No. Unless human nature itself is changed for the better, there won't be any world peace in our lifetimes or that of the next generations'. However, with genetic engineering & certain technologies, there is a possibility. Basically, the human species would have to be modified so that we are incapable of tribalism, psychopathy, hate, & the other human attributes which lead to conflict. We would also have to conform much more closely to societal norms than we currently do. If/when all of that is accomplished, then this world will truly have peace everywhere. No one would even think to ball his/her fist, let alone shoot someone or launch missiles. To tell you the truth, I'm all in favor of such a society. We wouldn't have any freedom, but so far, freedom has brought us more trouble than anything else.

--
In memory of John Thomas Scopes.

Governments could force peace if they wanted. And less of that human nature crap.

--
... except naked!
--
... and wet!
--
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" ~TARP

Goverments could 'force' peace? that by its own definition is not peace, it's a police state, fascisms.

--
'Kings will find armies; and the world men.'

Please view my poetry on: [link]

Thats what I ment by peace. Donut.

--
... except naked!
--
... and wet!
--
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" ~TARP

The doctrine of mutual assured destruction does in effect enforce world piece in relation to modern total war. It is so effective that the US government withdrew government funding from nuclear fallout shelters in the 1970s because it was making people think surviving a nuclear war was possible.

At this point in time the only plausible solution to wiping out conventional war was the doctrine of 'flexible response' adopted by NATO in the late 1970s. It states that ANY first strike faces a completely unknown military response that includes the use of WMDs. In other words a would-be attacker could not assume that a conventional first strike would be met with a similar restrained military response. The discharge of a single gun in anger could be met with a nuke. This makes a 'soft' start to any war a bad bet and thus an unacceptable risk.

--
Death ain't the career move it used to be!
The Forbidden Library [link]
Books Burnt by the Nazis [link]
Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) [link]

Have u seen Tom Clancy's Endwar? A little bit atypical of his stories, but quiet an intresting concept. Even with his invisioned nuclear defences, humanity still finds a way to side step piece in favour of bigger weapons.

--
'Kings will find armies; and the world men.'

Please view my poetry on: [link]

Mmmmm... bigger weapons...

A great deal of America is a socialist state dependent on a permanent, federally funded command war economy. Quite ironic really. The US federal government buys it every time because its sexy and it has often achieved its strategic objective because if its shear scale. I call this the death star syndrome.

Most people pay too much attention to the actual weapons in military discussions. Its the attitude that you can invent your way out of any problem... real or otherwise... that makes me depressed.

Pissing contests by techno-proxy only exist to keep the pilot light awake in a war machine. You can only drill and clean your gear so many times before it becomes a dangerous comfort zone. The American solution is a steady stream of new toys.

The down side of American military technological 'development' is it breeds a lot of bells, whistles, learning curves and associated training accidents. Practicing with complex new technology is inherently dangerous. Technology is only as good as its support networks, and these are often too complex and too fragile to withstand the chaos of war. That is why American field commanders work on the assumption that there will be fatalities, even in a military exercise with no live fire.

I prefer the traditional Soviet school of technology, keep it simple, make it work and make lots of it.

Many sci-fi writers have tackled this issue down the decades, from Azimov to the new Battlestar Galactica... but the message is ignored. A command economy of any kind does not have ears.

--
Death ain't the career move it used to be!
The Forbidden Library [link]
Books Burnt by the Nazis [link]
Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) [link]

Wow no wonder you snapped, I stopped when I started reading history, I didn't make it upto present day before I gave up hope. Still at least the US has the pretty(if not always 100% accurate) laser defence system, I'd be happy with the bells and whistles to be able to add to my sig, the country with the death star defence like system.

I know I'm listing tv programs like some junkie, but Eureka is where the US have a secret base (don't they always I hear u say) well yes, but its got the worlds top scientists in and breeds star trek like technology. Makes you wonder just how far technologically the US secretly is, as they joke about in the series, we may well already have a base on mars however unlikely. Besides, the bells and whistles are more to keep the public quiet and funding it all whilst they wait for a decent designer to build something. Thanks for the epic reply btw.

--
'Kings will find armies; and the world men.'

Please view my poetry on: [link]

WHat is it with American's and technology. As if Vietnam didn't prove it, 9/11 should have made it obvious that high tech weapons are useless against a determined enemy. Any system is only as good as its weaknesses, and it is only a mater of time before your enemy can exploit these weaknesses.

All automated defense systems are useless both in practice and as a viable deterrent, because it is impossible to fully test the computer software that runs it. This is a fundamental limitation of all computer programming. There is no way around it.

The death star was strategic failure for the empire, because its destruction served up a massive psychological victory for rebel forces and their sympathizers. Oddly enough this technological disaster has happened many times to great military powers in the last two hundred years. No one seems to be learning from the mistake.

Examples include the Maginot Line designed to defend france from Germany between the wars. Germany simply flanked it.

'Capital' battle ships - seen as the ultimate mobile fortress before WW1 but the loss of British battlecruisers HMS Queen Mary, Invincible and Indefatigable at the battle of Jutland in 1916 proved the Dreadnought had a combat life span of minutes in the face of armor piecing shells. Thus the strategic use of the battleship as a deterrent was fatally compromised.

Battleships were just floating coffins in modern warfare, easily destroyed. But the western press was and still is in love with Capital ships, and the shipbuilders of the world kept selling battleships to ignorant politicians right up until the end of world war two. The result was the destruction of the USS Arizona at Perl Harbour, the easy sinking of battleships HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse as a devastating prelude to the invasion of Singapore. Devastating psychological defeats served up to Japan by the Allies on a plate.

On the other side, the destruction of the Yamato after spending most of the war essentially hiding from Allied forces for a rainy day that never came.

Its people not things that decide the outcome of wars. All the fire power in the world is useless if you don't understand your enemy.

--
Death ain't the career move it used to be!
The Forbidden Library [link]
Books Burnt by the Nazis [link]
Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) [link]