THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR
Francisco Coll, founder of the Americana Leadership College (www.alcworld.com ),
Inner Peace Movement (www.innerpeacemovement.com) and the Peace Community Church
(www.peacecommunitychurch.com), as stated in my website, www.davidhakim.com in
my link, “Respect,” speaks about “War and Peace” this way:
When one discusses “War and Peace,” he is really speaking about respect, about a
lack of understanding and communication.
To discuss “War and Peace” intelligently, one must go back to prehistory. Our
species was warlike, in that it guarded its staked out territory, its
boundaries, zealously and killed trespassers.
Today some have added ideology and economics to be fought for. Of course, a
desire for power or to exhibit the power of a group can be an impetus for war.
Peace is a relatively recent concept, although there have been periods in our
history that some groups of people were more peaceful and peace-loving than
others. Peace must initially be discovered within, where the God-like part, the
good, kind, loving part of us manifests itself.
This is not to say that no good ever comes from war. For example, Napoleon
published written constitutions for the various governments he established.
Backward countries were educated. Conquerors became civilized. However, some of
the preceding could have been accomplished diplomatically.
Some say that war is a failure of diplomacy. Some call it an extension of
diplomacy. Basically it is allowing the negative part of us fuelled by
impatience to offset the positive.
Of course, a fight for survival can be a response to a physical threat by
another. The law calls the killing of another justified if it is in self-defense
with appropriate instruments of defense used. This theory is extended to
justification for defensive warfare, and sometimes defense is apparently
necessary against an irrational enemy. However, some
believe pre-emptive warfare is justified because of earlier transgressions,
whether real or imagined, by the other party. Fortunately the difficulty can
usually be resolved through diplomacy.
Sometimes confused individuals, groups or nations will attack because of a
preconceived idea of trespass upon their rights, whether such trespass is true
or false and even if it is non-life threatening. He/they may find support for
his/their so-called rights from others. The danger lies in the type of weaponry
available to the aggressor(s).
With today’s science, world destruction is a possibility, and many cry out
against the use of nuclear weapons. However, many world powers possess nuclear
weapons or the capability of building them. Therefore, a nation may believe they
have a right to possess nuclear weapons or the knowledge and means to build
them.
How do we eliminate this threat of nuclear war? Perhaps it could be obtained by
world agreement with all nations giving up the right and the means to construct
them. In addition, an agreement outlawing all forms of colonialism where the
powerful impose rights over the powerless is necessary.
I believe most people would trust a representative body over a dictator, even a
benevolent dictator, to make the laws for their nation. I believe that a world
state representative of all the countries in the world voting together would
more adequately reflect a benevolent government, since fortunately most people
and governments are more sane than insane. Therefore, if the absolute veto power
of the nations in the Security Council can be withdrawn, a world state with the
possibility of eliminating all nuclear weapons could be created. It need not be
given power over any human endeavor except international security. With our
science we should be able to detect any transgressions. I see no other
resolution to this dilemma. Otherwise, we shall always live in fear.
For more information on a world state, please see my link “World State,” also in
my website.
David C. Hakim
Rochester, Michigan
February 4, 2007