World Peace... For One Year?

@TitusPlaysChess123 writes:

"You do realise that the USA also has nuclear weapons.

By your logic, shouldn’t both sides be morally wrong?"

Fascinating.

So, to avoid moral hypocrisy, the United States, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the Soviet Union, China and the Free French should have given up their arms because they didn't want Hitler's armies, and the other armies of the Axis, to have arms -- and it was morally hypocritical to have arms yet oppose arms for the armies of Hitler and Mussolini and expansionist, Imperial Japan?

Sometimes in life we have to evaluate, consider behavior and danger rationally, and make a decision -- take a side.

The quest for survival does not present a sophist argument or an opportunity for equivocation. It isn't some undergraduate debate.

Do you know what has happened to dissidents in Iran recently? By the thousands? Do you know who Iran's current governmnt has long helped to fund?

It is not just America that apparently doesn't wish Iran to have nuclear weapons. Have you ever read United Nations resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, 1929 or 2231?

You're welcome to your opinions, of course. But you and I will obviously never agree about this subject. Have a good evening.

@Noflaps said ^

@TitusPlaysChess123 writes:

"You do realise that the USA also has nuclear weapons.

By your logic, shouldn’t both sides be morally wrong?"

---

Fascinating.

So, to avoid moral hypocrisy, the United States should have given up its arms because it didn't want Hitler'...

It’s noon for me, but I’ll appreciate it.

Maybe you have convinced me now. I do wish that we can all achieve peace and maybe I wish that nuclear weapons should serve a better purpose.

After all, we’re humans, not horses. And humans are... supposed to be good on the moral scale.

But with this topic, I have another question: are we (humans) unbearably naive?

Have a good evening.

P.S: At least we can agree on football.

I respect that you can change your mind, @TitusPlaysChess123 . It's unusual to see somebody do that and admit it. It gives me more hope for the future, actually. Thank you, sincerely.

And I am not arguing for the unimportance of morality. But morality requires men and women sometimes to make tough decisions. It would be naive only to think that tough decisions are not sometimes required.

I do not feel uneasy with nuclear weapons in the hands of Americans, or the British, or the French. I don't even feel uneasy with nukes in the hands of the Russians, actually -- although I could be mistaken. But that doesn't mean I think all governments, everywhere, can safely and fairly handle the horrifying power of nuclear weapons.

That's an attempt to be rational, and I think it's the opposite of naive. I could be wrong, of course. But apparently the United Nations likewise at times has recognized that some regimes need to be viewed differently from some others.

Now, as to football? Football is the opposite of nuclear weapons. I'd like to see football spread and spread and spread forever. Although it should always be present in Liverpool and Swindon Town and now -- it appears -- in Hull City. Because football is particularly beautiful in those locations.

As to Madrid and Barcelona? Yes, it's beautiful in both places. I'm careful to say that, since I do favor peace and hope not to start bitter quarrels.

@haroldlewis said ^

Russia considers Ukraine as a new country after the Maidan Revolution, and does not feel obliged by the Budapest Memorandum.

This is also not correct!

Treaties are not between regimes, they are between sovereign states. Treaties are not null and void simply as a result of a change of government, whether by revolution or otherwise. Iran, after the re...

As the league of nations before it - such a tenet does not carry much weight or have much in the way of 'teeth' to enforce it. The one time it really did - in Korea - was really only because the PRC wasn't in the security council at that time, these days you could never get action out of the security council

"The one time it really did - in Korea"

• The UN also mandated to attack Iraq based on false evidence of weapons of mass destruction presented by Colin Powell.
  The UN also gave mandates and dispatched blue helmets to keep the peace in Africa, Yugoslavia, and and Lebanon.
  Several blue helmets lost their lives in Rwanda and Lebanon.

I feel that perhaps only Plato’s “philosopher-king” idea can solve the problem.

Humanity wasn't living more peaceful life 1000 years ago its just that scale of conflicts has become much more larger that conflict in one region has affect in another region of the world. That is why you feel there is no peace. For example mongol wars were 800 years ago and they were quite brutal @TitusPlaysChess123

@IndianTiger1947 said ^

Humanity wasn't living more peaceful life 1000 years ago its just that scale of conflicts has become much more larger that conflict in one region has affect in another region of the world. That is why you feel there is no peace. For example mongol wars were 800 years ago and they were quite brutal @TitusPlaysChess123

My mistake. I meant like 2000 BC or something like that

@Noflaps said ^

Aren't we ACTUALLY against allowing the spread of nuclear weapons? Or is that just talk.

Why is US allowed a nuclear arsenal but everyone else has to give theirs up?

It's curious North Korea has nuclear weapons but no one seems to care. Not enough oil there? Too close by to a nation we're utterly dependent on?

"I meant like 2000 BC"

• 2000 BC saw fierce fighting e.g. in ancient Egypt.