WMD's, specifically nukes achieved that already. No link necessary, thanks.

>>78616
THIS!

Once countries like Iran & Ukraine get nukes pariah superpowers will leave them alone. It's been proven already, no nation that wants to survive directly goes to war with a nuclear superpower, Mutually Assured Destruction ensures that EVERYONE would lose another world war so it is not even worth entertaining such a crazy idea. The more nukes, the better.

>>78615
Go ahead, share the link. I'd be interested to see if it makes any sense or not.

>>78616
i dont think world peace is ever 100% possible, but nukes are the closest we ever have, and probably will, get.
but get a dumb fucking psycho in government, in any country that has nukes, and that will be a huge risk to world peace.
but after the nuclear apocalypse, if it ever happens, does front its head our the sand. well just go back to tribalistic wars for innovation and nothing changes.

>>78615
pls share the link anon.

>>78620
>>78623

Thanks for the interest. Here is the link to the proposal:
https://www.change.org/GlobalGovernmentNow

I understand the realist view on nuclear deterrence, but this project aims for a more structural approach to prevent any "dumb fucking psycho" from pulling the trigger. Check it out and let me know your thoughts.

>>78637
BRICS+ already has the solution my friend. Respect national sovereignty, global free trade, protect and respect differing cultures, promote free market and free enterprise, work towards world peace with respect and acceptance to national borders and differing cultures.

I do not trust big tech oligarchs or globohomo corrupt western governments anymore. All they have provided us is endless wars, a massive surveillance state and national debt insolvency. I'm fucking DONE with this shitty unfair hostile system we have today.

BRICS is the future, or there is no future and I could care less if the nukes are used if it has to come to that.

>>78640

I completely agree with your distrust of current corrupt Western fovernments and big tech oligarchs. They have failed us.

However, this proposal is NOT about giving them more power. It aims for a structural system to hold ALL superpowers accountable, including those Western regimes.

If BRICS is the future, they also need a fair, legal framework to prevent wars. Check the details again---it's about replacing the broken system we have today.

>>78615
>Is world peace actually achievable?
no.

humans are the byproduct of evolution, which means we are locked in a neverending existential war.

>>78684

You are absolutely right about human nature. Evolution programmed us to compete.

But that is exactly why we need a structural framework. We managed to end domestic tribal wars by creating modern legal systems within nations. Now we need that same logical upgrade on a global scale to neutralize those predatory instincts between superpowers.

Hate to say this but humans overall are violent greedy animals by nature. I truly think if everyone wants to be on an equal playing field, and be forced to live in peace with one another, all citizens should own firearms for self-defense and all nations should own nuclear deterrents for the same concept. The only thing stopping a crazed sociopath control freak or out of control regime is the actual risk of them getting gunned down and/or incinerated to dust over stupid selfish belligerent behavior.

Think about it this way.... why does the US not attack North Korea? Why does China and India not erupt in a huge war with one another? What if Ukraine, Iran and Taiwan had nuclear weapons already? All these hostilities would end the moment assholes realize they face complete destruction for their hostile behaviors.

The only good thing I can say about is today we face a greater opportunity at nuclear proliferation. Now that Europe is arming Finland with nukes, perhaps Russia will arm Iran with nukes too. If Iran gets nukes, maybe Taiwan will get some too. Maybe then, the whole world will start to understand protecting national sovereignty against hostile behavior requires the ability to checkmate, a nuclear deterrent. In the meantime we can consider something besides the UN, perhaps AI can be used to reason with us very dumb human animals? Perhaps AI could enlighten humanity how to share our resources and have everyone prosper in peace while we have the deterrents too?

dont be a pray.

>>78615
Don't think so OP

>>78623
>>78637
>dumb fucking psycho
Those people who rise to such position of power and authorothay are egotistic, ambitious people who love the admiration they get from the people. They don't want to live in a dark hole underground with 50 other people to worship them. They also want to enjoy all the pleasures this world can give them and not a bunker.

>>78701
>They don't want to live in a dark hole underground with 50 other people to worship them. They also want to enjoy all the pleasures this world can give them and not a bunker.

True, so in other words those kind of dictators/politicians would least benefit from a nuclear world end-game apocalypse because they rely on everything working the same including the current economic system that helped shape and mold them.

This is exactly why I say no matter how big and bad an ego, no matter the psycho, no matter how corrupt a government is, no one would ever EVER benefit or "win" a nuclear world war, which is why no one would dare start a nuclear conflict. Notice how many times the Kremlin threatens to nuke Europe but does absolutely nothing as days and weeks and months pass? It's all bluster because they know damn well EVERYONE would lose if it ever escalated to that. Even the worst dictators of the East to the insane crooked political scumbags of the West all know this. It's laughable. Best thing that could happen to this world is more nuclear proliferation as a deterrent. Probably the reason WWIII would never actually happen.

I'll just call him Dave. I knew a glowie back in the day who actually worked with the DoD. He was a very honest, smart, family friendly dude, no doubt retired today, probably going on fishing trips like he always loved to do. Anyway, me and Dave would sometimes talk and joke about different "happenings" going on in the world many years ago (mid-2000s era). About wars in the Middle East. How government bureaucracy sucked balls. Taxation. Corruption in politics, which we saw eye to eye often, he being in the thick of it at the time. Dave never talked about anything confidential or classified, nor ever detailed exactly what he did.

At one point in our conversation the subject of nukes were brought up, at least in theory of global threats. What he said made a ton of sense to me. He said the open secret about nuclear weapons technology is WMDs were initially build to become a massive deterrent (even before used during WWII nukes were originally meant to be tested at some point to show off our supreme might to the world, "you don't want to fuck with the US!" basically). It was never meant to be used against populations. Nuclear proliferation was always a means to deter enemies from hostility and dangerous behavior. It was solely designed to keep nations in check, in line. No government really wants to use nuclear weapons which they all secretly fear. It is more or less used for psychological warfare. Sometimes it helps re-enforce sensible precaution which was the whole point having them. To deter major wars.

You guys make a solid point about MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Fear of complete annihilation is indeed the only thing keeping egoistic dictators and regimes in check right now.

But relying purely on the "rationality" of armed psychopaths holding nukes is a high-stakes gamble. It only takes one miscalculation, one rogue regime, or one technical glitch to end humanity. Nuclear deterrence is a temporary bandage, not a permanent solution.

That's exactly why we need to move from a "balance of terror" to a legal global framework that structurally binds these weapons and superpowers under strict institutional rules, which is what this project aims for:

https://www.change.org/GlobalGovernmentNow

If we want true deterrence that doesn't put a gun to humanity's head 24/7, we must talk about upgrading the global system itself.

>>78749
I do understand your concern, it is a dangerous conundrum. It reminds me why so many people own guns honestly. I own guns for various reasons: collecting, pest control around the homestead, seldom times hunting with a friend or relatives, but most of all conceal carry and personal self-defense and defense of private property. Would I ever wish to use a gun against another human being? Hell no! I prefer people being peaceful and respectful of others. The hard truth is many people are not and some can be very dangerous. There are the scumbags that will rob homes and commit armed robberies. There are the perverts that will kidnap and rape your kids or wife. There are the types who hold grudges for what-ever stupid reason and want to harm you or destroy your property. Why on Earth would we not have something to defend ourselves and our properties when clearly criminal scumbags do exist and will always exist? Now consider these kinds of problems on a global level. US attacking Vietnam, US bombing Iran, Israel bombing Lebanon and Gaza, Russia invading Ukraine, NATO violently taking over Yugoslavia, the potential of China taking over Taiwan in the future..... We tried international laws before after WWII. The UN security council. Nuremberg trials. Treaties. Memorandums. Outlawing genocide and war crimes. The ICC (International Crimes Court). Who has ever been held responsible? When has international law ever stopped hostile actors? What if hostile nations choose not to obey an AI or even cooperate? That is the biggest conundrum, changing human behavior, holding hostile actors accountable. Better yet, the AI is only as competent as the ones who program it. Who is to make sure the AI is 100% unbias in it's decision making?

>>78615
You know that cliche of bad guys wanting to rule the world? Well that dream of world domination is supposed to bring about world peace. Conquering the entire planet and uniting it is supposed to end all wars and allow humanity as a whole to ascend.

I think that's an idea that has proven itself impossible, but only because of the fact that a multiracial multiethnic multicultural multifaith society where the females are treated as human beings by the law, is doomed to failure.
What should be done is one group should wipe out all others, so humanity is one race one ethnicity one religion one culture and also women and children should be made chattel slaves living humanoid pieces of private property belonging to individual men (their husbands, fathers, oldest closest male relative, and so on).
That kind of stability would allow world peace to be possible, at least in theory.

>>78769
I'm going to enlighten you with a deliberately safe-guarded secret the ((powers that be)) don't want people realizing. You would not see as much crime and wars if everyone shared wealth and society was prosperous. Once upon a time in middle class America, 1950-60 era, average people did not even lock their front doors at night because robbery was so rare it was unfathomable. It was because everyone could share "the American dream" there was no need for desperate people to engage in desperate criminal activity, and the seldom few that did ended up killed or serving long term sentences in prison.

The poorer those crooked politicians make our society; via debt insolvency, outsourcing industry, increasing taxation, increasing monopolization of the economy, the destruction of the free market; the more crime flourishes. Drug and alcohol abuse increases. Wars break out over greed and resources. It becomes a doom loop of endless exploitation, fraud and corruption. Which, by the way, we see today and are living under now.

We had it right 60+ years ago, that was the way forward, but corrupt idiots got into power and fucked it all up for us.

>>78775
Corporations should pay higher taxes.

>>78793
I agree in general theory yes, but they never do. It is WE who end up paying higher taxes, and any burden on corporations just gets passed down to the consumer who ends up paying more.

>>78795
It also gets passed on to the government, which then has to take on debt and start wars. Corporations used to pay very high taxes. During the golden era of the 50's and 60's it was something like 50%, I can't remember the exact amount off the top of my head but it was a huge number compared to the pennies they pay nowadays.

>>78796
They paid a lot more in taxes back then, less loopholes, but also far less corruption. Government actually spent taxpayer money wisely instead of wasting it on senseless shit like they do today. Furthermore our currency was on a gold standard, the US dollar was once considered a preservation of wealth, it had enormous purchasing power back then, completely unlike today. You could buy a home for $14K or go out to eat for $5 on the town. So sure, more taxes but the taxpayer money went back into bettering society and infrastructure and the purchasing power of the US dollar was golden, it was king, no other currency on Earth was close to matching our purchasing power, our overall wealth as a nation. By the way, most corporate taxes were actually tariffs back then. It was used to make sure industry stayed in America and was American made. Everyone on Earth wanted American-made products because we made the best quality products back then, built to last a lifetime. There are old 60s Maytag manual washers that still work today. Nothing is made like that anymore.

>>78751

Appreciate the intense debate here. It's fascinating to see the discussion scale up from individual defense to macroeconomics and global systems.

>>78810
(Continued from my previous post)

To address the core arguments, especially No. 78751: Individual self-defense is a separate issue, but on a global scale, look at what's happening right now in Ukraine and the Middle East. Nuclear deterrence only prevents total nuclear apocalypse; it has completely failed to stop conventional wars and regional bloodshed. Relying on a "balance of terror" is just a high-stakes waiting game.

>>78811
(Continued from my previous post)

Most reactions here focus on explaining why a peaceful global order is impossible bases on past failures (UN, ICC, etc.). But that is exactly my point: Because past international organisations failed, we desperately need a radically new, structurally binding blueprint. "It failed before, so we shouldn't try" is defeatism. The real question we should be asking isn't "Why is it hard?", but "How do we actually make it work?"

>>78812
(Continued from my previous post)

AI was mentioned merely as one potential tool-a hope to eliminate human bias. The core issue isn't a specific technology, but moving away from a broken system where the entire planet's fate is constantly at the mercy of a few volatile, egoistic politicians and their short-term interests. If we agree that war is a catastrophic drain on humanity, let's shift the perspective from "why it's impossible" to "how can we do it".

>>78813
(Continued from my previous post)

This project outlines one such structural alternatives to force global cooperation:
https://www.change.org/GlobalGovernmentNow

What would your blueprint for a functional global structure look like if you had to design it from scratch? Let's discuss.

>>78814
I think one way we could solve some of these dire issues is to strip all national governments from making any decisions on global trade and foreign policy, limit military expenditure and military budgets for every country, strip the ability of governments to conscript people into wars, arm all citizens and make citizens and businesses the decision makers when it comes to foreign policy rather than governments/bureaucracy. Citizens are prone not to desire wars because it impacts the civilian population horrifically for the benefit of a few, so we are the ones that would make the most rational foreign policy decisions. If you can have unbiased AI to somehow enforce this, along with a global Constitution similar to what the American Founding Fathers adopted (albeit this time with far more limits on governments AND corporations) then that would be totally ideal. America's Founding Fathers just were not radical enough in my opinion, too many loopholes exist in our Constitution.

>>78815
Another idea would be to have a one world currency backed by resources such as oil and gold. Everyone could use it, but no one could sanction or control the currency, because governments would be stripped of that power completely. The currency could be used by everyone and anyone, no one in control of it other than nations making sure they have domestic reserves of oil and gold (among other commodities backing that currency). When all governments are limited in their ability to rig and disrupt the economy and free markets can flourish, normally uninterrupted, based solely on supply and demand (NOT political control!) then everything would work wonderfully, we would go back to a golden age of peace and prosperity, fair competition based on consumer choice and free enterprise. If some punk runs a bad business model and no one likes them they go bankrupt, no bailouts. If consumers like what you provide your business stands to thrive. Simple as.

>>78769
OP here. My full response to the ongoing debate and the realists is in the attached image below.

Check out the project blueprint here:
https://www.change.org/GlobalGovernmentNow