Thread: Single World Government???

You're forgetting that absolute power corrupts absolutely. You put that much power in one group of hands and then what is to prevent them from keeping their power no matter what. When no one else has weapons how do you dissagree if they don't want you to?

By that logic, how is the president of the USA or Russia having full control over massive nuclear arsenals the safer option? Need I remind you that it's these two offices that almost brought the world to an effective end during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

All i'm saying is that the use of nuclear weapons should have heavier restrictions in principle. If that means handing partial power (not full power, they could not use the weapons by their will alone) to an organisation like the UN, it would at least slow down the launch process and obtain a kind of validation for their eventual use from world governments.

Such a relationship between existing government and a central hub would remove the need for other countries to develop their own weapons. Not to mention, such a hub could act as a vitial go between should there ever be another stand off between two nuclear powers. Curruption works in the best interest of the currupt, and nobody wants to die. Besides, if such a central hub were to exist, and was transparent enough for close observation... I really don't see why it would be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Sib

By that logic, how is the president of the USA or Russia having full control over massive nuclear arsenals the safer option? Need I remind you that it's these two offices that almost brought the world to an effective end during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I won't speak for Russia but in the US the President doesn't have as much power as other countries seem to think he does. The government is created with checks and balances. For a President to seek a nuclear option without the approval of the Congress is political suicide and possibly (depending on the situation) illegal. Current laws of full disclosure prevent larger abuses. I don't recall similar laws for the UN or other "international" bodies however let alone such a system of checks and balances. They apear to work mostly on the "you stroke my ego and I'll stroke yours". What a lovely basis for stable weapon containment.

Originally Posted by Sib

Such a relationship between existing government and a central hub would remove the need for other countries to develop their own weapons.

Actually all it would do is create a thriving underground of blackmarket government weapons. Or do you really believe that all the current UN countries would be upfront about any type of disarmament?

At every important opportunity, certain countries have taken bold steps to demonstrate the impotency of the U.N. Although a great idea, I still think the U.N. could never have become a "single power" organization. Working in conjunction with soverign powers has led us to the current situation. I don't really think the U.N. will exist indefinitely (look at the NATO/Warsaw evolution).

And regarding a single government power, god himself (herself, themselves...) couldn't be entrusted with the benefit of an entire planet of people. It'd be damned hard too! Global economics? Culture (preservation or annhilation)? Language? Whether or not humanity has the capacity to cooperate or not, our current stage of development seems to focus a LOT on destruction. After that... maybe a single government could work.

(Before I continue, I just want to say how much I respect your opinions Arrianna)

Originally Posted by Arrianna

For a President to seek a nuclear option without the approval of the Congress is political suicide and possibly (depending on the situation) illegal. Current laws of full disclosure prevent larger abuses. I don't recall similar laws for the UN or other "international" bodies however let alone such a system of checks and balances.

Well at the end of the day, the President is still the commander and chief of all US armed forces, and suicide is the right word if they were to be launched. However, I understand that it isn't easy to launch a nuclear weapon, and that there isn't simply a big red button in the oval office that says 'boom'. Furthermore, I also understand it isn't unlike the president to do things illegally anyway (the legality of the Iraq war is still a warm debate topic). Also I think you may misunderstand my meaning when I say handing over 'partial' power.

For arguments sake, lets say the UN was this 'hub' I was talking about. The only condidtions under which a launch should be possible is if both the nation hosting the weapons, and the UN security councel concur that a situation warrents their use. At which point, the UN will then grant the relevant number of codes over to the host nation, who can complete the launch sequence and launch. Of course such a system would have to be closely monitered by an indipendant source, but even so I would be shocked to learn that there are people in the UN (who are diplomats) who would try to subvert such a system. Two reasons: 1. They would never get away with it, or at least find it incredibly difficult to. 2. The Scandel.

And sure, why not impliment the same disclosure laws upon the UN? If they actually work, all the better.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Actually all it would do is create a thriving underground of blackmarket government weapons. Or do you really believe that all the current UN countries would be upfront about any type of disarmament?

Ah hah hah heh... Well, I AM just making this up as I go along you know. Of course it's not perfect (yet). However, despite the risks, I still feel I have provided a plausible alternative that could yield significant benifits for global security.

However, thinkign about it I suppose it is impossible to guarentee full co-operation from the UN member nations. But even so, any UN nation that would like to launch weapons, would more than likely seek the approval of the UN anyway to prevent political backlash.

Originally Posted by Sukotsu9

At every important opportunity, certain countries have taken bold steps to demonstrate the impotency of the U.N. Although a great idea, I still think the U.N. could never have become a "single power" organization. Working in conjunction with soverign powers has led us to the current situation. I don't really think the U.N. will exist indefinitely (look at the NATO/Warsaw evolution).

Well, the UN is undergoing reform. I'm still reading the reports posted up on the UN website so i'm hesitant to say, 'this or that will certainly happen,'.

But you know, the UN is a great idea no matter what happens, and it's worth fighting for it's survival. The Preamble of the UN charter alone is evidence enough for me.

Originally Posted by UN Charter Preamble

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

-to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

-to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

-to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

-to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

-to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

-to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

-to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

source http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

The UN is something special. I've always believed in it, and I am sad to learn of the trouble that has befallen. Call me naive, but my faith in mankind hasn't been lost yet, even with all the death and violence in the world.