Peace through a new treaty?
 

We spent 40 years with a treaty, and a military organisation [NATO] bouncing around the idea of MAD with the Soviets, and eventaully avoided major conflict and the rest as is said is history.

Both sides had well oiled arsenals of WMD, startegic forces large armies etc etc.

There was clear blue water between the political philosphies of each grouping of nation states. 50 years later, time and patience allow these differences to evolve relatively peacefully, rather than through conflict. [Ignore bush fires, local conflicts, regional terrorism]

Thesis:

We need a new treaty - The Middle Eastern Non-violent Union or something of this sort which

• Collects signatory countries all in fear of the moustached one
• Assures each country that an attack upon it is regarded, a la NATO, as an attack upon all.
• Underwrites a policy of MAD
• includes Israel
• Includes NATO, since that brings in the eastern border countries and the USA

The message being: the moustached one can do what he likes with his chemical industires - but any military useage is quite a different matter.

In conclusion, is a new cold war better than a very hot one?

Comment and discuss.

Not too bad an idea, but I think any organisation involving arabs WITH israel AGAINST another arab state would be impossible.

On a lighter note the above reminds me of Blackadder (4)

Blackadder - You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick - But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Blackadder - Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George - What was that, sir?

Blackadder - It was b@llocks.

SS,

I think you're right there, shame though. :(

Thanks for the blackadder, just what I needed on this rainy day:)