Why should any state posses the ability to wage war? All international conflicts should be mediated by the UN and decided by international courts.
Humanity developed weapons that could wipe out civilisation. This is the only way to ensure a long-term survival of human race. Accidents and miscalculations, even nuclear, are bound to happen.
Prove me wrong.
What if no reasonable decision is reached? What if one of the sides feels it was not treated fairly? What about biases the individuals judging each case could have?
war is unnecessary, but countries could only disarm if every other country did as well, otherwise only a few countries could easily dominate the whole planet. Also even if every country voluntarily disarms, what stops them from rearming and being the only military left?
Who made them arbitrators over the peoples? International peace is a fad.
So UN should be given more power than any entity has ever had in the history of the world?
If you only knew the trouble the UN goes through to maintain the sovereignty of its member states even over something as menial as fishing regulations. The UN makes suggestions, not laws.
States will always try to maximize their power. If you take away military means, they will dominate in other ways. Arguably this id already happening.
>Humanity developed weapons that could wipe out civilisation.
Which have since prevent war from breaking out between great powers.
But haven't made us any safer from irregular warfare or terrorism.
Idealism only works if everyone is naturally good and peace loving. Even the UN can't impose the same "universal" concepts of peace and human rights on all nations. Too many violent cunts in the world who think its ok to chop off your neighbour's head if he steals from you.
>But haven't made us any safer from irregular warfare or terrorism.
True, but it's still done some good even if it hasn't wiped out all warfare/terrorism.
So we can all agree that the only solution would be a benevolent AI with absolute power ruling a single world government, right?
no we need a board of priviliged intelllectuals to raise a benevolent emperor
Benevolent AI is still susceptible to misinterpreted commands
>giving up sovereignty to the corrupt, murdering, child-raping shits at the united nations
I'd rather not, the UN is pure evil m8
You do realize that there is a very, very real possibility of some angry ahmed or ivan getting his hands on nuclear material from any one of a dozen former soviet republics? That shit isn't even hard to weaponize, a team of chemistry students could do it easily enough to create a dirty bomb.
Care to elaborate?
>Why should any state posses the ability to wage war?
Some nations should be inherently superior to others, and waging wars allow them to exert said superiority.
>All international conflicts should be mediated by the UN and decided by international courts.
The UN has proven time and time to be innefective at solving anything. It did nothing to stop the missile crisis, the congo crisis, it did not act against iraq, neither in 1991 or 2003. I could go on, but as you see when nations use their own powers to settle disputes their own ways it always works.
>Humanity developed weapons that could wipe out civilisation.
Most expert historians agree that wasn't it for the nuclear weapons, there would have been direct engagement between the United States and NATO during the Cold War, likely enciting a third world war. It's the very thought of destroying humanity with the avaiable human arsenal that makes nations not use them.
>Accidents and miscalculations, even nuclear, are bound to happen.
Countless times in the Cold War were there false warnings of incoming nuclear attacks. In all of them, countless departments were involved in verifying the information. Weather, radio, air force, navy, radar, sattelites, politicians, and even sismogrephers. Several several mechanisms involved in the simple answer: "did the russians launch a missile against us?" and all the times that they initially thought there was a launch, even in DEFCON 2, all those systems worked perfectly. By the end of the day, more and more technology is developed that allows us to prevent this.
The problem with the UN is that it is corrupt and its designed to be that way - having five countries with veto power over the other 187 really doesn't work.
Hey there Georgia guide stones. Ww3 when please?
China and several of the Gulf States have been on their human rights councils. The UN is entirely about money
That has nothing to do with what the canuck said. The UN is far from perfect but its the best supranational body we've got. If anything the us asserts an unfair influence in the security counil, and still acts unilaterally becaue of muh dubya em dees.
>its the best supranational body we've got
If the UN is the best we have, I'd prefer to keep us in our current state
why not try to make it better?
How