Can we have peace thru disarmament?

Disarmament is one arrow in the diplomatic quiver, and it usually has to do with realignment, not peace. We no longer confront the USSR in a stance of threat of a conventional war, instead we are fighting asymmetrical wars with insurgents and terrorists in different parts of the world. Changing the nuclear stockpiles will not result in peace.

It’s bizarre how people think that “willingly scaling back our ability to instantly kill every single living thing on earth” as “weakness.”

Such a bizarre mythology where the only thing holding our “enemies” at bay is their fear of our military prowess.

It would be a big step. One that would make a broad impact on the world. Whether it would result in other nations disarming is unclear.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, it needs to be a mutual disarmament. We might get there, but probably not. In such a world we need full commitment to and faith in a neutral IAEA-like organisation, controlling all countries. I don’t see that happening in a long time.

hey, a piece…excuse me, meant to say, peace always comes with disarmament!

@pdworkin “one arrow in the diplomatic quiver”

Well played.

I see no evidence that the USA values peace enough to “beat their swords into plowshares.”
I’d like to see it happen.

IAdmittedly, with no arms, we’d not get much done, but would we have peace?

Only if everyone’s mouths were taped shut.

Not likely, but we COULD have peace through superior firepower! : D

No, that was known as unilateral disarmament in the 1960s, and it was studied as an option. Basically it’s a good quick way to die.

Countries (and international relations) act like predatory insects. Compare them to fire ants with a killer instinct. They do not understand “good will”. They understand deterrence and force.

Unilateral disarmament = suicide.