HOW TO END ALL WARS, FOREVER! It's About Time Don't You Think?

HOW TO END ALL WARS FOREVER!

An excerpt from the book "Up One Level"

Available from AuthorHouse at

www.dooahhh1.com/uolthebook.html

Short of sitting on our asses with our fingers crossed for a few thousand years hoping to survive long enough until evolution finally teaches us war is stupid, we already have the ways and means to end all wars forever.

Didn’t we recently stop Iraq from continuing its annexation of Kuwait in 92 with a globally backed United Nations coalition? We sure did. It works, doesn’t it?

Compared to some problems like fairytale religions, ending all wars should be relatively simple to accomplish. It will require drastic actions initially, but considering the negative aspects of reoccurring wars and the assured annihilation humanity faces at the moment, I think we could live with a little Up One Level action don’t you?

Here it is in a nutshell:

• Find a few global shakers and doers that can lead the cause, or perhaps, just perhaps, a small country that everyone trusts and has no problems with anyone.

• Convince the United Nations members that aggression is avoidable, stupid, and much too dangerous to play around with anymore. Show them the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Remember, the robot that vaporizes aggressors?

• Enroll all countries of the world in the United Nations. Each country would contribute one representative with the power of just one vote.

• Through the United Nations judicial section, settle any and all border disputes with compulsory arbitration and establish a new UN edict proclaiming all country to country military aggression outlawed forever.

• The present UN Security Council is made up of 15 member nations with just 5 of them as permanent Security Council members. Disband it!

• Establish a new Security Counsel with again, one permanent member from each country in the world. Choose these people like you would choose US Supreme Court Justices. In fact, these people would have the power of a "New World Order Supreme Court Security Council Against Military Aggression.” or something similar to that. Don't let the phrase frighten you, it has nothing at all to do with a global conspiracy in any way shape of form. It is exactly what the title implies. Nothing more, nothing less.

• Gradually give this new Security Council the overwhelming military power it would require in order to enforce global peace. Initially, each country would have to supply military forces or other support as they do now until the New Security Council established its own. As trust in the system grows, the New Security Council would become the world's only military super power and kept that way by the member nations.

• The sole purpose of this council would be to stop all aggression cold. Immediately, decisively, and without mercy. A virtual "doomsday machine.” Initially, there would probably be an aggressor nation or two that would test the new system by invading another country who's army would have to be destroyed to cement the impartiality, intent, and capability of the New Security Councils purpose firmly in the minds of all the worlds would-be aggressors. When fully functional, The existence of this counsel would stop any potential aggression nation in its tracks.

• Any nation committing organized military aggression on another for any reason after just one, three-hour warning from the security council would immediately suffer the wrath of the security council’s power, readiness, and globally backed authority. It only takes a couple of minutes to call up your general's and order them to haul-ass out of there. No discussions! In the aftermath, it's generals and other leaders would be arrested and punished accordingly. If the New United Nations and its New Security Council made it impossible to wage war, I don't think it would take too many generations before humanity learned not to even consider the option.

• Once all possibilities of hostilities are abated, the judicial section of the New United Nations would then settle the dispute as is done in any Supreme Court of any country in the world today. They're decision would be final and enforced by the power of the New Security Council. Aggressor nations would also be required to "pick up the bill" for any and all out of the ordinary but necessary UN interventions and/or damage to target nations.

• Initially, countries would be gradually disarmed of all offensive weapons and kept that way through periodic inspections so the UN Security Council could never be threatened in terms of military power or its ability to expedite immediate sanction over aggression from any one, or group of nations. Of course, all the worlds weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed, including nuclear, providing the new Security Council had overwhelming conventional weaponry to get the job done. If not, and until then, the new Security Council would keep a couple dozen tactical field nukes, a few of this and a few of that just in case.

• In time, trust and belief in the New Security Council would grow automatically for two reasons. One, no bombs would have fallen anywhere, and no bullets would have flown across any borders since its inception. One would not, and could not deny the success of this new system and the worlds desire to stop wars forever. Remember, this New Security Council would be a representation of the very best men of global respect each country had to offer such as our ex-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Can't do much better than that can you? These are good and decent, capable men that only shortcomings at the United Nations is, and was, the result of the present UN system and not their intent or capabilities. Secondly, it would soon become apparent even to the most ignorant of war mongering dictators that military aggression is now a futile and suicidal enterprise. Not having military concerns or related expenditures anymore, a whole new world of more productive, legal, endeavors would become open for consideration to these one time, would be aggressors. Regardless, the question is moot, potential aggressors would have no alternative. Drop a bomb, shoot a bullet across your border and you might as well have declared war on the entire world as you and your forces if need be, would be annihilated that very same day. Period!

• A lesser degree of physical Security Council response could be undertaken in borderline cases such as potential aggressor nations development of war materials, troop massing on borders, ballistic missiles, or anything else that clearly illustrates a buildup toward future aggression. Global sanctions, fines, or less lethal Security Council military intervention might be employed in cases like these to stop trouble before it starts. Our present version of the UN Security Council is functioning in this manner as I speak but without the predetermined, global authority and military structure to act immediately. They remain a pathetically slow, an almost toothless organization that is more or less subservient to a handful of powerful nations engaged in seemingly endless debate while aggression continues and people die like flies. None the less, the UN has stopped many an ongoing wars from escalating and brought isolated cases of aggression to an end. The only problem is by the time they get their act together, totally unacceptable death and destruction has almost always, already occurred.

• The power of the New Security Council would have checks and balances like any other democratic entity that would insure charter mandates would stay within the original design guidelines and that some monstrous, global dictatorship would never be allowed to emerge. The majority will of the world’s people, i.e. UN member nation representatives, would always maintain control over the New Security Council as a subservient entity governed by the United Nations main body which in turn is governed by the peoples representatives of the world. World peace would be in the hands of member nation representatives, not The United Nations per se, nor the will of large, influential countries. One country, one representative, one vote, majority rule, no veto's, no lobbying, no politics, and no abstentions. Of course wheeling and dealing would go on behind closed doors but in any event, the result would still be the will of the majority of representatives. It would be very difficult for any one nation to sway the votes of 200 plus others. Not when the representatives are of the quality I speak. Further, the bottom line success of this New United Nations would be squarely in the hands of its non-partisan representatives and their individual integrity's. I doubt very much if Kofi Annan, or Boutros Boutros-Ghali ever favored their respective countries of origin or their personal political wishes over what is right for the global community in any of their UN decisions. These are the kinds of humanitarian individuals the new UN must be staffed with. Of course, each countries representative would undergo rigorous scrutiny as to his ability to make unbiased decisions. His character, his honesty and intellect would also be subjects of investigation before any representative could be voted into the New United Nations.

• The countries of our world must unite as we have already begun at the present United Nations. Amazingly, we can travel to other planets, but we can't even communicate with each other here on earth. World sanity can prevail if we organize and accept the fact that without the Up One Level support and control of a global organization such as the New United Nations with laws and goals we all have an equal say in, we will simply continue the killing and the chaos until one day soon, few of us, if any will be around to argue the point. We are in a state of emergency right this second and this book represents a classified ad reading; "Help Wanted! Experienced leaders wanted to lead global reform, end war, feed the people, and save humanity from extinction. Start immediately. Apply at the United Nations."

• Civil wars and terrorism? Another story altogether. Much stickier to bring to an end to but once we have a global organization with the clout and the motivation to interact, many of the same techniques can be brought to bear to force a cessation of violence or stop it before it begins. The very threat of overwhelming military intervention, leader apprehension and punishment, global isolation with fines and other UN imposed penalties would surly control internal, organized aggression. Hell, the UN could choose to dissolve an offending country all together and simply divide it up amongst neighboring countries for safe keeping for a time, even assimilate it for good. Why not, we've been doing that for personal gain with our conquering armies for thousands of years. At the very least, a regime change would end the potential aggression and provide a troubled country with a fresh start and solutions to its long-term problems. Countries that consistently cause global unrest would be dealt with decisively and culled from the general populous just as one would remove a malignant cancer.

• Most of these concepts are not "hallelujah" innovations. Individual countries, corporations, towns and countless unrelated organizations have been employing "crowd control techniques" like these for centuries. All we need to do is globally unify our efforts. Can you imagine what would happen to any country in the world without its government be it good or bad? So goes our planet. We desperately need a global government that can deal with aggression before we blow ourselves into extinction. Period, end of story. There is no other alternative! As with our individual country laws that prevent us from stealing and killing without which all our societies would be in constant chaos and quickly destroyed, we must establish the same system on a global scale. Present-day man will never volunteer to disband his military and agree to be non-aggressive unless he could be assured of his sovereignty and safety. For now, he must be forced to cease and desist for the good of all mankind and perhaps the survival of earth itself. Exactly the way control through law and order is achieved in individual countries. Now think for a minute about the positive side of ending all wars. I don’t think I have to elaborate here do I? I would go so far as to predict, mankind would abandon its military all together in a few decades or less once this new system is in place. Who would spend billions of dollars to outfit and maintain a military organization and have it simply sit around collecting dust? With no aggression possible, what good is a military force? You will never be attacked by anyone, and you’ll never be allowed to attack anyone. See what I mean?

Remember Up One Level thought. Just fixing the problem by ending wars as they occur isn’t quite sufficient anymore. So wars never reoccur, we must “change” the age-old-system not only by eliminating current and impending wars but by reconstructing our societies now geared for and sustained in many ways by war and it’s machinery and by establishing global goals to ensure a positive and permanent result. If we fail at completing this task and pointing all of humanity in a new and progressive direction damn near overnight, I’m afraid we will also fail at preventing future wars and you know what that means don’t you?

Let me give you one example of what we could do with our new found time, resources, money, man-power, and efforts if war and it’s machinery were abolished. While accomplishing the most pressing tasks like controlling our own birth rate and building a scientific army that would help to protect us from Mother Nature and/or the insidious wrath of God (if you still insist.) We could take on a destitute country or two at a time and have a barn raising so to speak. Build cities, develop the economy, feed, cure and educate its people. Why not? We’re all in this together aren’t we? Such activities would not only be possible now but highly beneficial to our global community. This would also greatly decrease the need for some countries to consider war an option as economic prosperity would prevail and the countries people would thrive.

One day in the near future we may even disband our UN Security Council. It’s possible we would no longer need it once we see what we are most assuredly capable of. Hell, a bit further down the road, we could even turn earth in to a 5 star vacation resort for alien vacationers. No planet could top the diversity and beauty of earth, that is, without the dark side of the human race.


 

More by this Author

  • TREASURE IN YOUR BACKYARD.
    16

    "Treasure In Your Backyard" Is a brief hub explaining the fun and profits one can enjoy learning the art of treasure hunting with a metal detector. With gold currently over 1700 dollars an ounce, it's well...

  • SOLDERING GUNS. LEARN HOW TO USE THEM.
    2

    SOLDERING GUNS. LEARN HOW TO USE THEM The ability to use a soldering gun or “pencil iron” soldering tool can be extremely useful in anyone’s lifetime. You’ll be able to fix endless broken...


Comments 11 comments

George J Hardy profile image

George J Hardy 6 years ago from Southern New Jersey

Nice article but I find it hard to agree with your assumption that mankind will acquiesce to civility and seek out the illusive Utopia that would be the ideal for the planet. Peace, peace; there will be no peace until the Prince of Peace arrives to install it.


Craig Suits profile image

Craig Suits 6 years ago from Florida Author

Mankind will either acquiesce to civility on his own which is possible but unlikely, or mankind won't be around much longer. Our recent technological abilities to kill on a global level will surely see to that.

As far as the Prince of Peace is concerned, well...I wouldn't hold my breath on that one either George. There is no evidence what so ever that any of our religious leanings from day one to the present are true and train loads of circumstancial evidence literally proving humanity has been hoodwinked over the millennia into believing as we do by handfuls of charlatan, so called "holy men" that don't know anything more about where we came from and where we're going than I do. They do however know how to gain respect, celebrity, and make an easy buck in the process. Ya gotta give-em that much.


calpol25 profile image

calpol25 4 years ago from Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (At Home With My Wonderful Partner)

I like this article too, am in total agreement but the thing is its so easy for them to do that and force all countries to disband that they wont do it because someone always gets rich with a war..


Craig Suits profile image

Craig Suits 4 years ago from Florida Author

Of course. Power and money has always been the top two human motivations. Over the years, there's been billions of people killed in wars ans untold technology destroyed and/or lost forever. I don't know anything dumber than war not to speak of it being as despicable as it comes. My plam would work though. Good luck convincing the world.


Fred 3 years ago

wouldn't that end in a "new world order" type of thing though? it's not a bad idea....but do you really think it wouldn't just turn into a single system controlling everything? if they have the only arms then they also have the means to demand of you..control you and enslave you...it seems rather...insane to believe that somehow giving a single group (and yes due to greed being in human nature it would end up being) is a good idea...why not strive for peace in a...better way? understanding and compassion might be a good start instead of wanting a new world order


Fred 3 years ago

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Craig Suits profile image

Craig Suits 3 years ago from Florida Author

Hi Fred..

Yes indeed Fred it would be a new word order but those are just words and one should never fear words.

All over our world there are governing bodies within every culture that control everything in a particular culture including wars. In the US we have little towns, cities, counties, and states. Each state has it own laws and it's own police forces that seems to work well. Then again there's big brother, the federal government that enacts federal laws that the states agree with and that apply to the whole nation. There is no reason why a system like this wouldn't work globaly. Remember, the purpose for this organization is to prevent war and nothing more.


Fred 3 years ago

purpose is a tricky thing..it is more about the amount of power the "security force" would have over people..it would take little for it to be corrupted and turned upon the people it was supposed to protect..most people think it is better to get ahead than to help others do so it is hard to find an individual anywhere with the kind of integrity it would take..finding such a massive number would be next to impossible since you can't comprimise on something like that they'd have to be 100% good and uncorruptable otherwise it would merely give a force that can not be opposed an army and true world domination (i don't fear words i fear that doing that would throw away any freedom anyone in this world has) sorry for the poor spelling and grammar


Anthony j 2 years ago

I think whoever wrote this is a tree huggin hippy


Craig Suits profile image

Craig Suits 2 years ago from Florida Author

So what's wrong with tree hugging hippies?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 20 months ago from Somewhere in the universe

This should be required DAILY reading for every "world leader".

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working