Has the time for Global Demilitarization arrived?

[L. Coyote]

To what extent do you think nations can demilitarize?

Do you favor marked reductions in global military activity?

Would you favor a ban on extra-territorial deployment of US military forces?

[Boojatta]

1. Are there any recent historical events you can describe

that indicate that such a time has arrived?

The United Nations has rules about military aggression. To enforce those rules, member nations need to deploy military forces. For example, aren't there US military forces in South Korea near the border with North Korea?

Perhaps you are not proposing removal of US military forces from where they have already been deployed, but simply refraining from future deployment. However, if it was a mistake to deploy US military forces in Korea, then why not remove the forces?

If deployment of US military forces in Korea was the right thing to do, then how do we know that there will never in future be a new situation in which deploying US military forces is the right thing to do?

[L. Coyote]

3. The quagmire in Iraq. Millions of deaths in conflicts. The costs in global resources.

What percentage of the global human community lives in poverty?
What percentage of the global human community lacks health care?
What percentage of the global human community lacks clean water?

What percentage of the global human community's resources are expended on the military?
What percentage of the global human community's energy resources are expended by the military?
What percentage of the global human community's human resources are dedicated to the military?

Does this make any sense, if we are in fact a global human community?

[pscot]

2. I'll have some of whaever you're smoking

We're going to need all these weapons as we duke it out over the ruins of our post oil civilization.

[ljm2002]

4. The time has come and gone...

...and we missed that train.

Seriously, once we had weapons that could destroy everything -- i.e. nukes -- it became evident why violence is never the way to solve problems. Its only legitimate use is as a defense. And the violence that does occur worldwide, is often a result of resource issues -- now and historically. Which, if we all tried to solve such issues peaceably, would have many good effects, including that we would *have* more resources to begin with, since we'd use less of them on warmaking.

But these questions are as old as humanity. And let us not forget good ol' Nature -- "red in tooth and claw". Violence and aggression are not characteristics unique to humans; they seem to be part and parcel of our nature as animals too. Even in herbivore species the males will fight over females, often quite fiercely.

Perhaps the goal should be to minimize or even do away with organized warfare. But then the difficulty is with staging, and with trust. "I'll disarm when you do." "No, please, you first." and on it goes.

[EFerrari]

5. If *we* demilitarized, half the global problem would be gone, right there.

But then, we'd have to completely reorganize our society.

[Trillo]

6. It's a good dream...

Sometimes dreams can be brought into reality.

It strikes me that militarization is a phenomenon of wealth, the need to defend that wealth, and in its most negative sense, raw aggression. So I'm thinking that nations would only demilitarize in relation to a lessened need to defend their property from the aggressions of other nations. Without some nation's military use of raw aggression, the need for any wealthy nation to have a huge military with planet-destroying offensive capability is much reduced.

I absolutely agree that the military should only be used for defense. I'd much rather see the military of the U.S. to be organized along the lines of a militia, with some kind of mandatory, but very short service starting at 16-18 years of age, with a very small core of career professionals to maintain a skeleton-type but overstocked organization, that in turn could be quickly ramped up with callups if the need for defense arose.

Yes, I think I would favor a ban on extra-territorial deployment of the military, unless it was broadly supported by most all other nations for some kind of needed humanitarian intervention.

Unfortunately, I also believe that most of my above words are reflective of raw idealism than something grounded in reality. With respect to the prior sentence only, I'd love to be wrong.

[L. Coyote]

8. If all nations were prohibited from extra-territorial military deployments

imagine what the impact would be globally. This can only happen via the United Nations and global treaty.

[TahitiNut]

7. The time was ripe in 1991 ... and is now getting rotten.

:shrug: