Give peace a chance!? If only it were that easy! Like a puppy rolling over and begging for a tummy rub!? See look we don't threaten anyone!

But that's for dream castles in the, hope springs eternal, clouds and their permanent residents.

We all know what happens when a madman with a completely overwhelming desire for world domination and has the military capacity to make that happen? He starts taking bites that effectively improve that capacity! Capice?

Give peace a chance, may no longer exist as our choice? That being so, we need to remove the very threats to peace to actually give peace a chance! Given there is no other realistic option!?

And one less power hungry diabolical dastardly dictator quite massively improves that chance, however unpalatable the means needing to be employed for that purpose!

It's like excising a malignant cancer! The sooner done and completely, the better the chance of a complete recovery!

Delays only compound the growing difficulties! Too much vacillation may result in the termination of the patient! Time wasted is time lost, when dealing with a resolute, determined, recalcitrant, incorrigible, intransigent, Sabre rattling, power mad malignant dictator?

Would that were not so!
Alan B.

For gods sake Stuart, justice would require people like you to get off their broadening back sides & do something useful & productive.

So buddy, get out & do something to actually support yourself, before asking those already burdened with your existence to carry some other burden chosen by someone so useless as yourself.

Ever thought of taking up market gardening Stuart? You could not only actually produce your own food, but some for others.

Hell you could even send any profits, & your excess production off to support those you currently want us to support, but only after we have adequately supported you & yours.

Ever thought of actually getting a life?

Regrettably there is little money in peace.
The consumer society sees to that.
Every bomb and shell that explodes requires replacing at someone`s profit.
Besides war tends, albeit in small quantities, to maintain a minor population reduction which in itself will bring us closer to peace.

Three related references on the necessity of global peace.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/openlett.html
http://www.dabase.org/12laws.htm
http://www.priorunity.org/excerpt-no-enemies

It would be rather nice if some of these academics for a change, instead of immersing themselves in a world of theory and conjecture, embraced a decent slice of realism,legitimacy and validity, just for a change. Rather than pouring out all this spurious nonsense about a world full of, gaiety 'n joy accompanied with a tranquil calm of wistful peace, with little butterflies fluttering here and yon, and masses of small bluebirds all tweeting together in complete harmony. And perhaps for a little while, we can all put away our AK47's for a bit longer.

Don't tell us. Tell ISIS, Nth. Korea and those not wanting peace. We are not the problem.

We actually need peace in all the nation and eradicates all war promoters.

For millennia, people have hoped for peace in their time.
Today, as usual, there is no shortage of grand
proposals for peace, such as new defensive devices, yet arms
races and wars continue, sometimes creating the
discouraging idea that hopes for peace are too "idealistic".

Global preparations for "defense" consume an immense and
growing proportion of human financial, material, and
personal resources, in a world that is already overburdened
with social and economic problems. All over the world, scientists
and engineers devote their skills to planning new and more
efficient ways for humans to kill one another, workers labour
to manufacture instruments of death, and soldiers train for
combat.

From a moral and even an economic point of view, this vast
investment of human ingenuity and energy seems a tragic waste.

And looming over all these military preparations and
counter-preparations is humanity's ultimate threat, the
unleashing of full-scale nuclear war.

The obsessive focus on the threat of weapons as the way to
avoid war blinds us to the central question: Is anything
that we value so important that we can justify risking the
destruction of our societies, the murder of hundreds of
millions of people, and the jeopardising of our very species?

Eradicate all war promoters!? Now who would they be? The Sabre rattling Russian President? The genocidal, homicidal Syrian dictator? The Kurd killing Turkish Tyrant? The Kamikaze North Korean killer? And a few other tinpot potentates, (ISIS etc) who just want to rule the world!

About a half dozen individuals in all, who seriously believe a sovereign border and a brain washed support base, give them carte blanche to do as they see fit or please? And it shouldn't!

Those who just want to live in peaceful cohabitation, should summon the essential testicular fortitude to unite behind a single minded purpose, recognize the exact problem and eradicate it! By whatever means necessary! And I do mean by whatever means necessary or available!

Starting with humane negotiated voluntary exile and escalating to enforced removal, imprisonment for the term of their natural life, and then as a last resort, elimination, with a well placed 50 calibre pill between the peepers, to absolute oblivion at the nose cone of a cruise missile or great big ten ton bunker buster bomb!

Let there be no doubt we want these folks, emasculated, exiled or eradicated and before they can involve whole populations in their genocidal pursuits! And the only guaranteed way to actually give peace a chance!

And given what is actually required by all peace loving nations and or so called leaders who just want to wash their hands or leave to someone anyone else? Pigs might fly! Go figure! I mean, seriously!

Cume by yar and lets give peace a chance, sung by chanting mobs, with flowers in their hair, won't do it! And won't stop bombs raining down on their heads if any one of a half dozen power hungry madmen decide to pull the pin! even if some pea brain pin heads believe it or umbrellas will!
Alan B.

The author is right, give peace a chance.

Just as the John Howard inspired laws that made it illegal to possess anything for the purpose of self defence have made Australia a safe place, the world could follow suit and just as there is no aggression or violent crime in Australia, the world could become the same.

As the Porcine Species flew through the air there would be no need for fighter planes or bombers or armies or police.

So basically the author of this article’s whole plan for stopping war is to talk about peace.
It offers nothing but words as a solution. Words can't solve the Palestinian conflict, and nor
have they been able to solve the Syrian conflict.
The author praises the pope, who would rather blame Western countries for the the plight
of Africa, Syria, etc. than condem these countries for their over populations which cause their poverty,wars, famines,droughts(from the cutting down of the trees) from the expanding populations.
Also the extinction of many beautiful animals, like the tiger and elephant who must compete wih the 6 billion people on earth for land and space.
Not the Wesrern countries causing this, and not global warming causing the droughts over.there, but the barren landscape devoid of trees, used by humans.

When are our schools going to stop brainwashing people to have these stupid utopian ideas, instead of teaching them biological factual realities. Humankind is driven by the sexual mating Instinct, and the territorial instinct to protect their offspring.
Hence families, and war. Our instincts override our intelligence to a large extent.
In fact we use our intelligence to obtain that which we desire. A family and the territorial resources
to provide for them. We spend our whole lives doing exactly that, having children and providing
for and protecting them. And we keep huge territorial armies and weapons at hand to go to war to
protect them from being dispossessed of their land and territory.
It's so obvious, blind Freddy could see it, but not our esteemed academics, who perfer to believe
they can change the biological imperatives of a whole species,humans, just by thinking and talking it away. No, they can't, but they persist in believing they can, and thus writing absolute rubbish like the tosh in this article.

I'm going to repeat what I've written in the past on
this forum -

A fundamental insight of sociology is that once people
no longer take their world for granted, but instead
understand the social authorship of their lives and
futures, they can become an irresistible force in
history.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it
is a collective decision. If more and more nuclear weapons
are built, and if more sophisticated means of delivering
them are devised, and if more and more nations get control
of these vile devices, then surely we risk our own
destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then we can
divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
overpopulation, injustice, oppression and the
devastation of our natural environment. For that to
happen we need strong leadership - to lead the way.
And put words into actions.
Then perhaps our choice to save this planet can be
achieved.

Foxy,

Since the fall of the Soviet empire the number of nuclear weapons has fallen by nearly 1/2 and the number deployed by nearly 80% since the threat of war has fallen substantially.

The theory of deterrence as first defined by Bismark is necessarily to build up superior forces, but have sufficient force to ensure that any attacking force suffered out of proportion to any potential benefit.

This is where nuclear weapons come in. For example, in comparing the UK to the Soviet Union, the USSR would easily win any conventional or nuclear exchange, but would lose every major Russian city, several times the population of the UK and would take decades before it could recover. This is the issue that the mutton headed mugwump in the UK fails to understand. That and the fact that it takes decades to build a viable defense force.

With the build up of China, its attempted annexation of the South China Sea, the threat of war looms again.

SM
That's a bit confusing. Reducing nukes lessens the threat but nuke war is impossible to win . Which is true? Who is needing decades to become equipped ? If nukes are deterring war why is south China sea a problem? Each bit is valid but how do you join them up?

NNN,

Sorry that you are struggling with the concepts.

The nuclear deterrent makes the cost of major conflict intolerable, however, the incremental invasion of the South China Sea (SCS) is a territorial annexation of the waters of the other south asian countries, and while it is bullying and stopping only these other nations from fishing in these waters it can largely get away with it.

The problem is that the US and most other countries don't recognise China's claims and use the SCS as a major trading route with their planes and ships refusing to recognise China's claims of sovereignty, occasionally sending military ships and aircraft through the area and ignoring China's protests.

With the increasing militarisation of these fabricated islands, there only needs to be one instance where the faux confrontations of the chinese goes too far and a US ship or plane is fired on and there will be a military response, and probably a short limited engagement that the chinese will lose badly.

Where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made the
nations of the modern world more interdependent than
ever before. Yet today's societies entered the nuclear
age with political institutions inherited from a
previous era. The human population is spread among a
series of sovereign independent states - most of them
with their own armed forces and so there is a built-in
potential for warfare whenever two nations have conflicting
interests.

Lets not forget that before the twentieth century, there
were few institutionalised ways for hostile nations to
achieve peaceful settlements. When negotiations took place,
they often occurred only after a war - for the purpose of
agreeing to a peace treaty that would specify the spoils
for the victor. We now have infinitely better prospects for
helping nations to avoid war.

We have two vital elements for international peace-making
that are in place. The first is the United Nations, which
provides a forum for world opinion and a mechanism for conflict
resolution. The second is a growing body of international
law that specifies the rights and obligations that nations
have toward one another - particularly with respect to
aggression.

A major difficulty with international peace-making of course,
is that compliance with the resolutions of the United Nations
and the rulings of its World Court are voluntary, for no
country is willing to surrender its sovereignty to an
international body. The United Nations is most effective, in
fact, when the superpowers are able to agree on a course of
action and mobilise their blocs to support it.

Even so, the organisation provides an influential forum for
world opinion, and while it does not always prevent war, it
surely helps make it less likely.

Foxy,

As you mentioned, there are mechanisms in place to prevent wars, but when they are ignored as China has done, then there is a far higher chance of conflict.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Over the centuries, the number of people involved in,
and killed by, warfare has increased dramatically.

Alexander the Great set out to conquer the world as he
knew it with an army of less than 40,000 men. William
the Conqueror invaded England with 50,000 men. The
Napoleonic Wars involved hundreds of thousands of
soldiers. In the American Civil War, nearly 2 million
men were under arms. During World War I, some 65 million
troops were mobilized, and 19 million people were killed.
The carnage of that pointless and dreadful conflict so
stunned the world that people called it "the war to end all
wars," for they knew humanity would never commit such folly
again. World War II followed a mere twenty-one years later -
and this time, almost 100 million people took up arms, and
an estimated 38 million soldiers and citizens were killed.

All told in the last century there have been so many wars
resulting in so many deaths. Today, the major powers maintain
huge standing armies. Of course, in nuclear war, the size
of armies would be irrelevant, for the entire civilian
populations of the countries concerned would be brought into
the arena of battle - along with much of the rest of the
world's population.

To a visitor from another planet, it would seem that the
modern world is obsessed with preparations for "defense" (it's
never called "offense"). Many countries spend more of their
budgets for military purposes than they do for education or
medical care. This represents a colossal diversion of funds from
socially useful goals, for example, a single hour's worth of
these expenditures would suffice to save, through immunisation,
hundreds of thousands of children around the world who die
each day from preventable infectious diseases.

Regarding China? It is still determinedly socialist and
authoritarian. It will be interesting to see how far this
country will stray in the future from the socialist path and
whether economic liberalisation will at sometime lead to
political democratisation. Given China's size and potential,
its economic future will continue to be of world historical
significance.

Apart from the threat of nuclear weapons.....

Here come the robots. An army of robots is a scary scenario and is not far off.

The drones have led the way.
One of the American military hierarchy said they already have drones that can operate under water.
That's going to add a whole new dimension to submarine warfare.

Mankind at this point in history shows no sign of ever being able to live in peace,even though we've been talking about it for decades and even tried to bring it about with a United Nations assembly.

Still there has been no end to war. Nothing has worked.

Foxy,

In the last 70 years the % of people killed in war has dropped to historic lows, and is a tiny fraction of what it was in any previous century. Similarly the % of expenditure on arms and weapons is also at historic lows.

While it would be great never to need armies again, that is certainly not the situation yet. Armed forces take decades to prepare, and even if one has no intention to attack or invade, one needs to ensure that one is prepared to provide sufficient deterrence for any potential conflict in the next decade.

With China's booming capitalist economy has come the capability to arm itself which it has done with gusto launching its second aircraft carrier in less than a decade. Given its history of conflict with its neighbours, and its territorial ambitions in the south china sea, I don't believe that it is yet time to let down our guard.

China and US both know they are No.1 power. China's population is 1.4billion , 1/4 of world population. Britain's empire used to rule 1/4 of the world . China may out-vote the Yanks but not by elections.

Disarm everyone and the bully with the most muscle will take over and then someone peaceful will, in desperation, invent a slingshot or the bow and arrows.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course putting the arms race into reverse
would most certainly be a gradual one because
so much money is currently spent on military
purposes that rapid disarmament would jolt the
economies of the superpowers and indeed of the
world, and partly because disarmament requires
increasing trust between the parties involved.

Moreover, Russia suffers the particular
disadvantage of having to maintain a huge army to
protect its long border with its unfriendly
neighbour, China. Whereas the United States has only
one nuclear enemy, Russia faces missiles pointed
at it by every other nuclear power in the world
and Russia's sense of menace is further increased by
the fact that its principal enemy is the only nation
in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons.

Having an American President - from whom one can
expect the unexpected with his hand on the nuclear
button is also a bit of a concern.

Foxy,

I have no doubt that while China has missiles aimed at Russia, it also aims them at India and the US, all of whom aim missiles back.

It is hard to disarm when burgeoning superpowers such as India and China are arming up, and China is showing naked aggression against its neighbours.

Dear Shadow Minister,

As I pointed out earlier, the major stumbling block
to disarmament is the issue of trust, for each
country finds it difficult to believe that others
like China would really abandon their supposed
ambitions for "world domination". After all, China,
India, et al, are much less affluent and technologically
advanced societies than the US and so are worse equipped
to prepare for war. They also world-wide have fewer allies
and far fewer military bases than the US.
Ideally it would be great if tensions eased and a climate
of trust developed then existing bombs, war heads, and
delivering systems would possibly be scrapped in a series
of carefully verified stages. However, I also don't see
that happening - just yet.

Foxy,

China and Russia are both busy occupying and annexing the territorial areas of others by force. It is too soon to declare world peace.

Shadow minister

I see the annexing of Ukraine by Russia as not unlike something the Us would do in the same circumstances in fact has done. Going in to protect one side against the other.

The pro European citizens in Ukraine, toppled a democratically elected leader
after he won the election fair and square in Ukraine, because he was more friendly
towards Russia than Europe and was ready to borrow a lot of money from Russia as
Investment to aid the economy of the country. When they ousted the democratically elected leader, naturally those that had voted for him, were up in arms, literally.
And so the country split along ethnic lines, the pro Russian Ukrainians and the pro European Ukranians.

Doesn't look too good for the multiculturalism and democracy in Australia when you
see the country go to war after a democratic election, over who is going to run the country.

When the Pro European Ukranians took power off the elected president, it meant they also controlled the army. As Putin said he went in to protect the Russian Ukranians from a bloodbath, something he said that is no different to what America has done in the past. And Britain as well when you think of the Faulken Islands in Argentinian when
Margaret thatcher was Prime minister.

Cherful,

So you approve of Israel annexing the west bank?

Foxy,

"Having an American President - from whom one can
expect the unexpected with his hand on the nuclear
button is also a bit of a concern."

and John Howard helped get him elected.

Dear Is Mise,

And how did John Howard do that?

I thought it was the American mental midgets with
IQs of a fence post
that did that.

Foxy,

Hillary Clinton waffled on about John Howard's Australian Gun Laws and that frightened the hell out of a lot of Americans, particularly those that hold that they have a God given/natural right to defend themselves and their loved ones from criminal attack.

With miniature nukes we can expect to see US school shoot-ups with mushroom clouds.

Dear Is Mise,

America does have a serious problem with guns.

As I stated earlier - mental midgets with an IQ
of a fence post.

Foxy,

"America does have a serious problem with guns."

But not as serious as a lot of other countries.

At least, even under the Democrats (so far), Americans are allowed the means of self defence, whereas we, in Australia, are forbidden to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of such defence.

Of course senior politicians are OK, John Howard had armed minders.

Dear Is Mise,

In international terms, the US is an extremely violent
society, with a homicide rate far exceeding that of
any industrialised nation. A single American city like
Chicago, Houston or Los Angeles records more murders in
a typical year than does the whole of England.

Most other countries severely restrict private handgun
ownership but there are in the millions of handguns in
the US - and weapons of this type according to the FBI
that are used in over half of the murders that occur
each year.

Studies have shown that less than 2 per cent of all
slayings in gun-owning households were for self-protection;
the remainder were homicides, suicides, or accidental deaths
almost all involving family members.

We don't want this situation in Australia.

Foxy,

What has industrialisation got to do with it?

South Africa is one example of strict firearms control and its murder rate far exceeds that of the US.

Any observations on the fact that Australians are not allowed to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence?

Is Mise,

I will have to go with Foxy on this. Having spent some time in South Africa, the problem is not with the gun laws, but that the country is awash with illegal guns from conflicts in Angola, Mozambique, the Congo etc. I remember reading a statistic of the bush war in Rhodesia when all civilians carried protection against terrorist attack, that more civilians were killed by their own guns than by terrorists.

The problem in the US, and I have many US friends, is that the gun lobby has very effectively sold the concept that the right to bear arms equates to the right to free speech etc, and while many don't believe this, enough do to make toughening gun laws nearly impossible.

Hand guns make it too easy to kill and have no place in normal society.

SM,

So the gun laws in South Africa do not work?

What's your take on the fact that Australians are not allowed to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence?

IM,

Someone possessing a gun is far more likely to be killed by that gun or because of that gun than able to defend oneself.

Clearly you didn't read my previous post.

SM,

"Someone possessing a gun is far more likely to be killed by that gun or because of that gun than able to defend oneself."

Care to give a backup reference?

But what's your take on the fact that Australians are not allowed to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence?

IM,

I got this information talking to senior police officer. The reason is simple, the person attacking with a gun will always have the advantage of surprise, and if someone draws a weapon for defense he immediately becomes a target. Similarly, one only has to look at the vast number of fatal gun accidents in the US to realise that simply owning a gun is a risk to one's health.

If you compare the number of cases where someone has successfully defended themselves compared to the instances above, it is a small fraction.

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/are-you-safer-owning-a-gun-for-home-protection-b9912440z1-207958831.html
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/21/nra-commentary-admits-the-odds-of-needing-a-gun/206313

And even if you do successfully defend yourself and kill an intruder, you then have to convince a judge that you had no other option. Chances are that the consequences of your self defense will be worse than the robbery.

Shadow Minister,

"I got this information talking to senior police officer."

A police officer who has requested permission from his superiors not to carry a pistol whilst on duty?
It'd be unsafe, a criminal might take it off him.

But what's your take on the fact that Australians are not allowed to possess ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence?

Or is this question in the 'to hard' basket?

IM,

1 - Police don't just have guns for self defense, their job is to put themselves in the firing line, yours isn't.

2 - No I put the question in the too stupid basket. I don't see any laws against possessing a bat, a kitchen knife or an axe. However, using one against anyone will land you in the same legal peril.

Shadow Minister,

"1 - Police don't just have guns for self defense, their job is to put themselves in the firing line, yours isn't."

That doesn't make a bit of difference, someone, a criminal for instance, might take their pistol off them and use it against them.

My job is to defend myself and family against unlawful attack, don't you see yourself under the same obligation?

As regards the question of possessing anything for the purpose of self defense, it is legal to own all of those things, but not for the PURPOSE of self defence, e.g. it is legal to have oven spray in the kitchen, but if the police find a can on the bedside table, then questions can be asked.
Similarly with walking sticks, they have a legitimate purpose and can be used for self defence, however if one is in one's twenties and plays football for the local team, then carrying one may be construed as of doubtful legality.

IM,

If you're trying to make a point, you've failed miserably. I assume that you have accepted that police being armed is for more than self defense. The fact that police can be targeted for their weapons is a risk, but given that police normally patrol in pairs, and are trained for such a circumstance, it is extremely unlikely.

Secondly, as you've admitted, one can own plenty of household items that can be used for self defense and the only question about bedside oven spray would be of sanity.

Shadow,

Many, many times police do not patrol in pairs, that is one of the problems caused by funding.
Only last month I was stopped by a lone policeman and breath tested as I was over the speed limit but not enough to be booked.
Police should always patrol in pairs.

"Secondly, as you've admitted, one can own plenty of household items that can be used for self defense and the only question about bedside oven spray would be of sanity"

You miss the point, almost anything around the house can be used for self defense but it cannot be owned/kept/accessible for the PURPOSE of such defense.
To have anything for the PURPOSE of self defense is a crime.

Do you now comprehend?

Oven spray is an excellent criminal repellent, as is deodorizer spray and WD 40, with the new extension nozzle, is a beauty as is a fire extinguisher.

IM,

How many police officers have had their guns taken? Is it really a problem? Similarly, how many violent house invasions have there been in Aus? Preparations for a 1 in a million chance seems a little paranoid.

Secondly, I doubt police are psychic. A person being attacked is allowed to use reasonable force to protect oneself, and if oven spray or a poker are available it would be impossible to prosecute. However, if one killed or seriously injured the invader, one would have to prove that one had no other option.

This link covers most of it.

http://theconversation.com/how-far-can-you-go-to-lawfully-protect-yourself-in-a-home-invasion-56900

Shadow,

The point is that Australians are not allowed to POSSESS anything for the purpose of self defense.
Australians are not allowed to have anything for self defence, if they acquire anything for the PURPOSE of self defense they commit a crime.

It has been argued that to learn martial arts for self defence is to acquire a thing for an illegal purpose; this applies if it can be successfully argued that a 'thing' can be of a non-material nature.

The cowardly John Howard, having successfully banned the ownership of firearms for self defense for mere mortals, then allowed his "minders" to carry pistols for his protection.

Bye the way, do you consider it to be part of your 'job' to protect yourself and your loved ones from unlawful attack?