Energy weapons leave a trail of evidence when used continually against a person. This evidence can be used in conjunction with the United Nations Istanbul Protocol in any case against a Government or Government associated agency ot third party group who have allowed and participated in the development of energy weapons without any legislative or practical control over their manufacturing and use. This could also include any corporations who if they have allowed third party development, manufacturing and use of such weapons know that such weapons are being used to harm defenseless civilians. Any successful civil claim can lead to a criminal conviction by both National Courts and the International Criminal Court. Widespread consent which leads to mass harm by virtue of ‘Government absent legal care and enforcement of laws so intended to protect the defenseless can be said to be ‘crime against humanity’. Whilst the International Court can issue arrest warrants under the treaty of Rome for signatory heads of state it cannot do so for the heads of non-signatory states but they can be arrested when within the borders of a signatory states as ‘Crimes against Humanity have no diplomatic immunity. Governments should ensure that they have sufficient legal and practical controls in place to ensure that energy weapons are not used by any group against defenseless civilians.
Until we learn how to live without killing each other World Peace is not possible. We have democratically elected Governments in many parts of the World who are signatories to the International Convention of Human rights.
That convention does not allow children to die of starvation or from war. But they do – every day. We have also allowed crime to become too acceptable a part of our lives.
Yet our Governments appear on television and tell us how important it is that we allow all persons not to be harassed or bullied. They tell school children not to bully and harass. They tell us the People we will be arrested and go to Prison for life if we commit murder.
They (our Governments) shake hands with Government who lock up their citizens because of their ethnic group or faith, who put them in labour camps, and who shoot then without trial.
Our Governments then increase their hypocrisy by visiting those same countries and giving them AID money which allows those same Countries to arm more military and suppress their citizens rights with an even greater excess of force.
How can there ever be World Peace without adherence to the Principal of Defending the Weak and the Innocent and the Principal of respect for another human?
If I ever become the Prime Minister the United Kingdom I would close down every embassy in the UK whose Government abused human rights – and that would include China.
We must reform the U.N and use overwhelming Military Intervention to bring conflicts to an end and that means all of the Security Council not just the U.S.A the U.K and their allies.
Until we draw the red line of human rights and defend that red line we will never have World Peace.
Q&A on Quora
World Peace is subjective. To a child who was moments before sitting chuckling to herself as she amused her imagination with her tatty and dust laden angel who had promised her that all the dreams she could ever had would come true, it was very subjective. After her chuckling came a sound she had never heard before. It was loud, very loud. If pain could be given a name then that was the sound she heard. Her Angel was gone. Instead two mangled bleeding bloody legs remained. She was a victim of collateral damage – that is the term the Generals use so that they don’t scare their own children.
To the Prime Minister or President who ordered the bombing attack World Peace was also subjective. But he or she never felt the pain or the fear whilst in the Vatican shaking hands with the Pope.
I have used the illustration above to show that World Peace is indeed subjective. If you are a victim of the lack of World Peace then your view is very different to those who are not,
War does not innovate. All it does is speed up the rate of technology change that produces more weaponry to kill us with. More weapons are developed in so-called Peacetime than in major conflicts.
World Peace will provide the People of the World with the opportunity to live lives of mutual self-respect. Unfortunately at the moment it is unlikely to occur.
Until the United Nations is reformed to ensure that no sides are taken by all the members of an enlarged Security Council in any conflict then we will never have World Peace.
This is a QA on Quora.
Absolutely nothing. It is obviously humane and compassionate to allow 20,000 children to die of malnutrition, conflict and disease everyday.
As I eat my MacDonald’s Burger and consider buying another I look around me and I note that some people have so many they can hardly walk.
I do not see my Government doing anything about the deaths of so many children. The Pope shakes the hands of all the World Leaders who are responsible for the World’s Economies. Is that a sign of approval?
Therefore, it must be OK for me to have plenty to eat and the Children in Africa to die.
I do not see thousands or even million protesting so the people of the Western World and all those who have plenty to eat must consider it to be OK.
I do not hear the Ayatollah of Iran saying it is not a good thing. The Chief Rabbi of Israel cannot be heard saying the World must not be so greedy and selfish.
I have tried to do something about the screaming child who in Africa has a swollen mouth and tongue chocking her. Her muscles wasted with bones so fragile they cannot take her weight without breaking. I thought it wrong that all she ever knew was pain before she will die of Aids.
But nobody took any notice of my writing with new ideas and systems to save her life and the lives of so many others- not one member of Government anywhere in the World or one member of the Faiths of God. Not one Journalist. Nobody, zero,
This is my answer to this Q which is on Quora.
If I were the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which is a country with nuclear weapons, which you would have to be equipped with in order to answer the question I would state this:
“Nuclear weapons have only one purpose and that is to kill in the millions. The only deterrent they have been is to ensure those Nations with Nuclear Weapons do not make a sudden decision to use them on other Nations with nuclear weapons.
They did not stop Al Qaeda killing 3000 Americans at 911 and they did not stop the Vietnam War or ISIS invading Syria and Iraq. I would use them at the negotiating table to provide a framework with other countries to discuss and achieve a planned and phased reduction in nuclear weapons. Which is a forum much promised but lacking in delivery.
However, if my only option to end an immediate threat to the United Kingdom from a nuclear military force was to use them specifically to bring an immediate end to the threat I would do so. It is highly unlikely that such a threat would involve one million civilians. It is also highly unlikely that such a situation would occur without any of the United Kingdom’s allies being involved. Therefore the question is too hypothetical to consider a more detailed response”.
I would also state that the United Kingdom as an Island is at much more of a risk from a hostile force than the majority of developed Nations. An island is a strategic target and one which is between Europe and the United States even more so. Unless we are able to ensure we know where every Nuclear Weapon in the World is there can never be a complete nuclear disarmament.
Theresa May did not give that answer. Without thinking May said ‘I would’ to the question by Jeremy Corbyn of would she kill 100,000 with a nuclear strike.
Let us hope that Theresa May is able to ‘think’ when faced with a real situation of a ‘United Kingdom under threat’.
There can be no everlasting Peace that comes about with the death of a million people. The deaths of one million people and more occured in 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 with no everlasting Peace.
1.5 million have died in Afghanistan since 1979. A negotiated Peace for the war weary people of Afghanistan is as distant as it has ever been.
If the World wants everlasting Peace then it must begin with the reform of the United Nations. The Security Council must be expanded, the veto dropped and every conflict dealt with by not taking sides.
I would like to be able to use my imagination and intellect with the new ideas I have for the World to ensure that no child will die from Malnutrition or because of any conflict.
However, as not one Journalist in the World will report me or my work and not one member of Government including my own Prime Minister(s) Theresa May and Malcolm Turnbull have ever acknowledged my work then it may remain just a dream.
Strange as it may seem to some the White House on behalf of President Trump is the only Government Establishment to ever acknowledge my work.
This is my answer to this Question on Quora.
How the war is viewed by people is very much going to be a subjective perspective.
I was in my local supermarket in Bicester U.K not so long ago and I pointed out to the man next to me the horrors of the then Alleppo destruction and deaths. His answer was selfish in that he sought to remove the deaths of innocent civilians by saying that ‘they are always fighting we should leave them to it’.
Many people seek to hide the murder of innocent civilians from their conscience by putting the blame on the Syrians themselves.
However, as one who has been subjected to the physical threat of a Goverment I know how difficult it is to protect yourself from the State and its Forces.
The innocent Civilians in Syria cannot rise up against an armed militia, they cannot just walk into the United Nations Security Council and say to Russia stop bombing us. They cannot protest in the streets of Damascus where Assad’s Security Police will photograph and video them so that at the dead of night they can be taken away never to be seen again.
When Hillary Clinton decided to arm the rebels in order to ensure that Iran’s militia and support of Assad was countered she did not do it for the Syrians she did it for Israel. America must stop taking sides in Syria so too Russia.
Syria is all that is wrong with the United Nations. It is a toothless tiger that provides costly ineffective rhetoric and no practical solutions. It needs urgent reform.
My own opinion of Syria is that Assad should be arrested and that the members of the Security Council should combine as one united force without taking sides to disarm the whole country. The amount of weaponry in Syria held by various factions means that a long-lasting Peace is unlikely.
I would expect that there are many like me around the World who are of the same opinion.
This is my answer to this Quora Question.
I ask myself what does it take to be a bad person? Greed, selfishness, apathy? because it would appear many Government Leaders have those attributes.
I could not kill innocent men women and children. They do by war and economic mismanagement.
I am not a bad person because if I was a Prime Minister my Government would not allow innocent men women and children to die in Yemen by supplying arms to cause them to die in that way.
I would not let my AirForce bomb innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Over 1.5 million civilians and soldiers have died in conflict in Afghanistan since 1979.
My Government tells the children of the U.K to be good and moral. Yet it supplies arms that kill children.
I am not bad exactly now because I unlike my Government have a Principle. One that does not aid in the killing of children.
By providing a ‘World Legal Unified International Organisation’. This would be given a renewable mandate by the World to ensure any conflict which immediately puts at risk the safety of civilians and related infrastructure is immediately brought to an immediate end by overwhelming force.
It would be comprised of the relevant region military and would be under one command which does not take any side in the conflict.
If we cannot reform the United Nations to provide a Peace Mandate and the organization to enforce it then we should disband the U.N and form a new Organisation which will ensure Peace in the World.
The Organisation that will be required to enforce the peace Mandate would not be a massive military force that spends all its time marching up and down.
It would be a leadership and logistics organization which would use the relevant military.
This is the only way we will ever get World Peace and an end to terrorism.
This is my answer to this Question on Quora.
For me personally World Peace is a practical achievable state of World Affairs.
My solution for World Peace is simple and available;
To achieve World Peace we either reform the United Nations or replace it with the following Mandate.
‘To achieve World Peace a renewable World Mandate is required for a Legal Unified Overwhelming World Force, under a single command and without taking sides, to bring to an immediate end by all means available any conflict which immediately threatens the people and stability of the Country and Region involved’.
However, we live in a World where Governments do what is best to keep them in Political Power and not what is best for the World.
Therefore, until such times as such a Mandate exists without the veto then World peace is a fantasy.