The debate "United Nations should be the only one to own war equipment. Ex. jets warships tanks drones etc" was started by
April 15, 2015, 11:37 am.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 76 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
invincible_01 posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Getmurked posted 5 arguments, PsychDave posted 3 arguments, Shreedeep posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 4 arguments, invincible_01 posted 2 arguments, ZarinDumasia posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
invincible_01, londonlightz, HabibaKim, transfanboy, Trance and 9 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, PsychDave, Getmurked, meetakapoor, JMP9940, pretty_twin, Shreedeep, ufufugh, Mastermind, sugoi_shan, tr, Bodaciouslady16, Gabrielle, rcheyanne99, judge, Imtikhan, ZarinDumasia, Natalie_097, debater377, Shahmir, AwfulOctopus, jonatron5, AnkGanu, sdiop, soullesschicken, musejay1, wayneSPEC, wkahhoong and 48 visitors disagree.
we learn from mistakes.
if we can learn from u.n. mistakes, we can improve this one.
it would be backed by all countries, and thier benefits is not a war torn and ravages world in a nuclear apocalypse. after many negotiations, im sure everyone would understand and fold under the pressure of all the countries
but when making such organization, it would need support from countries right? I'm sure that there would be countries that willing to give huge support but wanting something in return. ex speciality. just like what happen in UN. so at the end of the day it would end up just like the UN with some members having special power
the organizatiom would be formed in peaceful times, and not undwr a UN banner, but completely void of them, and consisting of all counttries support.
terriosts? i am talking about nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction , not guns and mere weapons..terriosts dont have any womd or nukes. so if every country who does comply, everyone will be safe, and the countries with nukes are usually reasonable, not terriosts. if one didnt comply, after many negotiations, obvisouly they wouldnt do it, but im sure every country sanctioning and shunning them would work effextively
Which country will give away their weapons so easily? Certainly not Iraq or any such country. Moreover, what about the terrorists who already have these weapons with them? They certainly are not going to give up their weapons. Now, if these terrorists, who have hidden their weapons attack any country, are we going to have to wait for the UN security council to decide to give us back our weapons so as to fight these terrorists? I'm in no way supporting war, but this is simply not possible. Besides, only five countries having veto power. What is to stop them from using these weapons and attacking any other country? They can easily create a scenario of fake emergency and destroy any country they want. Also, what about the countries that are not UN members? Why will they give away their weapons? Besides, what is going to stop the countries from making more weapons, in hiding of course?
think of it like this.
what if there was a seperate organization that handled holding all weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons
if we ever get to a time of peace among all the countriws, and all votes on it, and it was comprised of people from countries all.over, with checks to make sure the leaders are not biased, they could hold all superbly super damgerous weapons, and perhaps destroy them too, and have sanctions on anyone attempting to.build them
The problem is one of inactivity. The UN as it is cannot do anything since someone vetos almost anything important. If you remove those veto votes, someone will always be at a disadvantage and will leave the UN since it no longer serves their interests (likely Russia since the US and their allies have more in common). With the layers of committees, votes and red tape, the UN would not be able to effectively deal with problems on a global scale. Add to that the fact that problems that impact larger member nations would always have precedence over smaller ones, and the smaller ones have no reason to give up their military to get little to nothing in return.
revision: always end up with flaws not failure
isn't there no other people that agree with the motion? i need help :( LOL
exactly. we can never build a perfect organisation. no matter how we try to fix or reform an international organization it always fall on failure. and the human always be the main factor of the failure
i see that even the UN is far from perfect. but at least it has the sole purpose to create safe world. even tough it oftenly got interrupted by VETOs. but it really shows that actually what makes it difficult to create peace is because of the human
but creating similar org as the UN with the specific goal to maintain peace will be the same as we create a new UN. it's just like starting over something that already exist. it's really ineffective. if we staring over, we have to gain trust from nations and struggling for fund, etc, and will only end up not better than UN. so why we bother creating new org while we already have UN which already fulfilling the requirements to be international org?
You can't build a perfect organization. All you can do is try to build one which has a mechanical ability to clean house when it finds corruption or evil in its ranks.
It's not at all wrong to think about a way to create peace on earth. The thing, as with any idea, it has to be well-constructed, and based on sound principles. Starting with the UN is good, because the UN is an international body. But, if upon looking more closely, the UN doesn't look up to the task, we have two options: reform the UN, or make a new organization. If we go with the first option and find that there are many reforms which must take place, then the two options look indistinguishable. We may as well elect to build a new international organization which we use to police and protect the nations of earth.
I've always liked the way Starfleet operated. There are many flaws there-in, as well as assumptions, but what I take from it is:
A) It's a military organization whose command structure is somewhat lenient. You can break the rules and get away with it if you have moral cause.
B) It's a military and an academy. Officers are knowledgeable about philosophy, science, diplomacy, despite their specialization.
C) It's "post-national". Members of Starfleet are from any culture (or species, lol).
I think an organization which existed to act as a military authority for the planet would have to be representative of the global population, educated enough to have a moral and philosophical mandate, and flexible enough to give members with the correct moral authority, but less official authority, the chance to prove the actionable value of that authority.
But how to go about building such an organization is a bugger.
honestly i still sort on idea on how we could make sure that these weaponry wouldn't be miss used by unauthorised people.
However i see that the UN has the power to give sanctions to violating nations. but at the end it's just the matter of the awareness of the nations themselves to obey the UN.
it is just a way to create peace on earth but it depends on the human
i think anothwr organization should be made, funded by all the countries, and thier sole.purpose would be to hold all the nuclear weapons and WOMD
I would also question who uses the weapons. Just having UN ownership doesn't change anything if the same soldiers are going to be using them. The country does something they shouldn't, the UN tells them to give back the weapons, they say no. Now the choices are invade to reclaim the weapons, or give up on them.
I like the idea of a world where countries logistically can't invade or attack one another, but the problem is like the old saying. If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
*presented such a structure
I agree with the present criticisms. I like the sentiment that nations ought to be disarmed and there should be an independent mulitary body protecting everyone, but it can't be the UN. Sentiment aside, I'm not sure any organization could be so well defined that it could carry out its mandate without great danger or harm. But if some genius preseed such a structure I'd be very interested.
The UN gets most of its income from the USA so You are indirectly saying only USA will have the benifit of weapons...also wepons are not only for war but also to keep check on terror and crime...
UN may use it for eradicating terrorism, or helping nation in need, or maybe to protect human race from let's say alien invasion. well i know the last one is a bit imaginative but it might happen right?
just a thought
good point. But what i mean here is that no countries are allowed to own war equipment. unless if it's UN's properties and placed it certain country.
so if no countries has war equipment they won't be able to attack/ invade other country
I would say no because the UN ends up having to sit on its hands if a country with the veto is involved. In cases where one non-UN nation attacked another, or even a UN member nation, so long as they had the support of a nation with veto power, the UN couldn't do anything.
good topic. i think no because other countries like terriosm ruled would get thier hands on it somehow, and invade the honorable countries