4 ms·

Reagan and Gorbachev came within inches of abolishing nuclear weapons, but the sticking point was the US would not back away from building space weapons. As lon

Reagan and Gorbachev came within inches of abolishing nuclear weapons, but the sticking point was the US would not back away from building space weapons. As long as warmongers are in control we will continue to live in danger and fear.

nomel 19d ago
> As long as warmongers are in control we will continue to live in danger and fear. Can you expand on your solution to world peace?
- whh 19d ago
  I think it's generally acceptable to make a statement without proposing a solution.
- legulere 19d ago
  You need to get a critical mass of people to despise war so much that they are ready to have disadvantages themselves to make a war free world a reality. E.g. complete stop of trade with countries starting a war or supporting such a country. It happened before relatively successful with slavery and is partially happening with the death penalty. For me it seems like a very long way to go though.
  - nomel 19d ago
    So, you're saying that this requires all people of the world get along and agree with anything that might cause war? That sounds like a reasonable plan! Thanks for the response.
    - wraptile 19d ago
      Or a post resource scarcity society where everyone's rich enough to be able to make ethical decisions with very little actual cost.
      - frumplestlatz 19d ago
        Power over others can never be post-scarcity, and it's an incredible motivator.
    - legulere 18d ago
      That is not what I'm saying. There can be a lot of disagreement about a lot of things but there needs to be widespread agreement to not start wars and to use strong non-war mechanisms to stop war mongers. I know that it is far off from where we are today, but it is not impossible like needing everyone to agree with everything.
      - frumplestlatz 18d ago
        We tried that. League of Nations. The UN. How has that worked out? Human order is fundamentally kept by there being a true threat of violence enforcing it. If you forget that reality and abandon your ability to project violence, someone else will remind you.
  - frumplestlatz 19d ago
    In which case, any country willing to fund a military and start a war would dominate the world. Slavery and the death penalty are poor analogies, and not just because slavery was stopped through quite a bit of violence, and the death penalty/imprisonment exists as an alternative to vigilante justice only by virtue of the state's monopoly on violence. "If everyone just ..." is always silly, but it's especially silly when it comes to the belief that order can be enforced through anything other than -- ultimately -- the threat of violence. Everyone will not "just".
- ChrisRR 18d ago
  You don't have to have a solution to recognise that there's a problem
  - tonymet 18d ago
    Yeah you do. If you’re not offering a better way, you’re only moaning.
- grafmax 18d ago
  Cooperative deescalation is the right direction.
asdff 19d ago
I mean in hindsight there's no way israel or china would have disarmed.
- golemiprague 19d ago
  [dead]
cedws 19d ago
Gorbachev's dead now and look who sits in his place. I'm not so sure such a treaty would still be respected anyway. As as for who sits in Reagan's place...
- bearjaws 19d ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum All you need to know about making deals with Russia.
  - RobKohr 19d ago
    Yeah, Ukraine should have held onto its nukes. But it got a lovely piece of paper to protect itself with.
    - s1artibartfast 19d ago
      easy to say at a distance. It didnt have full control and had the nuclear powers pushing them to. We dont know if Ukraine would be a state today if they refused
- notthemessiah 19d ago
  The only reason why Putin is there now is because we strongly backed Boris Yeltsin despite his unpopularity, we interfered with the 1996 election in order to prevent Communist Party challenger Gennady Zyuganov from winning re-election amidst disastrous liberalization policies and lowering life expectancy, and then Boris Yeltsin ended up appointing Putin, who did war crimes in Chechnya in an effort to appear tough as a strongman against the separatist threat. In 2001, the NYT had op-eds from Thomas Friedman that were "Rootin' for Putin". Had we not interfered, we probably would have had another Gorbachev.
tonymet 19d ago
The capabilities of the "space weapons" didn't exist. Reagan used the threat of those weapons to perpetuate USSR's unsustainable military & defense investment, knowing the US could sustain it. Within 5 years, USSR was defunct. Reagan had the right strategy , for his time.

nomel 19d ago

> As long as warmongers are in control we will continue to live in danger and fear. Can you expand on your solution to world peace?

whh 19d ago
I think it's generally acceptable to make a statement without proposing a solution.
legulere 19d ago
You need to get a critical mass of people to despise war so much that they are ready to have disadvantages themselves to make a war free world a reality. E.g. complete stop of trade with countries starting a war or supporting such a country. It happened before relatively successful with slavery and is partially happening with the death penalty. For me it seems like a very long way to go though.
- nomel 19d ago
  So, you're saying that this requires all people of the world get along and agree with anything that might cause war? That sounds like a reasonable plan! Thanks for the response.
  - wraptile 19d ago
    Or a post resource scarcity society where everyone's rich enough to be able to make ethical decisions with very little actual cost.
    - frumplestlatz 19d ago
      Power over others can never be post-scarcity, and it's an incredible motivator.
  - legulere 18d ago
    That is not what I'm saying. There can be a lot of disagreement about a lot of things but there needs to be widespread agreement to not start wars and to use strong non-war mechanisms to stop war mongers. I know that it is far off from where we are today, but it is not impossible like needing everyone to agree with everything.
    - frumplestlatz 18d ago
      We tried that. League of Nations. The UN. How has that worked out? Human order is fundamentally kept by there being a true threat of violence enforcing it. If you forget that reality and abandon your ability to project violence, someone else will remind you.
- frumplestlatz 19d ago
  In which case, any country willing to fund a military and start a war would dominate the world. Slavery and the death penalty are poor analogies, and not just because slavery was stopped through quite a bit of violence, and the death penalty/imprisonment exists as an alternative to vigilante justice only by virtue of the state's monopoly on violence. "If everyone just ..." is always silly, but it's especially silly when it comes to the belief that order can be enforced through anything other than -- ultimately -- the threat of violence. Everyone will not "just".
ChrisRR 18d ago
You don't have to have a solution to recognise that there's a problem
- tonymet 18d ago
  Yeah you do. If you’re not offering a better way, you’re only moaning.
grafmax 18d ago
Cooperative deescalation is the right direction.

asdff 19d ago

I mean in hindsight there's no way israel or china would have disarmed.

golemiprague 19d ago
[dead]

cedws 19d ago

Gorbachev's dead now and look who sits in his place. I'm not so sure such a treaty would still be respected anyway. As as for who sits in Reagan's place...

bearjaws 19d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum All you need to know about making deals with Russia.
- RobKohr 19d ago
  Yeah, Ukraine should have held onto its nukes. But it got a lovely piece of paper to protect itself with.
  - s1artibartfast 19d ago
    easy to say at a distance. It didnt have full control and had the nuclear powers pushing them to. We dont know if Ukraine would be a state today if they refused
notthemessiah 19d ago
The only reason why Putin is there now is because we strongly backed Boris Yeltsin despite his unpopularity, we interfered with the 1996 election in order to prevent Communist Party challenger Gennady Zyuganov from winning re-election amidst disastrous liberalization policies and lowering life expectancy, and then Boris Yeltsin ended up appointing Putin, who did war crimes in Chechnya in an effort to appear tough as a strongman against the separatist threat. In 2001, the NYT had op-eds from Thomas Friedman that were "Rootin' for Putin". Had we not interfered, we probably would have had another Gorbachev.

tonymet 19d ago

The capabilities of the "space weapons" didn't exist. Reagan used the threat of those weapons to perpetuate USSR's unsustainable military & defense investment, knowing the US could sustain it. Within 5 years, USSR was defunct. Reagan had the right strategy , for his time.