Why all the world's governments can not ban wars?

Question

It is that easy, is not it? The only war that could be justified would be the war against the country that first started the war. Why not to leave all the countries territories as they are now and any country that would started to fight against another country over the territory would be called an agressor?Why not to do this?
Advantages: Less peoples deaths, less money on military, no enemies(exceprt that country who would first start war of course) What do you think?

If all the government adopted this law I think it would be hard to find a country that would want to break the law and start fighting against all countries in the world

I believe that wars will be here as long as we allow them to be on the earth

Answer 1

this is exactly the point. if you could get a stablized govt in every country on the world this would be the next step. but right now there are unstable govts. And the person with the most weapons or most backing are the leaders. It can change at the drop of a hat. This is why you cannot allow bad people to get ahold of govts that could then use the nations power to wage war.

for who ever said all war is about power you are wrong. DEAD wrong. Religion is the driving force of most wars now. Sunnis and Shites, Tutsi and Hutu, Muslim extremists and non and what was the japanese mind set before hiroshima. They belive they are the true descendes of their religion and everyone else is sub human comparitivly. The muslim extremists belive that the prophisies say that the messiah will return after armegedon. They want this armegedon to occur for the messiah to return. They believe life after this world is greater than life on this world so they will continue to strive toward these ideals until their death.

Answer 2

Don't you think the governments of the world would have banned wars already if they could have? The problem is you're NEVER going to get all the people on the planet to agree on everything. And every time you get people who disagree you're going to get someone who absolutely believes he/she is right and therefore absolutely refuses to back down.

Let's say the governments of the world banned wars and dismantled their military structures. It would only be a matter of time before a (fill in the blank: Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao-Tse Tung, Saddam Hussein, etc.) rose to power and enslaved thousands -- possibly millions -- because the new world dictator had all the military might and everyone else had disbanded their armed forces.

Finally, if you wanted to leave all the countries as they are right now and deem anyone who disputed territorial rights as an aggressor, how would you handle the situation in the West Bank? Who gets that territory, the Palestinians or the Israelis? And what would you do about the nations surrounding Israel that would love nothing more than to exterminate every Jew on the planet, for no other reason than the fact that they are Jews?

Face it, as long as we have so many different people on the planet with so many different beliefs, cultures, and opinions, there will be a war somewhere. There has NEVER been a time in human history where there was no fighting going on somewhere between countries, groups or factions. World peace is an illusion. So, to quote General George Washington, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

Answer 3

The world has generally followed this advice since WWII. Except countries sometimes violated the rule. So the country that breaks the rule is called the aggressor. This happens, but it does not stop the war, so other countries with possible enemies have the idea they could be attacked and spend money on the military. The world in general is not a sure enough source of help for countries with known enemies to let down their guard.

Answer 4

Ah, were it that simple. If everyone loved freedom and everyone was willing to let past atrocities be forgotten, it might actually work. Much of the world abhors freedom!
Islamic people claim the west wants another Crusade while ignoring the forced conversion of millions into Islam.
Armenians hate Turks because of the slaughter of many Armenians during the First World War.
American Blacks demand reparations for slavery, though they are far better off here in the US than in Africa and NOT a single American living owned any slaves.
Koreans hate the Japanese for atrocities committed during WWII.
And the list goes on.
An attempt at something similar didn't help. A group tried to ban selling gem stones to finance guns for war. What if that nation is just trying to defend itself from an invader? It all depends upon your particular idea of what is right and wrong.

Answer 5

The problem is not with the country starting the war, it is the lack of will of the rest of the world to act. Few in the world acted when Saddam went into Kuwait. No one acted early against the axis in either wars, and few acted against the aggression of North Korea.

That is the problem. The League of Nations was founded on that principle, and it failed because people lack the will. That is why it is foolish. You also assume that all nations are governed by the rule of law. They are not.

Answer 6

Almost all the countries already have an unwritten law. They have realized that war never leads to growth or advance. Unfortunately there are a couple of nations led by rogue leaders. Pakistan became one when it invaded India in Cargill. (Later with US help, they worked out a face saving exit. End result: thousands of deaths in both armies and huge expenses.)
US is another country that has not banned wars. With its enormous clout, it has been able to put together a bunch of nations to go with it.
The anti-Israel countires, in spite of their rhetoric, will not attack Israel. Though they claim their stance is due to Israel's occupation, they will not indulge in direct war - unless Israel starts it. Thats also why they use guerillas.

Answer 7

Oh this is good. How will it be enforced and by whom, the only way to enforce a no war treaty would be to go to war. Look at the world today, who will fight it. The peace keepers the UN sent to Syria and Israel just sit there and do nothing, shoot, those two are still shooting at each other.

Because you don't want to fight doesn't mean someone else will feel the same way.

Answer 8

We as human beings will never be able to stop all wars....there will always be people doing things that others will not like or call agressive. Every person views things differant....what you might not call agressive others might view as a real threat, so I don't think anyone could ever agree on what is or is not a threat....and what might not be a threat to one country might be a huge one to another.....People in our life time are never going to be able to agree on everything, therefore wars are not going to end...as sad as it may be.....if we are going to live in a truly peaceful world....every country would have to agree and that will never happen.....there are always going to be people who feel they have been wronged in some way and will fight to the dealth to "avenge that wrong".....sad but true

Answer 9

Very few countries, including the United States, would sign an agreement like that.

Answer 10

that is a great idea and i am all for it but the reality is there will always be extremists and there will always be someone wanting to conquer someone else. the problem is we cannot control what other countries do and even though some (like iraq, iran, north korea, russia etc. ) will say one thing they will do another and you can bet people like that will say sure i won't wage war but will secretly be developing wmds and anything else they can to one day attack everyone. thats exactly what happened with saddam.