• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Would a peaceful world have a single army?

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
This question can lead down several tangents. I am interested in all of them. Sorry J's, I have no more to offer in the way of directions, just follow it where it leads you. I am posing the question now, and I will post my own opinion in a while because I am curious about what you have to say first. Would a world that had come to an agreement, that peace and diplomacy is the answer, need an army? Would it have one? Two?
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
The world would have one big "police" force and there would be a whole bunch of secret armies/militias out in the deserts and jungles. I would also try to start my own militia.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
"Though all under heaven be at peace, if the arts of war be forgotten there is peril."
-Chinese proverb


Long story short: yes it would.
 

antireconciler

it's a nuclear device
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
866
MBTI Type
Intj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
so
Here are lines of thought:

If peace appears as a choice, then opportunities where it will not apply will always present themselves. In any case, even believing that peace is the answer will lead people and countries to war and failure of communication in the name of an ill conceived peace. For example, if my thoughts get rowdy, sometimes in the name of peace I can tell my mind to shut up, but this does not promote any real peace.

Other things that come to mind is that the individual will always perceive the need to preserve itself even in the absence of threats, simply because that is implicit in an individuality claim, so a minimal self-defense force would seem likely for countries, even where countries all get along. It is simply implicit in an individuality claim. To not consider self-defense appears to be based on a nostalgic desire to return to innocence, but that "innocence" would largely negate individualities, and it should not be forgotten that this amounts to the negation of consciousness and thus death. So it is a kind of mirage to chase this innocence. It is very viperous.

If the question considers the number of countries, it is not relevant. If the United States were the only nation, the states would still have differences like countries. If Colorado were the only inhabited area of the planet, there would still be city-states, and each would be inclined to their own militia. Each would, just as now, have their own political individuality. If Los Angeles were the only inhabited area of the planet, there would still be the politics of the neighborhoods. If a neighborhood, the streets. If a church, the congregations. If a company, the departments. If a family, the individuals. And so on. Division is implicit ... and it is good. There is no pessimism here.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
I would think it would have an army "just in case" something bad happened, like an enemy from some unknown place. Who knows? Aliens may exist, and some people are totally cut off from today's civilizations. Plus, you might need police forces from smaller possible mishaps.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
A common mistake people make when considering issues of world peace is to assume it's some kind of permenant state of affairs.
 

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
A common mistake people make when considering issues of world peace is to assume it's some kind of permenant state of affairs.

A single army would be difficult to rally against, though, no? And for the sake of ending peace?
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Yes we would. Peace exists in principle, not in the hearts of man.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
A single army would be difficult to rally against, though, no?

No not really. That's what "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare]Asymmetric warfare[/url]" is all about really; confronting and defeating a more powerful enemy by exploiting its weaknesses. It's pretty much now the dominant form of warfare since the end of WWII, and has exploded with the end of the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are contemporary examples of such.

And for the sake of ending peace?

Look at how how fast 50 years of peace collasped in 1914. In fact this occurs quite frequently in history.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
an army? no. well trained citizen militias? Yes!

Now you're talking.

We also have to dig deep and figure how exactly this world peace arrangement is configured and maintained. What are its long-term geopolitical goals and whatnot? Only then can you really discuss issues related to the nature of the military force needed to enforce and maintain this arrangement.

If we're talking about an extended Pax Romana type deal, which requires a centralized government and army - well that can last only for so long before internal divisions eat away at it and eventually cause it to collaspe. The Roman Empire(not to mention the earlier Republic) experienced quite a few civil wars, uprisings, coup d'états, etc. in its day.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Well exactly. He said that the peace was the result of an agreement, not out of benevolence.



:yes:

Touche! I just looked at the title of the thread again...I suck.


EDIT: It could have one army, as long as there were representatives from each party involved in the agreement in said army. Otherwise, you would have as many armies as nations. Each army would be responsible for it's own citizens and accountable to the other armies.
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Touche! I just looked at the title of the thread again...I suck.

Actually, not touché - you said in a truly peaceful world we wouldn't need one, and you were right. (although I think it's more logical to believe in indigo children - sorry, prof - than true world peace...)

In the OP case though, we would need one (and then some militias.)
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
There would still have to be some type of police force. There is no such thing as a truly peaceful world because humans are...human. Even if there wasn't an opposing "tribe" there could always be dissention from within that was intelligent but blindly rebellious for no real reason, say, in the form of a sociopath. It's nice and all to imagine that sociopaths would disappear in a truly peaceful world, but it's realistically unlikely.
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
Why Yes. It would be reserved to fight forces not of this world. Its national guard portion would be designed to strategize ways to destroy oncoming asteroids.
 

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
No not really. That's what "[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare]Asymmetric warfare[/url]" is all about really; confronting and defeating a more powerful enemy by exploiting its weaknesses. It's pretty much now the dominant form of warfare since the end of WWII, and has exploded with the end of the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are contemporary examples of such.

You are not claiming Afghanistan and Iraq are more powerful than we?
 
Top