I think there’s a better system out ther— one which incorporates and promotes peace FOR monetary gain. Money is the motivator— peace should be the reason. There is a way.
I’m not sure what you are referring to or how to answer your question without more clarity.
How am I supposed to defend my viewpoint? Are you talking about how are we going to trust each other enough on a national level other in order to put down our means of defense? I am in no way suggesting that that will be a simple solution or that I have an answer— just that an answer does exist. It’s possible and probably important to start thinking about the possibility of peace in real terms.
Or are you asking me personally how will I defend myself physically, or my viewpoint in a debate?
real terms meaning finding peace without discarding defenses of any kind— but the change occurs in how defenses are used— if they are used aggressively or not.
I simply mean war as a means of self-defense to secure or maintain peace. Personally, I do believe there is a time and a place for war, much as we may wish there wasn’t, since there will always be the proverbial ‘bad guy’ who is trying to take away peace and freedom. Basically, I disagree with your premise that peace cannot be achieved with war (take the end of WWII, for example). That’s a bit of a false dichotomy. Unfortunately, it’s also sometimes a bit of a fuzzy line as to where war is necessary (e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), and the U.S. isn’t always real great about electing the kinds of people with the wisdom to know how to make those decisions effectively.
This is not the place for a debate. If you’d like to continue discussing this I’d prefer to do so in notes.
Short term peace is an immediate outcome of war— not a lasting one. WW2 resolved a major conflict worth fighting for— but it resulted in more propaganda and an arms race.
Some say WMD’s will lead to peace because no country is stupid enough to start a no-win war like that, of complete obliteration. I say, as an example, that if you own a gun you’re more likely to be shot or to shoot yourself (with that same gun) than to protect anyone or do any good with it.
I’m thinking with the big picture in mind— not short term fixes that lead to more leaks and ultimate failure. Every nation ever built has been destroyed..and every nation ever built has used weapons to obtain or to defend their stature. So what’s the obvious problem here?
Be it for a worthy cause or not war is driven by money. Why can’t money be used as an incentive to end war instead?
Tad Winslow 
Jim Stitzel