FROM MY CORNER:Wayne Calhouns’s Reply
It appears I did not make my point clearly in my last two commentaries. Wayne sent the following comment me, to which – as he expresses it – I agree:
“I think you are mistaking the world as a democracy. Your idea would have a chance if that were true, but it has many dictatorships, i.e. Putin, Un, XI, etc. who would love to run over a weak (militarily) country. This is being proven by Ukraine, Taiwan, Korea, etc. I therefore could not vote with your idea as stated. It may be a good dream but a poor probability.”
True, However: I am not proposing that all nations actually agree to make such a concrete change in their present competitive situation. Rather, I am proposing that all nations vote on whether they agree to TheConcept: that IF all nations would stop spending $$Trillions on defense and war, and instead use that money to collaborate in trading with one another and taking care of their nations’ over-all needs, all nations and all world citizens would be better off.
I am not expecting that China, North Korea, or Russia, for instance, would agree. It is likely as Wayne says that they would vote against the idea. That is exactly what I propose we need to accomplish: extract a vote from all nation’s specifically on whether they agree that spending the $$Trillions on cooperation and collaborative trading, rather than military competition, would produce a better result for all people of the world.
IF – as well might happen – China, Russia, North Korea voted on the War option and the rest of the world voted on the Non-War option, we will have clearly and officially divided the world’s nations into two intellectually opposing camps.
So doing, we will have established, for all people to see, what leaders see that cooperation makes more sense than endlessly competitive bloody wars. We will essentially have created a clear visual division of all nations into two different alliances. We will have defined conceptually the international community into two distinctly specific sides of a potential Global Civil War.
That would establish a far clearer picture than today’s ever shifting political alliances.
We would see exactly how many defense establishments exist on each side of the equation. It should document which side establishes a majority regarding the concept. It would set the stage for an international, distinctly-two-sided debate on the subject.
That would be a sobering moment for everyone. It would put a very fine point on the probability of Nuclear war. The resulting public media battle about it would require both sides to seriously define their strategies to deal with the issue.