What I want to state is that weapons might be an answer now. But in the long run, our children in future generations can't solve their international disputes with weapons. Why? Because more devastating weapons power will be handled by every nation. (See Pakistan and Korea as examples.) This can't be nullified by better and better defense, as in a few generations, even a small device will be able to cause great damage. And small devices can be brought in quite easily if another nations secret service really sets to it. U.S. will have to be very careful with their way of handling the world, or the ruthless tactics of exploiting countries will come back to the people in unwanted ways. (Hold your horses here, this is NOT an Anti-American post! Read further, please!) Hopefully, the extreme Islamic countries will evolve into accepting and democracy-based nations, or there will be little hope for the world, with extremist countries wielding nuclear weapons at leisure... Will the peacetalkers in Islamic countries have a chance if their neighbor nations are bombed to bits by an aggressor (however righteous that aggressor might be), or will the extremist anti-western forces get the extra fuel ? As a conclusion, the humankind might be doomed if we only think a few years ahead, the world has to be united in behavior, or in the long run it will be as like 6-year-old kids who wields shotguns to get their way in the world!
I think the west must take a more active role in preserving our security...in securing the regions which might breed future threats. The potential danger suggests a need for aggressive, heavy-handed intervention now.
Pallando: Welcome to sciforums. We are getting a lot of members from Sweden. Very interesting. You are correct in the sense that in the future, people will be able to build food can size nukes or bio-agents in a college laboratory or have access to powerful bio-agents in a biotech company. The truth is, any intelligent person can do substantial damage if he really believes there will be 85 virgins waiting for him at the heaven's gate. Luckily our world does not have too many of those people that try to blow up people. The response after the fact has to be equally impressive so that there is a faith in the institution. There is no real solution - human nature as it is. Technological progress have not changed human nature in the last 10,000 years. The only thing that can change that is genetic manipulation of our specis to create an emotion that prevents such genocide acts and ofcourse the education that goes with it. Until that happens, we are stuck with our nature and do our best to work around it.
<i>"...genetic manipulation of our specis to create an emotion that prevents such genocide acts..."</i> That's a bit much, don't you think.
~~~~ Hi Pallando, You've served some interesting food for thought. I wonder if the Internet will play a much bigger role in shaping the planet's future than we might initially have supposed. The Taliban, for example, has done everything it can to control what the people in Afghanistan "hear" regarding what's going on outside of their borders--and within. The same is true for other regions, other governments. Yet information is spread more easily now, generally speaking. News travels faster. Ideas--good and bad--are circulated to places where people don't even know the definition of the word "philosophy." Or, they didn't used to know. Here at Sciforums we read the opinions and share knowledge from people located everywhere. I don't agree with all that I read of course, but I never log out without being enlightened in some fashion. Can a future where 'weapons won't always be the answer' possibly come about because the world becomes more educated and more connected to one another? Because there will be less to wonder or fear about other countries or cultures? Not that we'll all ever agree about politics, kids, or religion... ( and as long as hatred and irrationality are around some weapons will be called for, I expect)... but that what was "unknown" before, or what was misunderstood, would then be less of a mystery. Less threatening? Is this a feeble or truly realistic kind of hope? Could the Internet and the rapid spread of information--most of it free--be one of the things that leads to a world where "weapons won't always be the answer?" Makes me wonder. ~~~~~ Enjoyed your post, Counterbalance
Use of bombs on military targets U.S. Urges Bin Laden To Form Nation It Can Attack WASHINGTON, DC— Speaking via closed-circuit television from the Oval Office Monday, President Bush made a direct plea to Osama bin Laden to form a nation the U.S. can attack. "Whether you take over an existing nation like Afghanistan or create a new breakaway republic called, say, Osamastan, the important thing is that you establish an identifiable nation-state with an army, a capital, and clearly defined borders," Bush said. "Maybe you could also sign some quick treaties to definitively establish who your allies are." The president then pledged $600 million to bin Laden for the construction of a state-of-the-art defense headquarters that the U.S. can bomb.
