Preemptive strikes and nukes

Even borderline utopian societies like Japan have some murderers, so they still need police forces.

Dassault Papillon: Yeah, you can call it deterrence if you like. It doesn't matter. That's still fear, you're saying, "Be peaceful or else."

I would argue that that is not peace. It might LOOK like peace, but it's not peace. Peace is when there is no discontent.

As long as people feel oppressed, they will eventually fight. It doesn't matter that they are outnumbered or out gunned, or that it makes no strategic sense... they will fight.
Having a foreign power, especially one which is opposed to your way of life in virtually every respect, stand over you and threaten you with violence unless you acquiesce to their ideology, is kind of a dick move. The biggest dick move of all though, is when that Foreign power has the gall to turn around and complain that nobody appreciates what they're doing.

True Peace is only achieved through understanding and tolerance. The REAL question is whether mankind has the capacity for this.
If the decision is that no we don't, then we may decide that Ruling by Fear is the next best thing, but to think that subjugation = peace is just begging for us to repeat history.

nzlockie: The only instance when this international deterrent force would be used is when one country invades another. It would not get involved in civil wars unless perhaps the vast majority of people can agree that one side is evil. It wouldn't be used to enforce democracy or capitalism.
By your logic, there should be no police.

If one side can show that it has valid grounds to claim that the other side is oppressing them, then an international court could get involved. Like what The Philippines is doing in response to China's SCS activities now. One of the biggest principles behind our current international system is that states do not resolve disputes with violence (except, say, in self-defense).

If "don't invade other countries" is an ideology, then so is "don't go around killing people". It would not be a "dick move" in the slightest for the UN (or, currently, the US) to enforce this "ideology".

Dassault Papillon: Well, no, actually; scratch that. The international deterrent force would perhaps be used whenever one country was violating a major UN order for one country to stop doing X to another country, if stuff like sanctions didn't work.

Dassault Papillon: And the US, being a "model player" has of course always done that since 1992, right?

admin: What post are you replying to?

Dassault Papillon: The one immediately before it.

Edeb8 protip: If you click on your name on the post where you're unsure which one I'm replying to, it will take you to the post I am replying to and put a green outline around it.

admin: Okay then; so what is it that the U.S. hasn't been doing?

Dassault Papillon: Only invading other countries when "one country was violating a major UN order for one country to stop doing X to another country, if stuff like sanctions didn't work."

Peace that isn't tempered with the threat of war is no real peace at all.

It all goes back to the whole "evil being one half of a perfect stick" philosophy.

Nonetheless, nuclear weapons aren't just a mere threat, but a tool for total annihilation on a large scale.

Uranium deposits are very scare, which is why only a few nations have ever been able to sustain their own nuclear programs. I believe the Soviets had to get a lot of their uranium from Czechoslovakia (don't know for sure, but it was one of few countries in the Soviet sphere to be a major source of uranium) .

In fact, North Korea and Iran probably wouldn't even have nuclear programs if it were not for Russians exporting them Uranium. Know they did lots of that to Iran.

Doesn't really matter if you disarm them all though, since the threat of powerful ballistic missiles is just as great, because they can be produced by anybody in large numbers, and they are super destructive.

Nuclear disarmament isn't that far fetched though.

Why do we still not have an edit feature?

Priest of Swag: Among other reasons because it's not been put by anybody on the feature request list. And because as you know, I oppose it for reasons of moderation.

admin: Most sites keep an edit log with each post and lock editing after a period of time. It is often just used for correcting a mistake or a misleading choice of words. If it really concerns you, which it shouldn't, then set the thing for 20 minutes.

Priest of Swag: There's a preview button for that, as well as a feature request page.