I think you might be drunker than I at present so, I'm just going to let someone else point out the many.. many flaws in your presumptive logic.

I think you might be drunker than I at present so, I'm just going to let someone else point out the many.. many flaws in your presumptive logic. — Outlander

The drunk man always protests that he isn't drunk or that, in your case, someone else is "drunker" than him :joke:

So, the assertions or belief rather of my concerns or criticism would be of the following points:

Well before we get to that let's engage in the age old practice of questioning one's semantics. It's not without purpose mind you.

What is a weapon? Something that can or is made to harm someone? The differences are stark. A shield for someone can be leveraged to create quite a harmful impact on either the opponent or yes even the wielder. Let's assume a weapon is an instrument created for no purpose other than to injure ie. a sword or firearm.

We're back to the mainstream arguments of if someone wishes to do harm they will. Be it via a knife, vehicle, or chemical compound or just.. their own arms.

So what is your proposed solution to this?

In a world with arms (weapons) we can be sure, in this case too, that there'll be peace. — TheMadFool

...that's your problem, right there.

I think here the weapons are not the problem at all to preserve or destroy the worldwide peace. It is about the military service or how some countries develop their military infrastructure. They put millions and millions in their revenue. So it depends a lot of how conflictive that country could be.
For example, Switzerland has the military service and also the right of having a weapon with themselves but this country is not known as violent or having controversies along the world. There are other countries that don't even have military system as Iceland.

So... I guess one objective should be remove all the weapons from all of those countries which are obsessed with military development because in the long run could be dangerous.

So what is your proposed solution to this? — Outlander

To be frank, I'm more than a little late to the party so to speak. All my time and energy are spent trying to understand problems, so you can forget about getting any pointers from me on solutions.

However, to offer a suggestion, since being unarmed is equivalent to being armed and given that in possessing arms, there's a small but non-zero risk of minor disputes escalating into full-scale military conflicts, we should give START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) a second look at least. Maybe we're onto something and just don't realize it.

...that's your problem, right there. — Banno

Correctamundo! It appears that weapons, though meant to wage war, have a paradoxical utility as keepers of peace. The ongoing arms race in the world today is actually geared towards maintaining peace as fragile as it is when achieved in this manner. I wonder what the underlying logic is. Is it that one side hit upon the idea of weapons and the other side simply copied the behavior or was it a Newton-Leibniz kinda story, simultaneous invention? Perhaps both, god knows.

remove all the weapons from all of those countries which are obsessed with military development because in the long run could be dangerous. — javi2541997

See my reply to Outlander.

To all

It seems there's a hidden "benefit" to weapons precisely because they're made for war. To limit or eliminate weapons although this might bring peace, it actually doesn't give us any justification for why we should all shake hands, hug, and drink beer at a bar. In short the peace achieved by reducing/abolishing arms doesn't solve the real problem which is mutual animosity among the tribes of men. If we could get to the bottom of this rather troubling mystery, the mystery being the constant itch for a fight that infects us all, we could bring real peace to our world. That would mean all the extreme violence that we subject ourselves too and, more importantly, the excruciating pain we experience from it, serve as painful reminders to put our house in order which in my book means getting to know the roots of our violent nature. Too bad that some of us have to lose our lives in this process marked by, as some say, "crimes against humanity". I just hope the survivors have it better than our lot.

real problem which is mutual animosity among the tribes of men. — TheMadFool

True! One of the biggest fails a State ever created was the point of start creating conflicts with the purpose of surpassing others. A good example we can bring in this topic is the Gulf War back in the 90’s. Firstly, it looked like that everything started because Sadam Hussein dropped some gas bombs in the north of Irak killing an ethnic between 1988/1989. This was clearly an act of racism and execution for minorities. But, surprisingly, most of the countries in the world randomly started a war near Irak and Kuwait. Politicians back in the day lied to us. They say many stupid things as “nuclear bombs in Irak” or “trying to implant the peace there”. The reality was different.
We all know the huge profit some developers of weapons got back in the day. It is even scary how while some anonymous rich people were plumping their pockets, Irak and some other Middle East countries were fading away into ashes.

So... which was the profit of those anonymous for killing literally thousands of lives? We will never know it. It is a secret.

I guess it is even a circus that pantomime of “nuclear proliferation”. Just political stuff.

It is time to respect each other. We can do it. If we are somehow disagree in whatever reason we can debate with words and diplomacy.

huge profit — javi2541997

profit — javi2541997

I wonder how big the global arms industry is. Many countries make a show of how peace-oriented their policies are but "discreetly" trade in weapons whose selling point is lethality both in terms of the severity of the injuries they can inflict and the size of their kill zone.

Could it be money that's the reason for all the violence we see around us? Presumably, yes but money, to my reckoning, is just the modern form of resource and if you offer the right price, you can buy anything and everything. It appears that the reason we fight, the reason for the arms race, is rights to resource. The world's population is growing exponentially and the per capita slice of the pie is shrinking rapidly and no prizes for guessing what lies at the end of that road.

It appears that the reason we fight, the reason for the arms race, is rights to resource. The world's population is growing exponentially and the per capita slice of the pie is shrinking rapidly and no prizes for guessing what lies at the end of that road. — TheMadFool

Yes. Exactly. Some decades about when we saw it in movies it looked like sci fi but we will be witnesses about this big problem. I mean, States could commit world wars due to water or food. Back in the day was about power/nationality. Nevertheless, these topics will have zero value in the future.
It is clearly how we are losing all the natural resources and only the strongest will get or at least hold larger quantities.
I would sound conspiracy but imagine more wars about the domination on Mars. Countries are literally putting millions and millions of money trying to get power over there.