Here's a thought: Why don't we take away the armaments we've supplied the warring factions in Syria and then see what happens? Would the fire of war be extinguished or would the tribes resort to IUD's, hand-to-hand combat, blades and pitchforks?
The United States and Russia are responsible for arming, and in Russia's case, supporting their side in the Syrian war. A burning fire is being sustained and a growing number of innocent people are being displaced or killed.
What would happen if the United Nations agreed to a weapons non-proliferation treaty of sorts, one where they could not be bought, sold or otherwise conveyed to third-parties beyond their country of manufacture? It would be akin to choking off the blood supply to cancerous tumors.
What would the warring tribes around the world do, with no one to give them weapons? Where would they turn, but to their own ingenuity?
This U.N. resolution could incorporate a pledge to protect all nations, in the same way that N.A.T.O. countries are obligated to protect one another, or the way the United States protects its allies.
With an absence of all arms, including rifles and hand guns, warring tribes would have to resort to sticks and stones or, at most, their own brains to make weapons. In time, either the smartest tribes would come out ahead, or, if found to be committing crimes against humanity, aggressors would be beaten back by the military superiority of one of the few, agreed protector nations, like the United States.
The only losers in the armament-free world would be the private defense contractors, who would no longer enjoy a thriving market for their products, and terrorists.
What's not to like?
The United States and Russia are responsible for arming, and in Russia's case, supporting their side in the Syrian war. A burning fire is being sustained and a growing number of innocent people are being displaced or killed.
What would happen if the United Nations agreed to a weapons non-proliferation treaty of sorts, one where they could not be bought, sold or otherwise conveyed to third-parties beyond their country of manufacture? It would be akin to choking off the blood supply to cancerous tumors.
What would the warring tribes around the world do, with no one to give them weapons? Where would they turn, but to their own ingenuity?
This U.N. resolution could incorporate a pledge to protect all nations, in the same way that N.A.T.O. countries are obligated to protect one another, or the way the United States protects its allies.
With an absence of all arms, including rifles and hand guns, warring tribes would have to resort to sticks and stones or, at most, their own brains to make weapons. In time, either the smartest tribes would come out ahead, or, if found to be committing crimes against humanity, aggressors would be beaten back by the military superiority of one of the few, agreed protector nations, like the United States.
The only losers in the armament-free world would be the private defense contractors, who would no longer enjoy a thriving market for their products, and terrorists.
What's not to like?
No comments:
Post a Comment