( Ten minute read)

Brutality has and remains a human fundamental fact of history, which does not need to Be Rewritten Into Existence.

Why?

Because it’s obvious that humanity has had a huge impact on our planet, causing immense suffering to other animals as well as to ourselves.

No matter how complex our technology, no matter how well educated, no matter how legalistic we become, its all just a show we put on for each other.

We like to pretend we’re kind, thoughtful, loving animals, but our behavior shows a fundamentally vicious, selfish, a short sighted mistake of a species on it

It’s not like these behaviors evolved in a vacuum. 

Our ability for violence made us the most capable hunters on the planet, capable of surviving in most any climate, but we’re just animals, like any other in nature.,

Not only is cruelty fundamental to human intelligence, but all intelligence.

Maybe we will continue in some way or another, but brut force and misuse of power can never be allowed to have the last word.

Because of our nature we are doomed to wars and all wars are brutal. That’s basically what we’ve been doing to each other constantly for the entirety of human history.

The world wars lead to 80 million dead.,

This why we have the United Nations and what we call international law.

However wars no longer announce themselves with official proclamations. They creep forward, strike by strike, each retaliation erasing another line once thought uncrossable.

What was once unthinkable soon becomes routine, as real-world escalations play out in full view.

With social media wars / conflicts, what ever name you give them, have now exploded into daylight.

The Israel/ USA/Iran intensified with every blow. What makes this so unnerving is not only the speed of escalation, but the stage on which it is now unfolding.

The institutions built to contain chaos, especially the United Nations, are pushed aside just when they are needed most.

As it is revealing the global order itself, as raw power, steadily overshadows principle and the instrument for peace.

Thanks to the Donald Dumps of the world , diplomacy limps behind the roar of missiles, and pleas for restraint sink into the noise.

The result is a growing sense of impunity.

———————

Wars are no longer determined by might but by technology. Ballistic rockets, drones, tariffs to the price of oil etc with escalation that spreads like a web, branching in every direction instead of following a single path.

—————

It is not for the first time or the last time we are witnessing the collective inability” of the international community to address crises – Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, and Iran.

Why?

Because when the interests of the permanent members blocks action, the security Council has become less an instrument of action, than a stage for geopolitical division.

The application of international norms appears uneven, bolstering a sense that power determines not only outcomes but also the interpretation of rules.

We are stepping into a world of tangled frameworks, unfinished alliances, and sudden twists—a system where rules survive but are bent or brushed aside whenever power demands.

Institutions continue to function, but with diminished authority. Power is more dispersed, but not necessarily more balanced. Cooperation persists, but it is increasingly conditional and situational.

Tehran’s strategy has long relied on indirect influence—through allied groups and asymmetric capabilities—rather than confrontation with superior military forces.

Instead, we face a restless, splintered world, riddled with shifting alliances and competing power centres.

For now, the direction is clear: escalation surges ahead, institutions lag, and the global order—once anchored in shared rules—drifts toward a world increasingly governed by brute force.

In this world, uncertainty is the only constant.

——————-

The beginning of 2026 brings us back to the fundamental question of national security.

How do countries counter the use of brute force by other countries?

There are approximately two hundred nation-states in the world; the vast majority will not be able to respond proportionally with force to match force. 

What Can we counter Brute Force with?

A balance of power remains a luxury enjoyed by only a small group of countries, but they define the core of global politics.

On Middle Eastern crises, the United States shields Israel by supporting it’s genocide in retaliation that is now creating a global economic crisis.

Ukraine is fighting for all of us: for a rules-based international order, for independence and sovereignty, for territorial integrity, so that international borders are not changed by force.

Russia is fighting for what it wants.

While recognise Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence, we cannot not condone its barbarism.

Its war against Iran with USA backing can now only be described as brazen Naked./Aggression.

instigated by Donald Trump tearing up the negotiating agreement re Iran nuclear agreement. Which by the way was ratified by the UN.

It is a war to nobody advantage.

Its loss loss now endangering the use of a nuclear weapon.

Iran is a country ruled by brute force, but like any other country with nuclear power it has a right to acquire it for peaceful purposes.

If the current political system remains intact, Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power is only a matter of time.

Building up nuclear arsenals or becoming a nuclear power is becoming a rational strategy for ensuring national security under the current conditions.

But in the long term, deterrence also makes sense in the broader context of relations with China, Russia, Japan, and even the United States.

North Korea shows that, with concentrated resources and political will, even a small country with extremely limited resources can become a nuclear power.

Given emerging experience (including Greenland), the rationale for acquiring nuclear weapons is emerging for both US adversaries and allies.

Clearly, nuclear weapons are not widely available.

Their mere presence hardly solves all security problems. It merely mitigates the most severe options, such as direct military aggression.

Whether the status quo can be maintained in the future remains an open question.

Paradoxically, the USA will likely find it more difficult to contain its allies’ nuclear ambitions than its adversaries’ appetites.

However, recent experience shows that the use of force can be balanced even without nuclear weapons by countries with far less resources.

Despite all its might, the United States was unable to defeat the resistance in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam

Feigned loyalty to the United States and its leadership can prove more dangerous than open resistance.

As soon as resources dwindle, loyalty disappears, and demands are met like an Italian strike.

On other issues, China asserts its own strategic constraints.

———————-

Finally:

Should Antonymous weapons by allow to select how dies without a human pressing the button?

UN troops were once deployed to resolve conflicts, if they were deployed these days it would but to manage their consequences.

It would be a historic mistake to believe that, in 2022, Europe can be driven apart by force or that violence can be used to deprive a people of their freedom.

In a world of competing crises, climate change and its impact remain real.

https://youtu.be/UqTIvMlfTj8?is=W3RoYxbwbaBdpZTN