Did the natives get to vote on it?Did no one live there? Did we not annex it? Is it not a full state?
Me too.I'd be happy to annex North Korea compared to what's happening over there.
I'm just going to touch on some of this as it's pointless getting bogged down in it. Russia doesn't want to join NATO or anything akin, the same with China or North Korea etc. In fact they're not fans of other countries being part of such an alliance. You talk about non forceful methods like sanctions which in essence amounts to trying to coerce other countries into something they don't want to be part of anyway so what's the difference?Agreed in principle and disagreed that this idea is naive. What's naive is to think we can keep whistling past the graveyard when it comes to nuclear weapons, climate change, and a potential looming bolide impact. Climate change is already happening, we're way closer all of a sudden to nuclear conflict in the past three weeks, and nobody knows if we'll ever be hit by a comet or asteroid. A global United States (or some other constitution) can deal with or prevent altogether these things.
Disagreed. I see no reason why it couldn't.
It absolutely could [continue to] be called that, if the United States Constitution is the one world order's written constitution. It doesn't have to be. Nobody's given another suggestion is all. Idea is either expand an already existing constitution or make a new one, either way one constitution, one (federal) regime, for the one world order, that we need in order to address nuclear weapons, climate change, and any potential devastating bolide impacts.
(Those things can hit anywhere, with one world government we'd have jurisdiction over wherever any "big one" hits and be able to hopefully move everyone to safety ahead of time or much more sadly deal with the disaster after the fact.)
Correct, except it's just half the world. And it's not the half with ALL the nukes (we would have to have by now already included Russia and China and Pakistan and India in NATO in order to have 'prima facie' preemptively diffused the nuclear threat with this 'loose confederation' proposed solution). So what are we going to do about getting these nuclear powers into NATO with the rest of us? We need a plan for this as much as I need a plan for making one world Union, so we're both 'at square one'.
Russia joining NATO would definitely be a more promising situation than we're at right now. There certainly wouldn't be the urgency if Russia was 'playing nice' by now. If Russia were in NATO I wouldn't have posted this OP.
I'm not thinking invade or annex Russia by force. I'm thinking if it comes to it that we pressure them with sanctions, but this is way down the line, after we've already replaced NATO with a strong federation instead of the weak confederation that it (and that the EU also) is.
'Starting slow.' We're never going to hit a target we don't aim at. And that's assuming we have any accuracy at all, which we don't know because we've never tried.
Since the atomic age and accelerated by H-bomb tech, we have as a species worked to prevent nuclear warfare. In 2022 we have nuclear powers in NATO, and nuclear powers outside NATO. Between these two groups we could make craters out of every major city in the world, and in 2022 there is no existing democratic or any other sort of political ideological way to control all the nukes. A suicidal mass murderer can get his hands on one, or more. We don't have a single solution to this existing problem. NATO being a partial solution is no solution, and these types of partial solutions pose a risk of a 'false sense of security', when the situation is actually very serious and urgent but we all feel like let's take our time.
Time's up. We need to fix this. Nukes are desperate Ukraine is desperate times and we know that calls for desperate measures. At least a little more urgency is what I want to see. Loose confederations are never going to work anyway, but especially when the loose confederation isn't even inclusive right now of all the nuclear powers in the world.
I'm not so sure a cabal that is working toward a one world government wouldn't want nuclear war. And that doesn't seem very nice to me. And if it works once, they will see it as an option again if things don't go as planned. And things never go as planned.I'm sorry to hear that @Yorzhik
'Big picture', 'taking a big step back', 'zooming out' conceptually, looking at it 'panoramically', as far as I'm concerned there are at least three reasons for why one world order or one world government is really what we all should ideologically be promoting.
One is nuclear weapons. That's the one that prompted this OP.
The other two are in the following thread; climate change, and potential meteor or comet (bolide, mountain) impact from outer space.
In all three cases, one united global government is really what would work. We're seeing the chaos in slow motion with regard to climate change, and we're seeing the chaos chaotically with Russia and Ukraine, and we're not seeing the chaos at all for the other one.
If that one happens, there's going to be one part of the earth that none of us want anybody to be anywhere near when the fateful day arrives, and this would be fairly simple (for an extraordinarily complex and complicated thing) to 'take care of' with one world order. Climate change also would be far more easily and simply handled, starting right away. And the threat of MAD would of course be extinguished entirely.
If the bible gives wisdom for all occasions, then it should be able to handle this: Let's say, for argument's sake, that Global Climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by humans. What then should we as Christians do about it? I'll suggest up front that while some of the secular...theologyonline.com
Wow, what a load of Hong Kong Phooey that was...I'm not so sure a cabal that is working toward a one world government wouldn't want nuclear war. And that doesn't seem very nice to me. And if it works once, they will see it as an option again if things don't go as planned. And things never go as planned.
As far as man caused global warming is concerned, letting individuals work out what to do would be the best solution if the planet is warming in a deathly way. A one world government would be happy to sacrifice the cattle to achieve what they see as a comfortable outcome. That is also true for an impact event.
What we would need is individuals with an interest to help people come up with a technological solution to give the most people the best chance to survive. The pool of individuals that could help would go down in a one world government.
I use the word cattle because even if the group that sees themselves as the leaders in an OWG has good intentions, they would see themselves as a rancher who's cattle is much better off with the rancher in charge. They could be nice and not view us as cattle, but that makes things a great deal harder and humans will always do things the simpler way if given the option (still assuming they aren't evil).
They would make raising of children like our current US public school system or worse. Currently children that aren't in the system are better off, and in fact children that get no schooling are better off. With a hat tip to Kung Pow, children in the system are Wimp Lo - taught wrong on purpose. Those children grow into adults that can't help (unless they recover from their training which gets less and less with each passing generation) which depletes the pool of those that can help.
All I want is more urgency is all. Yes, I've thought it out further than just the next step, but the next step is more urgency.I'm just going to touch on some of this as it's pointless getting bogged down in it. Russia doesn't want to join NATO or anything akin, the same with China or North Korea etc. In fact they're not fans of other countries being part of such an alliance. You talk about non forceful methods like sanctions which in essence amounts to trying to coerce other countries into something they don't want to be part of anyway so what's the difference?
Where it comes to nuclear weapons they can't be undone. It's a constant threat since the day they were conceived and there's no forceful way to demand that everywhere gets rid of them, that is again, just realistic. You cannot annex other independent nations because you don't like the reality of the situation. Is the prospect of nuclear war scary? Darn straight it is but I'd sooner hope that sanity prevails overall on the score and address other issues such as climate change where measures can be taken to address it rather than untenable proposals that are pie in the sky.
Puerto Rico would be starting slow. Maybe now's the time. State number 51.... 'Starting slow.' ...
And this isn't:... This is the One World Order: The United States Constitution.
... I'd be happy to annex North Korea
MAD can only exist in a world with multiple independent, sovereign nations.... the absence of MAD.
Not possible in my rendition. We annex currently sovereign nations (all 13 of the original states were sovereign nations) and they submit to the Constitution. Just like all 50 states do already today.Some things are worth fighting for, like The Bill of Rights which, I guarantee you, will be the first document to get ripped up and thrown away in a new world order.
Might not be too."Global NATO" might be our answer.
World hunger. Of all the sovereign nations, we are number one in obesity. That's the opposite of poverty. We know how to keep our people fed. If your nation has a problem with poverty (meaning, every one of you all, since we lead the world in obesity; if you kept your own people better fed than we do, you'd be ahead of us in obesity, but we're number one), then you should surrender your sovereignty and submit to our Constitution, and then we'll fix your poverty problem.Nobody ever wants to give up sovereignty, people fight wars over sovereignty, even if it is the least irrational option ...
I also like justice.... Americans have all already surrendered our own sovereignty, to the Constitution, which is what this thread is all about.
Some call me an "idolater" of the Constitution.
I'm an idolater of peace.