3 ms·

I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their power, which in the end encourages all count

by pms 1y ago

I don't think that's sustainable, because it leads to injustice, i.e., countries with nuclear weapons abusing their power, which in the end encourages all countries to get nuclear weapons to protect their own safety and interests. As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons.

SllX 1y ago
> As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. The scenario you concocted here is Disneyland. It’s not just challenging, it’s just an oppressive version of the UN, but it won’t be impartial because it will be the most powerful organization on the planet and a target for every extremist and ideologue that seeks to acquire power. You haven’t changed the game, you’ve temporarily changed the battlefield.
- pms 1y ago
  You can ridicule this idea, but we're already having the US (partly through NATO) taking the role of a global sherif, except without aiming for neutrality, accountability, nor justice, so we end up living in a geopolitical world in which "might makes right". If we continue like this, we will have another World War, but learning by mistakes is sometimes the only realistic way forward.
  - SllX 1y ago
    What you are proposing is not a change, it's still might makes right. You're just changing the letterhead.
    - pms 1y ago
      No. What I'm proposing is to make these processes purposefully and explicitly neutral, accountable, and just. This implies democratic and decentralised governance and decision-making. Clearly this isn't happening now.
      - SllX 1y ago
        As long as you’ve got humans in the mix, it’ll also be political. What you’re describing is a political organization and wishcasting that it’ll be as neutral as you envision according your values of neutrality. It’ll also be the most powerful political and military organization on Earth, so in other words, same shit as we have now, different letterhead. You may as well be describing America, you just don’t want it to be America, and I can respect that perspective even if I don’t agree with it, but your hypothetical organization is not as different as you think it is.
        pms 1y ago
        It's 100% different. The institution I envision should represent all countries, or at least member countries, so that it has global democratic legitimacy. Simply put, interests of one country are not equivalent to interests of all countries. If one country tries to take the role of that institution, sooner or later it will run into a conflict of interests.
Kamq 1y ago
> This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons. This speaks like someone who has never been outside of a heavily bureaucratized regime. People don't get "approval" for things, they just do them.

by pms 1y ago

SllX 1y ago

> As challenging as it sounds, we need to develop a strong impartial international institution whose the only mission would be maintaining peace and preventing wars on the planet. The scenario you concocted here is Disneyland. It’s not just challenging, it’s just an oppressive version of the UN, but it won’t be impartial because it will be the most powerful organization on the planet and a target for every extremist and ideologue that seeks to acquire power. You haven’t changed the game, you’ve temporarily changed the battlefield.

pms 1y ago
You can ridicule this idea, but we're already having the US (partly through NATO) taking the role of a global sherif, except without aiming for neutrality, accountability, nor justice, so we end up living in a geopolitical world in which "might makes right". If we continue like this, we will have another World War, but learning by mistakes is sometimes the only realistic way forward.
- SllX 1y ago
  What you are proposing is not a change, it's still might makes right. You're just changing the letterhead.
  - pms 1y ago
    No. What I'm proposing is to make these processes purposefully and explicitly neutral, accountable, and just. This implies democratic and decentralised governance and decision-making. Clearly this isn't happening now.
    - SllX 1y ago
      As long as you’ve got humans in the mix, it’ll also be political. What you’re describing is a political organization and wishcasting that it’ll be as neutral as you envision according your values of neutrality. It’ll also be the most powerful political and military organization on Earth, so in other words, same shit as we have now, different letterhead. You may as well be describing America, you just don’t want it to be America, and I can respect that perspective even if I don’t agree with it, but your hypothetical organization is not as different as you think it is.
      - pms 1y ago
        It's 100% different. The institution I envision should represent all countries, or at least member countries, so that it has global democratic legitimacy. Simply put, interests of one country are not equivalent to interests of all countries. If one country tries to take the role of that institution, sooner or later it will run into a conflict of interests.

Kamq 1y ago

> This should be the only entity that's approved to have nuclear weapons. This speaks like someone who has never been outside of a heavily bureaucratized regime. People don't get "approval" for things, they just do them.