Pel
Philosopher
Some are born to move the world
Posts: 216
|
Post by Pel on May 22, 2007 19:53:51 GMT -5
Feel free to blow holes in this little "theory". I'm looking for all criticisms, constructive or not. My goal here is to create a coherent discourse outlining and explaining my concept.
First off, the concept is to have a type of "world defense net". This organization's sole purpose will be to stop nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles from being launched. And, if launched, to take down those missiles and seek to punish those responsible.
The organization will be made up of expatriated (if that's a word) individuals--people who give up their nationality/national citizenship. They would then (in my hopeful opinion) be considered Citizens of the World, seen as defenders of the greater good of life. The purpose of this requirement will be so that the members of the organization will not have ties to specific nations. An organization of this type should not have bias toward or against any particular country.
The organization must have satellites around the globe to effectively watch out for missiles and nukes. These satellites would feed information to a central hub where the majority of the workers would be stationed.
The central hub would be a fortified installation to protect against any threats. Most likely it would be on an island where access would be restricted both from sea and air, so the only serious threat would be from missiles, which the organization itself is designed to combat. Therefore the installation wouldn't have to be too seriously defended. It wouldn't be a prison-like environment since most of the workers and their families would be living there.
There would probably be weapons installations at certain points around the globe to ensure the fast destruction of any intercontinental missiles or nuclear weapons. These points could be very small segments of land donated by countries sympathetic to the cause, off-shore permanent installations, boats, submarines, some type of long-term aircraft, or satellites equipped with weapons.
All weapons would be defensive in nature. There would be no weapons of mass destruction, only weapons powerful enough to destroy the missiles and nukes.
The funding would have to come from trusts, charitable organizations, and nations as a whole. Long-term funding solutions would definitely have to be discussed.
The first step to creating this organization would be the main hub and satellites. Even without weapons, it could issue early warning and hold those launching missiles accountable.
I brought up that the organization would "punish" those responsible for launching missiles/nukes. The word "punish" is very harsh for what I meant it to define. The only way the organization could "punish" would be to make information known. For example, if a country is attacked by another via intercontinental missile or nuclear weapon, the organization could immediately release a statement offering who attacked whom and back it up with satellite evidence. From there, the UN or other group could decide how to further proceed.
By creating this "world defense net", I believe it would be the first step, if not to peace, then to a relative feeling of security. Removing the threat of intercontinental missiles and nuclear weapons would greatly diminish the destructive power of humanity. International affairs would be more likely to be settled by diplomacy rather than death. Keep in mind that this organization is not a "world police". It would have no place in civil affairs. It's only purpose would be to preserve life against the above-mentioned large-scale threats.
|
|
|
Post by stormcat on May 23, 2007 8:30:54 GMT -5
They had an episode like this on the Outer Limits. The people were buried under the earth, sealed in the bunkers. It was to prevent world decimation, then the ...Space Aliens came. I'm more worried about Biological weapons. They're easy to transport and can infect a city in a week. Yes I'd put money on Bio weapons.>^+.+^<
|
|
Finn
Philosopher
Posts: 153
|
Post by Finn on May 23, 2007 9:21:59 GMT -5
I want to start by saying it is a very idealistic notion. Historically, it places you in good company to even spend time musing about it. There are a few problems with it which I'm going to outline. Please bear in mind that I'm not trying to shoot the notion down, but rather inject a degree of pragmatism into it. The goal is to prevent nuclear destruction, which from a human standpoint is a laudible goal. It might just be that said goal probably more attainable by less ambitious plans. First off, the concept is to have a type of "world defense net". This organization's sole purpose will be to stop nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles from being launched. And, if launched, to take down those missiles and seek to punish those responsible. "20000 Leagues Under the Sea," by Verne has nearly the same premise. The naval warship was the weapon of mass destruction of its age, and Nemo with his submarine destroyed warship after warship in a very determined effort. Nemo's crew likewise considered themselves citizens of the world (or sea) and they all considered themselves expatriots. Of course, this part of the plan is doomed to failure. There aren't enough fanatical idealists to accomplish this goal. That is what you are talking about here, "fanatics" as no armchair idealist would set aside their own life, country, and all else for no other cause. Such people do exist, but not in the numbers to achieve this mandate. As with the fictional Nemo, I expect you would find the nations of the world would take issue with such an effort. All of this would have to be managed in secret or it would just be prevented, destroyed, or subsumed by the more powerful nations merely to victimize the weaker. All this is a pretty big "IF." It is far easier to destroy than to create. There is no such thing as an invulnerable fortification. Moreover, you would need fanatics to staff it, fanatics to build it in secret, and the moment this organization (could all this be done in secret) made its first overt act, it would be fighting the entire world. Not feasible for the same reasons I've already quoted. I won't even go into costs. There is no such thing as a "defensive" weapon. Even if all this was possible, the ability to neutralize the weapons of another, while being immune yourself is still an offensive power. It would be, if possible, the most power ever concentrated in the hands of one organization ever achieved. It would then fall upon frail human ethics not to abuse it. Let us just say that I think this "cure" would be far worse than the disease. Long term? How even initial. I don't think you truly understand the scope of costs you are talking about, particularly since there is no profit in such an enterprise whatsoever. Moreover, once the nations of the world are deprived (if it were possible) of their abilities to make war of this nature, what then? Wouldn't you all but be ensuring that conventional wars with newer more deadly conventional weapons, biological weapons, and so on be the reality? It is a nice idea, a global watchdog system, but if the most powerful nations of the world bent on such thing already can't manage one with 100% accuracy. Of course I give you absolutely no hope of suriving the response of the nations you point the finger at. You are also assuming that ANYONE will believe your organization. There are lots of watchdog groups who blow the whistle at abuses now. They aren't taken that seriously. It would be a benign dictatorship whose only purpose would be to ensure peace? Hrm. I've heard that song before. Of course, the ramifications of such a system would only lead to other types of warfare which you would have to try and stem via more aggressive means. There is no such thing as a free lunch. This is also known as "you cannot maximize two variables." The dream is Utopian and honorable. It is however impossible on nearly every single level.
|
|
Pel
Philosopher
Some are born to move the world
Posts: 216
|
Post by Pel on May 23, 2007 13:35:18 GMT -5
I deliberately spoke of the tangible aspects of the theory first because I wanted to become aware of the holes in that area of the theory before going onto anything else, but since it was brought up already, I suppose we can discuss the human portion.
I want to first say that the theory is not impossible. I concede that it is very highly improbable when viewed in the light of a biased nation's motives. The current trend of today's powerful nations is one of mutually assured destruction (MAD for short). Nations develop weapons with such terrible power that no one would dare use them. To provoke one of these powerful nations would be to bring an almost apocalyptic wrath upon the world. Two or more competing nations obtain a delicate sense of security when it becomes evident that if a large-scale war were to break out, they would effectively destroy each other. Since the options are "peace" and "everybody dies" ... most people choose "peace".
The "world defense net" would almost castrate nations with nuclear capabilities by depriving them of their most feared weapon. Weaker nations that lose their nukes will feel impotent against stronger nations. MAD would no longer be as easily attained. It's obvious why nations would oppose the world defense net. No one wants to be stripped of power.
I'd also like to say that a person doesn't need to be a fanatic to take part in the world defense net. Sure, no armchair idealist would give up everything for the sake of this goal. Of course, no "armchair" anything would give up much for any cause. I still wouldn't call the people participating fanatics; I don't consider them unreasonable or uncritical. I get the feeling you're looking at the defense net as housed in a bunker of some type. I never meant to give that impression. The main hub would have to be more like a town or city. The workers would have families they wouldn't want to leave; no one should force them to choose between their life and their ideals.
But let me add onto the theory. (Remember that this is just a thought experiment, so it's malleable. Also, since it's just one of my little musings, don't be afraid if I'll be offended at comments. I don't mean the discussion to be simply "us vs. them". I'd prefer it if this was seen as a game where we could come up with the best possible outcome given the basic premise.) Suppose that the UN gave support for creating the world defense net. They could take this action for any reason. Maybe they felt that depriving the world of nukes was better than their involvement in MAD. Maybe a few charismatic leaders gained enough support to push it through.
What would the world be like then? I'm sure wars would erupt very soon afterward. In the absence of nukes, nations would inevitably invade other nations since MAD would have less of an impact. In the ideal situation, leaders of comparable nations would see that conventional warfare would expend many of their soldiers. As a result, they would be less able to effectively police newly invaded areas. They would eventually be stretched too thin and either overturned or invaded themselves.
Another scenario would be of a much stronger nation invading a weak one, in which any resistance would be met with a force so great that it would be like water rushing over a stone. The weaker nation's only choices would be to ally itself with other nations or create newer weapons to once again reach MAD.
Taking the first choice first, I'm sure we would see a lot of new alliances formed, old alliances revived, or current alliances strengthened. Until new weapons fill the gap left by nukes, alliances of nations with strong armies would be the greatest advantage in war.
Considering the choice of creating newer weapons ... it's not only possible, but likely to happen. Human history is written in blood. Wars drew and redrew the lines on the map numerous times. It seems inescapable. My highest hope is that in the time lag between nukes and the next horrible weapon, we would see leaders settling disputes with diplomacy. I don't expect all wars to cease; that's too idealistic, even for me. What I hope is that alliances formed would stick, or at least impose nonaggression. The are far subtler ways than war to influence foreign policy. In today's world, economics holds the key to many decisions. If nations allied themselves to secure their survival in the face of war, is it irrational to think that they might discover other benefits such as strengthened trade agreements or a greater economic base drawn from shared resources?
|
|
Finn
Philosopher
Posts: 153
|
Post by Finn on May 23, 2007 16:31:15 GMT -5
I want to first say that the theory is not impossible. I concede that it is very highly improbable when viewed in the light of a biased nation's motives. Nothing is impossible, but some things are so improbable that we might as well consider them such. I think you are too myopic on the motives of "nations" and overlooking the motivations of individuals. Human beings, by in large, look to their own, immediate interests first. They think in terms of small groups and immediate gain, even when considering vast numbers and ideas. This notion of yours is entirely a "big picture" Utopian plan whose only tangible reward is peace of mind. The fact is we haven't blown ourselves up yet, and until signifigant bombs go off, people won't truly accept the danger of it. We are reactive, not proactive. Your plan doesn't hinge on the desires or wants of nations, but on the likelyhood you can interest the average person within those nations. Compared to day to day wants and desires, you have no chance. People choose creature comforts over peace of mind every time. And one could argue that MAD has been rather effective at preventing large-scale wars which drag the entire world into chaos. It begs the question of why you feel it is a good idea to try and replace it with a different system? There are several problems with this theory. Smaller nations, in general, do not have nuclear capabilities. They would not feel impotent against "stronger" nations because what constitutes a stronger nation would change. While certain nations hold a signifigant scientific advantage in conventional weapons, with the threat of nuclear weapons gone, power shifts to the nation that has more people and a willingness to use/lose them. You would be creating a more level playing field which would only encourage war, not discourage it. I expect weaker nations would be all for your system because they have little to nothing to lose by it, and everything to gain. We will have to agree to disagree. The kind of venture you are talking about has no profit motive. The only kind of people who take on such tasks are fanatics in the service of a cause. Most people are driven by more materialistic, rustic needs. You are asking people to arrange their lives around a goal which would make dramatic demands, place their lives in danger, and in the end is only theoretical as to the benefit. It better be housed in a bunker or a prison or buried under miles of earth, behind a force field, on another planet, on Olympus, and so on because the people it affects will try to take it out, period. We can all win at games of make-believe. But that doesn't mean they have any value whatsoever. This might be a good exercise for brainstorming science fiction novels, but I don't really see the entertainment value? They wouldn't. As long as the nuclear powers sit on the Security Council and have veto powers, it is simply not going to happen. You cannot "push" anything through the UN that the Security Council doesn't like. Except that they wouldn't. You are making the same mistake that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made. He wrote an essay on the machine gun, which was new during his time. He said that given the sure carnage and power of this weapon and the horror it inflicts that no sane person or nation would long stay at war because of it. He was wrong. Moreover, you are not calculating in the fact that there is a dramatic overpopulation problem in the world today. The horrors of war don't stop wars. The only thing that stops a war is when the combatants can no longer stand, or one side has destroyed the other. We can "what if" till we are blue in the face, but it is far easier to look at the lessons of history. If it teaches us anything, it teaches us how human beings wage war. This is how we ended up in World War I and one can argue World War II. I don't see how this is positive. MAD only works before the wars start, it never manages to stop them already in progress. Yes. Here we agree, although I'm not sure why you think this would be a good thing, if that is your argument? Ummm? My question is why would you want to bring on all the horror, new wars, new alliances, and so on when we already have a fairly stable world and relative peace? This kind of mindset lends itself to the Christian belief in the "Time of Tribulations," whereby we can only achieve the perfect world once everything goes to hell. It just seems to me that a better solution would be for the world to remain afraid of MAD and move along to the point where nuclear weapons become obsolete because we are so entangled with each other economically that war is no longer a profit driven industry. You are assuming those are benefits. Of course, let me point something out. War is good. Death, famine, destruction, natural disasters, and disease are mother nature's way of keeping things in balance. Mr. Malthus will have the last laugh. Best estimates by population experts say that the Earth as a carrying capacity for human at only about 2 Billion while being able to renew resources and maintain diversity. Exceeding that means that we use up more than can regenerate and extinctions of other species continues. We are well in excess of that number. I wake up every morning and say "go bird flu go!" Of course I'm not particular about which pandemic cuts us back. Naturally I hope I'm a survivor as are my friends and family, but I think such choices are best left to nature, not us. War is born of many factors, limited resources is one of them. If you want more peace, there will have to be fewer people. In essence, it is a self correcting problem, just not in the way you envision.
|
|
|
Post by KittyLane on May 23, 2007 20:57:20 GMT -5
I personally do not ever see a time when people from around the globe could make up a task force of, "World Police". Because simply there never has been peace. Wars have been waged since the dawn of man. It is just how life is. It is a novel idea, but one I fear will never take place. (Not unless the whole world is bombed and the people left united...)
Flaw in this would be, that the weapons used to destroy the missiles and nukes would not be fazed by these new defensive,"bombs". IMO having dealt with weapons and the making of firearm projectiles you usually have to get truly inventive with a new weapon or get bigger.
I feel that in creating something like this would stir up so much drama. The U.S. would be seen as the ring leaders and hated even more than we are today. IMO
|
|