Simple - we can't. EVER!
2007-03-10 06:40:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by Moofie's Mom 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
World peace is in reality an illusion, There has never been world peace and never will be. Look back at history and you will see that at any one time there has always been 1 group fighting another. It is a sorry state of affairs. Humans are instinctively like this. We can educate ourselves with the knowledge of how war effects us but we always go back for more. I am not in anyway condoning violence of any sort but merely accepting it as a way of life. You only have to look at how people react when they are drunk on a saturday night after a few beers.....well imagine a countries leader with no inhibitions and you will see where i am going. Try to see that this is a human instinct and you will understand. Its not right but thats just how it is.
2007-03-10 06:47:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by carswoody 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
properly relies upon on the way you opt for for to respond to this. The finest usual militia could be: a million. united states of america 2. Russia 3. China the united states has the finest militia rationalization for the 4 branches which could paintings at the same time. on a similar time as Russia and China could have larger armies, we've greater technologies and help from the different branches. In a naval comflict the US army is the main important by ability of far interior the worldwide and finest by ability of an prolonged shot. With 12 service conflict communities no u . s . a . may even come close to to matching that. On good of that we even have the finest submarine fleet interior the worldwide with Russia in all risk to no longer far bhind. WWII demostrated how deadly a rustic submarine fllet could be. correct to the air tension the united states back undoublty wins this conflict. Russia has many combatants which could experience lots of our combatants in velocity, manuvability, and deadlyness how ever the only benefit we've is which you won't have the capacity to work out a number of our planes on RADAR that's extensive while attempting to locate your enemy. something people have did no longer gain is that on a similar time as length is substantial, technologies is the place this is at. if your militia should be interior 5 miles to kill mine, yet my militia merely should be 10 miles away to kill yours i'm getting a larger benefit. it kinda like while the gun replaced into first invented. Armies of a smaller quantity could decemate and army of better numbers reason they could attack from extra away.
2016-12-14 15:39:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Selling weapons -although ethically questionable- is not the cause for war.
Like selling household knives is not the cause for stabbings and selling cars is not the cause of hit-and runs.
It's not weapons that make war, it's people. And as you observed quite rightly, why do the already poor countries spend their few bucks on buying weapons anyway?
Why don't they take the money and develop their economy? The answer is, because they WANT weapons, and if rich countries don't sell them (and through this have some good element of control), someone else will sell the weapons to them.
2007-03-14 05:57:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Eugene 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, Peace comes from within. Weapons don't cause wars. Greed, ambition and imperiaism through ethnocentricity cause wars. Arms are the tools used in wars. Since the dawn of civilization wars were conducted using tools as simple as rocks, wood branches and human hands. In order to stop war, humans must change. It will not be changed through the eradication of weapons. To assert that is foolish and idealistic. If these guys weren't carrying AK's and RPG's they would use meat clevers or bows and arrows. Pray for peace.
2007-03-10 06:44:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by TAHOE REALTOR 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Dont forget that other countries such as the UK, France and Germany are also major arms dealers.
I agree with you too, poor countries seem to have more and more sophisticated and expensive weapons to fight wars with, being able to cause greater amounts of death and misery - the excuse is that the weapons are for "self defence"
In Rwanda and Sierra Leone, most of the violence was done by people with machetes and knives.
i dont think there will be peace as long as one human wants something someone else has and is prepared to use violence to obtain it.
2007-03-10 06:44:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by n b 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
World Peace is a joke. It simply can never be achieved. Humans are violent by nature, there will always be people who kill others. The best defense is to have a weapon to protect your life if need be. Do you really think that pepper spray or a tazer will stop someone trying to blow you up in the name of God?
2007-03-10 06:46:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
There will never be complete peace in this world as long as people are motivated by fear and greed and hatred.
Until we learn to take responsibility for our own actions, and to be tolerant of others who are different, the best we can hope for is intermittent skirmishes and a long world-wide Cold War.
2007-03-10 06:42:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
It does make one wonder what is going on. And all this time there are people in the poor countries that need food and government services that they can't get because of the money spent on weapons.
2007-03-10 06:47:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Don't forget the British we make some of the best hardware in the world and what about Czeck Republic,Bulgaria,Iran,France,Germany ,Belgium etc.etc.What do you want to do cause worldwide mass unemployment?
2007-03-10 07:34:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by frankturk50 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Without war there is no peace.
They'll be throwing pointy sticks at each other if they couldn't get arms so we may as well get some money into our economy if theyre determined to wipe each other out.
I don't agree with it but that's just the way it is unfortunately. I admire your optimism though.
2007-03-10 06:44:49
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋