RE THE MILITARY

It is my position that in a united and borderless world, there would be no need for armies--because armies are primarily formed and maintained for the purpose of fighting one another, on behalf of their respective nation-states, if, as, and when circumstances should so dictate.  In a world consisting of but a single nation to begin with, it would be impossible for "nation A" to attack "nation B."

Of course, security for the populace of a place is always to be upheld, preserved, and protected.  But, domestically, this is the function of the police force.  And, in a single united and borderless world, the entire world will actually be a single domestic place.

This sort of atmosphere has actually somewhat existed, during times such as the relatively long period of peace that took place in Europe between 1815 and 1848.  During these years, it is said, the armies of Europe became "instruments of security," directed to their own respective populations--as opposed to being instruments of "international competition," directed against foreign enemies.

The military are said to have a "vested interest in armament," which is described as a "constant and powerful influence, averse to...conceptions which can...achieve genuine peace." (Clark and Sohn, Introduction to World Peace)  Therefore, other than a single worldwide police force, having sufficient personnel and equipment to preserve the peace, there should be no arms or armies.

If there were no national armies, to attack on behalf of their respective nation-states, or fight to defend and preserve said nation-states' respective sovereignties, there would be no need to train newly recruited police officers in the art of violently thrusting bayonets into dummies who represent the enemy, shouting "Kill!  Kill!"--as per a recent description of somewhat typical goings-on at a military training camp.  There would be no further need to carry on tests of germ warfare--similar to the 239 that were acknowledged to have been conducted by the United States prior to 1977.  And there would be no instances such as that which took place during 1979, when a computer error brought our military close to taking action in defense against what turned out to be a false report of an impending missile attack.

This concept of our military forces being utilized only for internal security was suggested in 1959 by Russia's Nikita Kruschev, when he proposed to the United Nations that all nations disarm down to the point whereby each shall possess and maintain only police units.  Such would obviate the necessity for the continued existence of a "military profession"--at least as regards the arts implicit in the mutual infliction of death and destruction upon people and property on one or the other side of a border line.

There will, of course, continue to be crime and criminals within society.  However, these instances would be simply regarded as lawless behavior; and their perpetrators appropriately dealt with according to then-extant provisions of duly enacted law.

Another segment of contemporary society which has a "vested interest" in conflict and warfare, and even in the mere threat thereof, is the armaments industry.  The need for such products would be greatly reduced, both in the quantity as well as in the nature and potential deadliness of the equipment still needed by a worldwide police force.  For it is obvious that a police department does not require thousands upon thousands of bombs, and airplanes to drop them; nor tanks, battleships, or other such devices to rain death and devastation upon entire populations.  This change would have a great impact upon the jobs of thousands of armament workers, and the correspoonding profits now being reaped by their employers.

The result would probably be a measure of resistance on the part of many of these interests to the establishment of that which I propose.  This is understandable.  But it is submitted that the end to organized wholesale murder and mayhem that my proposals can effect is reasonable justification for the loss of a certain amount of jobs or profits.  It is, moreover, likely that many of these industries, and their employees, will be readily adaptable to producing and rendering other, more beneficial, goods and services; thus keeping actual loss of jobs and profits to a minimum.

                                                        * * * * *

There have been numerous instances when seemingly knowledgeable persons have expressed opinions that the keeping of large armies and/or many armaments actually serves to promote and preserve peace.  In 1923, General Kenichi Oshimi of Japan voiced this view, saying: ""The height of folly is to imnagine that the cutting of armaments would assure world peace.  World peace is best maintained when nations are armed to the hilt."  In 1945, General George Marshall of the United States expressed a similar position, warning that if the U.S. were to lay down its arms, disaster worse than World War II would occur.  It was perhaps for these sorts of reasons that American General Patton recommended that our schoolchildren should study military and nursing arts in order to prepare foer the next war.  (Parenthetically, he is best remembered for the newspaper account of his slapping a hospitalized soldier for something that he called "cowardice.")

In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson said the same thing in a different way.  In words of endorsement for the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a collective defense organization composed of a number of Western European nations and the United States, Secretary Acheson recxommended that only strength will preserve peace.  In that same year, American General Carl Spaetz cited the atomic bomb and the B-36 airplane as the greatest forces for the preservation of worldwide tranquility.

A couple of years later, General Eisenhower counseled congress that the best way to "keep the Cold War from turning hot" was to send unlimited numbers of American troops and military supplies to Europe.  Later, as President, he remarked that "a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains."  And he ridiculed Adlai Stevenson's proposed plan for a ban on hydrogen bombs as an idealistic "cheap and easy" way to achieve peace.

In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, during his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency, referred to military power as the key to peace.  And in 1983, President Reagan, speaking about the nuclear arms race, stated that we had to "find peace through strength [provided through nuclear weaponry])." 

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the above, it must be pointeed out that these statements and remarks were all made in the context of the existence of a number of individual nation-states that might interact, compete, or experience conflict with one another.  In a unified world, guided by a single governing entity, there would no longer exist a need for each memnber of a group of nations to keep a supply of soldiers and weapons on hand, in preparation for potential warfare with one another.  Instead, mankind could and should work together, in worthwhile endeavor toward the solution of our many remaining real needs and problems.

                                                 * * * * *

PLEASE leave a comment--here, or via E-mail at oneworld@tampabay.rr.com