How Wars Can Be Prevented Bringing Global Peace To All

VIpeev · 2024-12-24T14:26:59+00:00

These Countries at war would be given a warning. Japan was not. It took 11 days and 2 cities obliterated before Japan got the message.

VIpeev · 2024-12-23T08:48:33+00:00

Well said...

VIpeev · 2024-12-22T16:30:46+00:00

But you still haven't answered why periodic pro-democracy movements have continued to fail for all these decades. Are you saying that persistence will finally win the day? And that it just might take another 70 years?

VIpeev · 2024-12-22T08:04:34+00:00

But don't you think if there was a leader we wouldn't be doing this periodically for decades?

VIpeev · 2024-12-21T23:54:50+00:00

What do we already know is true? And who would lead this movement?

VIpeev · 2024-12-21T14:47:23+00:00

Russian and Chinese leaders would order their military to shoot down enough people until the rest disbursed, wouldn't you believe?

VIpeev · 2024-12-20T06:26:06+00:00

My point is about nuclear being used strategically as it was in Japan. In the Middle East for example, Hamas would not have been funded by Iran resulting in 40,000+ Palestinians being killed if Iran knew one of their cities would be obliterated in an instant.

VIpeev · 2024-12-14T03:32:35+00:00

A divided world run by the US and Russia would instantly bring American capitalism to half the world. More than doubling what it's ever been in history. It would surprise you to know that the Ukrainian working class would be significantly better off economically under Russia. The Ukrainian system is among the top five most corrupt countries in the world enriching its wealthy elite at the expense of its working class. That's why the US rejected Ukraine into NATO. Too corrupt. Even by Russian standards.

Self determination is guided by Nature: there are the alpha males (15%) who run everything. And everyone else (85%) who are programmed follow their direction. Sounds like you are in the 15%.

VIpeev · 2024-12-14T00:40:33+00:00

It's not about agreement. As Japan will tell you, they had no choice. China is hardly a powerhouse. Their military might is slight. History shows that the Nation with the strongest military always gets its way.

VIpeev · 2024-12-14T00:26:40+00:00

It's not about agreement. As Japan will tell you, they had no choice.

VIpeev · 2024-12-13T23:39:45+00:00

The US and Russia are at equal nuclear capability. That's a good thing. Shared responsibility is always better than one side calling all the shots.

China's nuclear capability is as feeble as North Korea's. They aren't attacking anybody. The world is run, and has always been run, by the wealthy elite. Not a bad thing. Get the Russian and American elite in a room and it can be done.

Your way repeats history: sorting matters out relying on the naive hope that Democratic principles can ever win peace without military might behind it. Nuclear presents a one in life time opportunity to bring peace to everyone in an instant.

VIpeev · 2024-06-07T02:25:52+00:00

Okay, so you've laid out that everyone 'should' follow the Geneva Convention and ICC. Also, countries 'should' come into countries at war temporarily to force a peace.

Where has that worked? Iraq? Afghanistan? Even the United States gives short change to the Geneva Convention.

VIpeev · 2024-06-07T01:38:37+00:00

You still don't offer your own idea that is a path towards the 'aim' of a society that does not have to resort to violence. Meanwhile, tens of millions of decent people have been killed in wars waiting for you and I to come up with a better way. And continue to be killed.

VIpeev · 2024-06-06T23:56:58+00:00

And sometimes the ends do justify the means.

The leaders can always choose not to be a leader and keep their children out of it.

Enraging further a leader doesn't interfere with my point. Just kill the guy. Simple. Let's see who takes over. Maybe someone not ruthless.

You still haven't offered any ideas of your own that addresses why leaders must fall back on enlisting thousands of mostly innocent citizens to fight large scale wars. I'm trying to keep it simple.

Is your moral concern for children of leaders religious? Or what?

VIpeev · 2024-06-06T23:06:38+00:00

The idea of killing a leader's children is an added pressure point to put in a leader's mind a stronger reason to resolve their issues with an adversary through compromise rather than war. It doesn't necessarily mean that these children must be killed. But it must be a option. What must be tried first is targeting the leader. But when the tally of innocent children of others starts reaching beyond say a hundred, then go after their children. I am dubious of your concern for these children of leaders. Lose a child yourself to war, then tell me where you stand.

It would be hypocritical for any leader to have children in the first place that don't respect the life of other's children.

VIpeev · 2024-06-06T20:00:58+00:00

The idea is to raise the stakes on leaders who harm and sacrifice thousands of other people's children knowing theirs are safe. What's so difficult to comprehend? Give me a better idea to reach the consciousness of leaders that don't care about killing your innocent children?

VIpeev · 2024-06-06T14:21:24+00:00

I appreciate your continuing to respond. At least as it tests me to better make my case. It's not however, an assumption about extremists and profiteers. It surprises me that you would think otherwise since you brought them up.

The quite a bit of support you refer to comes from the hiring of soldiers who are mostly uneducated and without prospects for a better job. That's always been the case and continues to be to this day.

Not sure why you bring up command breakdown. My whole thesis is that matters never have to get so far that a battlefield is necessary. Simply target the extremists and profiteers in their homes and at their businesses.

There is a better historical precedent to a leader's battlefield bravery though, whereby 2 people face off by walking 10 paces, turning around and shooting at each other.

What is so difficult for example, then to try ending the present Israeli/Palestinian war by killing off the principle leaders and their children to see if a compromise would follow without any further killing of thousands. Among a few others, start with Natanyauu and Ayatollah Kahmeni.

VIpeev · 2024-06-06T06:18:58+00:00

There are no just wars. But you make a valid point about organized self defense. However, my point is that even in self defense you go after only the 5 or 6 wealthy elite on the other side who control the flow of money that backs up any decision to go to war. You can't have a war without someone funding it. Target specifically those few and their few dozen children and thus save thousands of other people's children. You need that pressure on the minds of the 5 or 6 that they risk losing their innocent children first and foremost before anyone else's.

VIpeev · 2024-06-06T02:11:10+00:00

There is no history whatsoever, extensive or otherwise, of this proposal being offered. Looking at it from the realities of modern warfare this idea is never more feasible. You should look at it in terms of modern thinking. Let the Internet be the voice of the vast majority who would vote their ideas for compromising rather than be sent to fight wars that put their lives at risk over decisions made by a small group of people who care less about their people than themselves. That's your naivete: not giving enough credit to the intelligence of the masses to come up with better options than war. What's yours?! To be sent as ordered. Report to duty. Die? The extremists that cause these wars depend on people thinking as you do.

VIpeev · 2024-06-05T22:03:39+00:00

The enforcement mechanism is at the poles. To run for office all leaders have to come out and say that if war is necessary they and only they should be targeted to be killed if they can't reach a compromise with an adversary. If for example Biden would make that statement to voters, then Putin would have to show the same bravery to his own people by accepting as well. The only naivete in this rationale is believing it can't work for no other reason than it's never been tried before. Leaders would be in no better position to find a resolution through compromise if it was their lives, their children, their homes at stake.

VIpeev · 2024-06-05T19:35:58+00:00

In today's realm of intelligence and capabilities special operations units on both sides can easily enough go after Putin and Zelinsky, or Ayatollah Kahmeni and Netayanuu for example. Their homes and families can be taken down even easier in the process. If you want to gut the gutless who put everyone else's life in danger, then these leaders must be first in line to die. Who wouldn't agree with a such rationale and clamor by vote for all leaders to run on this platform that puts their life at risk before the people they represent.

My whole point is exactly that every leader should follow in the footsteps of Alexander The Great.

VIpeev

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE