A modest proposal

[e1618978]

If the US really wants the rest of the world to disarm its nuclear weapons, we should do it first - its not like we ever plan on using them, and they cost a lot of money to maintain.

How about this:

1. Meet with the current nuclear powers, and give them
the heads up.

2. Totally disarm our nuclear arsenal

3. Drop out of Nato

4. Kick the UN out of the US, and drop out of it too.

5. Create a new orgainsation - the "Terran Council", HQ
in Guam. Only non-nuclear nations would be allowed
to join. Guam would be given to the council, so that
it would no longer be a US Territory.

6. The EU would join as a single country, so they would
have a more reasonable number of votes.

7. The new security council is the US, China, the EU,
Russia, India and Japan.

[Wrong Robot]

I do think it's a bit ridiculous that we're the ones going around telling everyone else not to have nuclear weapons when we have more than everyone else combined. But then again we *are* the good guys, so it's okay.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

'The Terran Council' is a great name. We should invite all the citizens of the Galactic Federation to participate in this worthy enterprise.

Maybe we should even think about inviting one or two African states to sit on the Security Council? I know they're poor, and black, and all, but they do live on Earth, like us, and they do have an ENTIRE CONTINENT to themselves, and the representatives from the Planet ZORQUAR might be curious as to why only rich people have a say in Galactic affairs.

Just my two cents.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

And another thing. I know OIL FOR FOOD was bad, and that THE FRENCH ARE CUNTS!, and everything, but if the US kicks the UN out of America can the rest of us still carry on with the school building, inoculation, farming practice education, irrigation, erosion and desertification control, feeding people, ensuring land rights for indigenous peoples, mediation and good governance programmes, and the preservation of world heritage sites, and recording endangered languages, in places like Madagascar, Eurasia, the Indian sub-continent and the whole of sub-Saharan Africa?

Don't feel obliged to pay for any of it (OIL FOR FOOD was bad and THE FRENCH ARE CUNTS!, after all) but would it be OK if the rest of us do Planet Earth-type UN stuff while America reaches out to the outlying planets of the Galactic Rim?

There is a lot of work to do.

[edit: e number I love you, it's just that I don't do constructive criticism. :)]

[dmz]

I'd pay for somebody to notice the situation in Sudan. Maybe if we paid Koffi to care he would too. I mean money certainly talks down at the UN. We could call it an "incentive" to not care as much about all the other geonocide in Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Res]

Get rid of our nukes? Then what would we do when the Fithp (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345323440/103-2381394-9591829) come a calling?

More seriously, we should never totally dismantle our nuclear arsenal. I've never really liked the MAD doctrine, but I have to admit that it probably stopped WWIII from happening in last century. Disarming the USA will not stop countries like Iran or North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, and without the threat of a nuclear retaliation, it will make them more likely to use them.

The Terran Council? I think that I prefer The United States of Earth for a real world govenment... :D

[allan]

Originally posted by e1618978

4. Kick the UN out of the US, and drop out of it too.


The U.N. is not in the U.S.

[dmz]

Whatz aboutz ze minezhaft gap?

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/mourujar/images/dr_strangelove.jpg

[e1618978]

Originally posted by allan
The U.N. is not in the U.S.

The UN is in New York City - are you saying that it is like an embassy or something (a single building of non-US territory)?

[e1618978]

'The Terran Council' is a great name.

So maybe the name was a little too sci-fi. But my point was to make a replacement for the united nations composed of only non-nuclear powers. Anyone who was a nuclear power would then be at a serious disadvantage.

[hardeeharhar]

What prevents the nuclear powers from just ignoring this group of idiot states?

[Gene Clean]

The original 'A modest proposal' - Jonathan Swift, is actually a very interesting read. As always, the copies turn out to be bad.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
I'd pay for somebody to notice the situation in Sudan. Maybe if we paid Koffi to care he would too. I mean money certainly talks down at the UN. We could call it an "incentive" to not care as much about all the other geonocide in Sub-Saharan Africa. I'm very close to recommending pyschiatric help for you man. It's the Oil for Food, or something the UN in almost every damn post from you. Time to give it a rest.

If you're so worried about stuff like that, how about you try to keep that obsession in check and become obsessed with Halliburton or other companies who are STILL giving it to YOU and every tax payer in the *ss.
I mean, we could be using that money for humanitarian purposes elsewhere couldn't we? Or heck, to pay Iraqi companies to do some of that work at a 80% or 90% "discount"while creating jobs.
Or how about the US military industrial complex? Surely $450 Billlion/year makes any OFF cash seem like loose change by comparison. :no:

By the way. I'm surprised that for someone so obsessed with Kofi and anything UN related that Rush and Bill and Sean and other Fox tools talk about, you still don't know how to spell the bloody name right. :lol:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
So maybe the name was a little too sci-fi. But my point was to make a replacement for the united nations composed of only non-nuclear powers. Anyone who was a nuclear power would then be at a serious disadvantage.
OK. This is an excellent point and a very laudable aim. If we got rid of the planet's nuclear weapons that would be the single best thing we could do for peace. Even more effective than bombing the shit out Syria.

I only have problems with your method.

We're talking about spreading peace and democracy and we've got these... awful things. If the American president militated to rid the world of nuclear weapons I'd demonstrate to see him awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Bon chance.

[Gilsch]

Double post.

I'd love to see us get rid of nuclear weapons. But even more, I'd want us to develop cost effective energy alternatives to make oil much less important.

[e1618978]

I only have problems with your method.

You could make the Nuclear nations pariahs - no world bank, no aid, no nothing.

As long as only small nations were nuclear, you could still turn that particular country to glass with conventional weapons if they should use one, so that MAD principal would still apply. The large contries have been trying to get rid of their large nuclear weapons for a while now (while still developing small ones, but we don't really need the small ones).

We can trace the post-expolsion residue to the origin country using existing technology - if one country sold a bomb to terrorists, we would know who to wipe out.

Right now, the nuclear nations are a growing "rich boys club" that everyone wants to join.

[allan]

Originally posted by e1618978
The UN is in New York City - are you saying that it is like an embassy or something (a single building of non-US territory)?

18 Acres (http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM):


The site of UN Headquarters is owned by the United Nations. It is an international territory. No federal, state or local officer or official of the United States, whether administrative, judicial, military or police may enter UN Headquarters except with the consent of and under conditions agreed to by the Secretary-General of the Organization.

[e1618978]

I think that organizations like the UN or the league of nations have a limited lifetime before they become too crusty and old.

The EU and the US are both effectively single countries, with about the same population and GDP, but Europe still maintains many votes, while the US gets one. Syria heads the anti-terror comittee, etc. There are many problems with the UN.

To me, the UN seems like a hotbed of corruption, and it is continuously trying to increase its power to become a world government (international criminal court, international taxation, etc)

In other words, "oil for food" and "the French suck"....

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I'm very close to recommending pyschiatric help for you
actually this was commentary on Hassan i Sabbah's supposition that the UN is doing a bang-up job. It's not.

[hardeeharhar]

My Modest Proposal:
Fix the UN.

Wow. That was easy.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
My Modest Proposal:
Fix the UN.

Wow. That was easy.
But that's... that's... you... come on, that's...






thud

[e1618978]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
My Modest Proposal:
Fix the UN.

Wow. That was easy.

How do you propose fixing the UN? It is not that easy to change the culture of a large organization.

I see it all the time in business - young companies are much more successful than old ones because the founders get a chance to create the corporate culture from scratch, rather than trying to change an existing organisation. The old companies have the advantage of size and existing relationships, but that barely keeps them up to par.

Do you think that the EU would ever give up its 50 votes? Not likely. Entitlements and entrenched power are hard to change. If you shake things up by throwing away the old organisation and creating a new one every 50 years, then it will be a better match to the world.

[Yevgeny]

FYI, Nukes aren't a problem unless the nation is a problem. How many people lament the fact that France has the bomb? We only worry about the nations who sponsor terrorism getting the bomb (DPRK, Iran) or unstable nations getting the bomb (Pakistan).

Nations like France know that they have more to loose by starting a nuclear war and so they don't try it.

How many Europeans demand that England and France disarm? I'm sure that there are some.

[Yevgeny]

Oh, once we create a "terran federation", is that when the benevolent aliens who personify all that we (currently) consider to be good and right appear to pat us on the back and to teach us?

I just want to know when we level up our death ray technology ;)

[e1618978]

Nations like France know that they have more to loose by starting a nuclear war and so they don't try it.

Then why do the first world nations need nuclear weapons if they will never use them? I understood why they needed them during the cold war, but not any longer.

[e1618978]

I just want to know when we level up our death ray technology

I don't know about death rays, but antimatter is a real potential WMD. We currently make about 1 gram of antimatter per year, so no big deal, but if we start mass producing it we might have a problem, and there are a lot of plans to start using it as spaceship fuel.

Imagine an orbital mass driver that shoots magnetic bottles of antimatter - cool stuff.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
To me, the UN seems like a hotbed of corruption, and it is continuously trying to increase its power to become a world government (international criminal court, international taxation, etc)

In other words, "oil for food" and "the French suck"....
Use the 'c' word, e16188978! It feels good.

I don't think that the UN is a 'hotbed' of corruption at all. Look, your secretary of state used to be on the board of directors at Chevron, Dick Cheney used to to be the CEO of Halliburton and Donald Rumsfeld used to be the CEO of the pharmaceutical giant GD Searle.

Kofi Anan is a diplomat from Ghana.

The UN isn't all about backhanders in the States. That's your government's job. If corruption riles you so much you'd best be consistent.

Also, vis a vis your objections to the UN trying to become a world government: again, you'd best be consistent.

The UN aims to meet the international community's concerns in the world's poor places, and in parts of sub-Saharan Africa they do a good job- and we should be grateful. Separate the propaganda from the actual organisation. We should reform it from bottom to top, absolutely, give South Africa (this is a country, not a region) a seat on the Security Council, and get behind it.

I think your idea of taking all conceivable measures to rid the world of nuclear weapons is excellent and far sighted and it really reminded me how brilliant it would be if we could achieve this and how we ought to do just about anything to make sure it happens. As far as that goes I'm behind you all the way with a poster with an e-number on it.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by e1618978
Then why do the first world nations need nuclear weapons if they will never use them? I understood why they needed them during the cold war, but not any longer.
Exactly.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by e1618978
Then why do the first world nations need nuclear weapons if they will never use them? I understood why they needed them during the cold war, but not any longer.

Because even the French are men enough to not want to emasculate themselves by taking away their nukes. :)

Honestly? When was the last time a French PM complained that France should disarm? Once you have nukes, you don't get rid of them.

Don't get me wrong, a world without nukes would be a good world, but at the same time, it means that you could try fighting large wars between powers. Nukes prevented any direct US-Soviet wars. Nukes prevented the recent India-Pakistan wars. Nukes and wars are an all or nohting proposition and people usually take the nothing part.

[e1618978]

I agree - the US government, particularly Dick Cheney, stinks to high heven of corruption, and I am not too keen on the Republicans in general (some of the things they do I like, just as the democrats do, but I voted Libertarian so obviously neither do enough).

Do you really think that the good works that the UN does are cost effective? Couldn't we get a better result by donating directly to a charity that does that thing specifically?

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Exactly.

Well this is why we like reducing our stockpiles- they aren't necessary in the same way. Also, they are expensive to keep. But they are hard to get rid of completely.

[e1618978]

Don't get me wrong, a world without nukes would be a good world, but at the same time, it means that you could try fighting large wars between powers. Nukes prevented any direct US-Soviet wars. Nukes prevented the recent India-Pakistan wars. Nukes and wars are an all or nohting proposition and people usually take the nothing part. [/B]

The fellow who invented TNT had the same idea:

[ALFRED NOBEL]: I should like to be able to create a substance or a machine with such a horrific capacity for annihilation that wars would become impossible forever.

... didn't work

[hardeeharhar]

Nukes have kept India and Pakistan in line -- first from the threat from China, then from themselves. The fear of nuclear reprisal probably has contributed to the state peace in the Middle East (fear of Israel's possible possession).

Getting rid of the weapons means killing the knowledge it takes to make them, which isn't going to happen. The best you can do is get the big countries to say we aren't playing anymore (and at the same time realize that they are). Nixon's "end" of biological warfare programs made the obvious ones go underground... and it did nothing to actually stop them completely. The whole anthrax thing is a testament to that.

Governmental organizations should be quick to move even if they are large and apparently lumbering. Just because most businesses age poorly doesn't mean that all businesses fail to stay fresh. There are always ways of making an organization lighter on its feet and the UN isn't an exception. It doesn't take a revolution to bring about structural changes in a governmental organization.

What most americans dislike about the UN is that it isn't American enough. This is a clear misinterpretation of the goal of the UN.

[e1618978]

May 3, 1996

United Nations needs drastic downsizing and reform
Cato study catalogues mismanagement, corruption, and duplication

The United Nations's lack of accountability to its member nations has led to
corruption, mismanagement and a disconnection between costs and benefits,
according to a study released today by the Cato Institute.

In "A Miasma of Corruption: The United Nations at 50," Stefan Halper, a
nationally syndicated columnist and former White House and State Department
official, presents a detailed analysis of the extent of negligence and
misconduct at the United Nations. Halper concludes that, "any prescriptions
for measured reform may well be much too little and much, much too late."

Halper comprehensive critique uncovers evidence of corruption and
mismanagement including secretive budget practices; an ever-growing army of
irresponsible, unaccountable bureaucrats; and massive duplication of
efforts. As an example, he cites at least two dozen agencies involved in
food and agriculture policy.

According to Halper, recent critiques of the United Nations by the foreign
policy establishment are "woefully overdue and understated." Halper
recommends a comprehensive, independent audit of the United Nations,
followed by drastic downsizing and reform, including privatization of many
agencies. If these steps are not taken, Halper suggests that the United
States must seriously consider terminating UN membership.

Policy Analysis no. 253

The full text of this study is available on the Cato Institute's website at http://www.cato.org

[hardeeharhar]

Mind the Mind Gap.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
The full text of this study is available on the Cato Institute's website at http://www.cato.org

Wait, the CATO institute wants to reduce the "power" and "role" and "effectiveness" of the U.N.? SHOCKING!

he said as he watched Michael Crichton speak at the AEI on C-SPAN

[e1618978]

Originally posted by midwinter
[B]Wait, the CATO institute wants to reduce the "power" and "role" and "effectiveness" of the U.N.? SHOCKING!

If you read the full article it is pretty damning of the UN.
And what is a mind gap? Neither Google nor Wikipedia threw me a bone on that one.

Keep in mind the Cato institute is a Libertarian think tank, not friends with the Republicans in most ways. Its not like you can lump them in with the neo-cons.

The Cato institute is primarily concerned with civil liberties and the prevention of government waste. If the UN was not wasteful, they would not have attracted the attention of the Cato folks.

Also, keep in mind that this report was from 1996, before the big falling out with Europe.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
If you read the full article it is pretty damning of the UN.
And what is a mind gap? Neither Google nor Wikipedia threw me a bone on that one.

Of course it's damning of the UN. It's from the CATO institute. ("mind the gap" is what they tell you on the London underground)

Keep in mind the Cato institute is a Libertarian think tank, not friends with the Republicans in most ways. Its not like you can lump them in with the neo-cons.

The CATO institute changed its webpage, which had talked about the need for "privatizing social security," to reflect the new language that the administration wanted to use...something like "personal accounts" or some such. The CATO institute changed its web site to reflect this.

Think about that for a moment.

Oh, and just about every political thinktank in America is conservative, and just about all of them have that same libertarian mission statement. American Conservatives spent 40 years founding these things all over the country.

The Cato institute is primarily concerned with civil liberties and the prevention of government waste. If the UN was not wasteful, they would not have attracted the attention of the Cato folks.

CATO is a conservative thinktank primarily concerned with advancing a conservative agenda, and getting rid of the UN is a large part of that.

[hardeeharhar]

Mind the Mind Gap is a cross-reference to the missle gap, the london underground. I was trying to point out in an obtuse manner that the Cato institute isn't exactly unbiased in the "studies" it preforms. That in some people's views, the institute has no mind...

[e1618978]

Oh, and just about every political thinktank in America is conservative, and just about all of them have that same libertarian mission statement. American Conservatives spent 40 years founding these things all over the country.
CATO is a conservative thinktank primarily concerned with advancing a conservative agenda, and getting rid of the UN is a large part of that. [/B]

I think that the problem is that you are going on strictly liberal/conservative lines. Right on the front page there is an article complaining that Bush's drug benefit for medicare is going to cost twice what Bush said it would.

The Cato institute is also in support of isolationist foreign policy, and no foreign troops or wars.

You are doing them a disservice by dismissing them so quickly (& probably without reading the article).

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
I think that the problem is that you are going on strictly liberal/conservative lines.

Huh? Most of the thinktanks in America are conservative. That is a fact.

Right on the front page there is an article complaining that Bush's drug benefit for medicare is going to cost twice what Bush said it would.

Great. They're conservative/libertarian, which means that they're not going to like Bush's expansion of the federal gov't.

The Cato institute is also in support of isolationist foreign policy, and no foreign troops or wars.

Great for them. Again, they're conservative/libertarian.

You are doing them a disservice by dismissing them so quickly (& probably without reading the article).

Huh? I don't believe I said anywhere that all conservatives think the same. I was just pointing out that CATO is hardly an unbiased source when it comes to matters like the UN.

[e1618978]

I was just pointing out that CATO is hardly an unbiased source when it comes to matters like the UN. [/B]

Who would be? Also, a lot of the wasteful spending that they talk about in the article is a matter of public record - the international council of women, for example.

It looks to me that it is mostly a boondogle at the expense of the American, Japaneese and European taxpayers. If one of those three groups gets fed up with having its money wasted, then they will pull out and the UN will face serious financial problems.

It looks like we may already be pulling out our money:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/index.htm

Also, I have issue with the your use of the term conservative. If you classify the Libertarians with the current neo-cons in the same category, when in fact they are at odds on pretty much every issue, then your term has lost all meaning.

The democrats are closer to the republicans than the libertarians are - way closer.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Who would be?

Well, not a conservative thinktank committed to ending the UN.

Also, I have issue with the your use of the term conservative. If you classify the Libertarians with the current neo-cons in the same category, when in fact they are at odds on pretty much every issue, then your term has lost all meaning.

This issue that you're taking with me would be more properly taken up with the Republican party. But you're right. The term has lost all meaning.

The democrats are closer to the republicans than the libertarians are - way closer. [/B]

Yes. And that is a problem for the Democrats, which is why the grassroots base pushed hard for Dean as chair--in hopes that he'd move the party left of center.

[e1618978]

This issue that you're taking with me would be more properly taken up with the Republican party. But you're right. The term has lost all meaning.

Libertarians are not conservatives. What conservatives do you know that want to legalise drugs and free the non-violent drug users from jail?

In Canada, we talked about 'small c conservatives', who didn't want any change (The Democrats most closely match this definition of conservative).

Here is my definition of 'big C conservative' -

1. They waste tons of money, like the UN is doing
2. They poke their nose in everybody else's business
3. They try to make everyone else change to be like them.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are 'big C conservative',
but the Libertarians don't meet either definition.

Putting labels like 'conservative/libertarian' on groups like that is just a thought aid, that way you never have to change your mind.

[Protostar]

Libertarian Party to cosponsor upcoming conservative conference (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0503/cpac.html)

I'm all for the Libertarian party but I'd just like to point this out.