millions of people have died in recent history due to war and lot of destruction has been caused.....therefore, shouldn't war be completely banned??
2007-08-23 16:05:40 · 15 answers · asked by beautyqueen 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
the idea is not bad....but there are a lot of difficulties in the way...
first, a mechanism is needed to oversee that no country dares to start war.
second, weapons of destruction such as fighter-bombers, cannons, bombs etc should be banned from production....but who will do that...??
third,armies should be reduced to just peace-keeping limits in a country.
fourth, all said and done,organised countries may be brought in this net...but what about people and organisations like bin laden and al-qaeda...?
it is almost impossible task in the presrent world....
2007-08-23 16:18:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, millions of people have died & much destruction has been caused by wars. But fighting is a natural instinct instilled in all creatures. Basically what you're suggesting - banning wars - is not only impossible, it could actually cause MORE wars (people fighting against the ban!). The ban would be just about impossible to enforce. I'm not saying I agree with wars in general; personally, I think that there MUST be a better way to resolve problems and that fighting should only be used in extreme situations. But I do admit that there could actually be more worldwide chaos without wars. There's really nothing we can do about it - wars have been around since the dawn of time and probably will still be there long after you and I die.
2007-08-23 23:18:35 · answer #2 · answered by ♥ Dani 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How would you ban it? Being able to ban something suggests that you have authority to do that.
How would a war ban be enforced? Lets look at history;
The UN wanted to ban war against Idi Amin through political and economic sanctions, didn't work
The United States wanted to ban war between North and South Vietnam, didn't work
The only way to "Ban" war is to have a singular government that is all powerful, but once that happens you'd have a "1984"-esque situation. With the government wanting to control what isn't there's to control
I personally would like to ban war, poverty, starvation, social injustice, partisan politics, and racism. But I have no way of enforcing that ban. Some things are just not capable in todays world. Check back in 100 years, maybe society will evolve.
2007-08-23 23:41:35 · answer #3 · answered by Jon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was. The Kellogg Briand Pact was signed 80 years ago this Monday. It was passed to ban war by over 60 countries 3 of which used it as excuses to start their own wars(4 guesses who...). In fact the treaty is still International Law.
2007-08-23 23:15:00 · answer #4 · answered by travis_a_duncan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know, that's a great idea! And then we can create a large organization dedicated to enforcing the ban. We will, of course, need to arm this organization since they would have to enforce a ban against war which would mean that the people they needed to enforce the ban on would be armed themselves, etc., etc.
2007-08-23 23:22:23 · answer #5 · answered by Matt W 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about we all take Ghandi's advice and love people for who they are and maybe there wouldnt be many or any wars at all.
2007-08-23 23:23:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mike G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would require a holocaust of all humanity. War is instinct in all creatures, or at least violence.
2007-08-23 23:09:54 · answer #7 · answered by Serpico7 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was tried once shortly after World War I. Well, it failed. Not surprisingly.
2007-08-23 23:15:33 · answer #8 · answered by Justin D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
unrealistic.
without evil the is no good.
and without war I would be out of a job
2007-08-23 23:13:04 · answer #9 · answered by Scratch-N-Sniff 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it should !! And any Country that wont comply should be bombed and taken over.
2007-08-23 23:14:58 · answer #10 · answered by simpleokie.blogspot.com 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋