree with the OP.  It's detestable that Russia and China are in the security council but trying to build something new from scratch wouldn't give us anything like what we have now in terms of comprehensive membership.  My opinion only... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it should be built it from scratch. The relic of old war and order that is no longer there and never was there in the first place has run its course and has no future. This situation now is a factual evidence that no, it can't have future because it cannot and not doing anything.

In place of pompous word that are hollow and empty, something that doesn't aspire to reach to the stars and have bazzilion commissions and offices doing little agree upon, and enforce a small number of common principles. 140 countries out of 200 voted for that. Let's say world is falling into the new axis divide. We have China and Russia, with India winking and a bunch of third world countries in-between. They have zero chance of joining EU and NATO and China will use that. So how long would NATO umbrella last, squeezed from all directions?

An alternative is an inclusive organization based on a small number of clear principles. No aggression and peaceful order is among the first. Arbitration panel from members elected by the community, no vetoes. Violation of principles has to be enforced. Again, panel investigates, members can be sanctioned, suspended or excluded for gross violations, outside violators, unified approach of isolation. Collective defense (140 states) isn't out of options when a member is attacked by an outsider.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. None, and yet alliances are necessary to ensure peace 

Depending on the alliances. The ones in 1914 weren't very helpful.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Of course NATO could assert force if they wanted to.  This is why Russia didn't invade a NATO country.

Military spending is just not a valid comparison of military capability. Most western spending is on salaries and benefits. Russia and China draft people, pay them very little compared to western militaries, and spend pennies on benefits. In addition, since western workers all earn much more, all the equipment we equip our militaries with costs a lot more. That does not mean they're that much better, though. I'm sure neither Russia nor China have a five billion dollar frigate like we're building, but that doesn't mean their frigates aren't at least nearly as good.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. Depending on the alliances. The ones in 1914 weren't very helpful.

2. Military spending is just not a valid comparison of military capability. Most western spending is on salaries and benefits. Russia and China draft people, pay them very little compared to western militaries, and spend pennies on benefits. In addition, since western workers all earn much more, all the equipment we equip our militaries with costs a lot more. That does not mean they're that much better, though. I'm sure neither Russia nor China have a five billion dollar frigate like we're building, but that doesn't mean their frigates aren't at least nearly as good.

1. Yes agreed but even if they are, my point stands.  Someone has to fight for another country.

2. Again agreed but you introduced spending.  Is there a better comparison of strength?  I'd like to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

In my opinion -> Not realistic.

Even if you convert everyone here on this forum and all our Western world to this utopia, it can not be applied without force as not all groups think the same. 

In turn force creates other reactionary forces, and in my view -> it leads to chaos. Anarchy. 

How are you going to convince groups in other parts of the world that like to be led by authoritarian figures to subscribe to this idea and maintain peace

I think if you look at how the UN was formed, in the aftermath of a cataclysmic global conflict, after which a handful of superpowers remained, you see what is necessary to form an assembly of this type and scale.

Now, if China and Russia elected liberal/cooperative governments and maintained them for a generation you might see some change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes agreed but even if they are, my point stands.  Someone has to fight for another country.

2. Again agreed but you introduced spending.  Is there a better comparison of strength?  I'd like to see it.

In the solely Canadian context spending is a measure of increase/decrease/attention in the military. In a world context for comparisons only the size (people) and equipment tells the story. Canada spends about  $26b on the military and has maybe  50k-60k people with decades old equipment. Turkey spends $15b and has 355k people and newer equipment, including armed drones, and lots of them, anti-air, anti-armor, self-propelled artillery, and surface to surface missiles, none of which Canada possesses. It has 3,000 tanks while Canada has perhaps 60, ten times as many armored vehicles, a bigger navy, and a bigger air force.

Edited by I am Groot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Even if you convert everyone here on this forum and all our Western world to this utopia, it can not be applied without force as not all groups think the same. 

So between impossible and (clearly, obviously) dysfunctional do we have a good choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...