No offence to you, iveco, but your opinions bear similarities to
pacificist theories that have been repeatedly disproved throughout
history.
Let me rebut your theories categorically:
1) Theory of
disarmament:
Yes, all nations should cut defence spending and practice
disarmament. The money could go to more worthy causes like
education and healthcare costs. Not to mention public
transport.
Disarmament has almost never worked in any case throughout
history. All it takes is for one party to break the treaty and you
have to start from scratch.
Germany did it before World War II and more recently, the USA broke
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.
It's a easy thing to tell the World, let's make love not war. But
do you seriously believe that while you throw down your weapons,
everyone else is going to put down their guns too? We don't live in
a perfect world.
2) Theory of Caps
on Service Numbers:
In the first place, there should be a UN resolution to cap armed
service numbers to no more than 15 per cent of those eligible to
vote. In this way, nobody is capable of invading anybody, and world
peace is guaranteed.
This theory is flawed if only because different nations have
different populations. For example, 15% of registered Malaysian
voters is NOT equal to 15% of Singapore voters and we are nowhere
near 15% of China's population (if they could vote).
Also, caps have been tried and failed, refer to history and you
have the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 (before WWII). The treaty
declared that signatories would keep their naval armament capped to
a fixed ratio so as to avoid an arms race.
It officially failed when on December 29, 1934, the Japanese
government gave notice that it intended to terminate the treaty.
Its provisions remained in force until the end of 1936, and it was
not renewed. We all know what happened next...
