Nuclear weapons

[Kevin_Lowe]

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council (China is still commie, and Russia is pretend not, didn't you know?). What does evidence have anything to do with it?

Any such event (nuclear) will be denied by all the obvious culprits and any retaliation will be condemned by all the usual culprits, and all the usual sheep will buy whatever they have been told.

The only rational result will be that every one of the deniers will be be threatened with the same, but unfortunately that includes China and Russia these days.

Think they will be smart enough to change course? I don't know.

Despite the "they're all crazy!" rhetoric popular in the USA, the world has managed to steer a course around the use of nuclear weapons so far. I wouldn't get too distracted by your local political rhetoric. Even the worst of the world's political leaders are smart the way Dilbert's boss is - they are smart enough to get to the top and stay there despite their other limitations. Launching nuclear weapons is not a way to stay in power. Having them and looking like you might, on the other hand, very much is.

If it did happen though, do you remember 9/11? That was small potatoes compared to a nuclear attack, and for a brief moment the vast majority of the world was supporting the USA and willing to assist in getting the people responsible. The Bush administration managed to micturate that goodwill away in short order, but a nuclear attack against a civilian target would probably create even greater short-term unity and support for the victims.

PS ever think what kind of world we would live in if China, Russia and, what the hell, throw in India and Pakistan would actually agree on putting petty dictators in their place? (Hey, I leave out France and Germany deliberately).

Heck, imagine what kind of world we would live in if the USA would actually put petty thugs like the rulers of Kuwait in their place, since they hold the whip hand over them already anyway.

The current US administration is interested in "putting petty dictators in their place" if and only if it happens to coincide with their personal fantasies of using the world as their Risk board.

The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion. They created N Korea, they protect and help Iran, they excuse Syria, then encourage Chavez, they love African dictators with mines, they make cheap Rolexes and they fill my mailbox (filtered) with imbecilic spam.

The USA got into bed with equally objectionable regimes during the Cold War, for pretty much the same reasons. China is looking after itself first, and going out of their way to stop their rivals getting too powerful or adventurous.

North Korea is the anus of the world, but it's where China stopped a recent round of US expansion-by-proxy. You can't exactly blame them for wanting that barrier to stay where it is.

 

[Elind]

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

Sadly, you are probably right, yet the nagging thought remains; what else is left except a rule by the strongest, if limited?

I suppose I'd rather be here than there

 

[Elind]

Despite the "they're all crazy!" rhetoric popular in the USA, the world has managed to steer a course around the use of nuclear weapons so far. I wouldn't get too distracted by your local political rhetoric. Even the worst of the world's political leaders are smart the way Dilbert's boss is - they are smart enough to get to the top and stay there despite their other limitations. Launching nuclear weapons is not a way to stay in power. Having them and looking like you might, on the other hand, very much is.

perhaps truth is there, but the issue is not about smart enough to "stay in power", the issue is "smart enough to prevent what they want to be able to do". Surely you have heard enough from Iran to understand that they are smart as a weasel, yet unprincipled as a Chinese?

If it did happen though, do you remember 9/11? That was small potatoes compared to a nuclear attack, and for a brief moment the vast majority of the world was supporting the USA and willing to assist in getting the people responsible. The Bush administration managed to micturate that goodwill away in short order, but a nuclear attack against a civilian target would probably create even greater short-term unity and support for the victims.

But my point is that support for the victims is only sympathy and otherwise meaningless in terms of retribution if the guilty do not confess. Would you expect, in today's world, that they would?

Heck, imagine what kind of world we would live in if the USA would actually put petty thugs like the rulers of Kuwait in their place, since they hold the whip hand over them already anyway.

I lived for nearly 10 years in Kuwait. Don't pretend to give this kind of fake knowledge and expect to be taken seriously. It was, is, not a Western democracy, but the fact is that is was one of the most easygoing and liberal and considerate of the Gulf states that I knew. I was married, in a church, if you believe that, there; and still am to the same beautiful woman. If you want opinions on the other neighbors which I visited often, I'll give those too.

The current US administration is interested in "putting petty dictators in their place" if and only if it happens to coincide with their personal fantasies of using the world as their Risk board.

Fantasies work both ways, if you get my meaning.

The USA got into bed with equally objectionable regimes during the Cold War, for pretty much the same reasons. China is looking after itself first, and going out of their way to stop their rivals getting too powerful or adventurous.

Excuse the present on the past. Sounds familiar.

North Korea is the anus of the world, but it's where China stopped a recent round of US expansion-by-proxy. You can't exactly blame them for wanting that barrier to stay where it is.

BS. When did the US last provide nuclear technology, deliberately and with malice etc., to a homicidal dictarorship?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

perhaps truth is there, but the issue is not about smart enough to "stay in power", the issue is "smart enough to prevent what they want to be able to do". Surely you have heard enough from Iran to understand that they are smart as a weasel, yet unprincipled as a Chinese?

You lost me with "smart enough to prevent what they want to be able to do", sorry.

But my point is that support for the victims is only sympathy and otherwise meaningless in terms of retribution if the guilty do not confess. Would you expect, in today's world, that they would?

I assume we're talking about a smuggled nuke scenario, rather than a straightforward missile attack?

My understanding is that it is likely that between analysis of the fallout, leaked information between intelligence services and so on, the place the bomb came from and how it got to its target could be figured out. The list of candidates at any one time is very short, after all.

It's also a fairly unlikely scenario, because the people with the nuclear weapons stand to gain nothing by toasting a single city anywhere, nor by giving terrorist nutjobs a nuclear weapon.

I lived for nearly 10 years in Kuwait. Don't pretend to give this kind of fake knowledge and expect to be taken seriously. It was, is, not a Western democracy, but the fact is that is was one of the most easygoing and liberal and considerate of the Gulf states that I knew. I was married, in a church, if you believe that, there; and still am to the same beautiful woman. If you want opinions on the other neighbors which I visited often, I'll give those too.

Easygoing, liberal and democratic if you're a US citizen I'm sure. You weren't a local bucking the ruling elite.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/kwt-summary-eng

I'll believe the USA is actually interested in freedom, democracy and so on when it starts pressuring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and so on to become morre free and democratic.

Fantasies work both ways, if you get my meaning.

Denial is not an argument.

Excuse the present on the past. Sounds familiar.

Leopards don't change their spots. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags.

BS. When did the US last provide nuclear technology, deliberately and with malice etc., to a homicidal dictarorship?

When would it last have served the USA well to have done so?

If the only thing standing between the US border and Chinese forces was one tiny nation, which the Chinese had nearly conquered before, then I think the US would be passing them nuclear technology as fast as possible. After all, best to have the nuclear deterrent in notionally independent hands in such a case. That way the homeland is less likely to get drawn in to a nuclear exchange, and the threat that the weapons will be used to defend the tiny nation is more credible.

It's not nice, but it's smart.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The USA got into bed with equally objectionable regimes during the Cold War, for pretty much the same reasons. China is looking after itself first, and going out of their way to stop their rivals getting too powerful or adventurous.

That's just libel. The US was facing an ideology that was attempting to conquer the world, and the acted in self defense and defense of others. China is just acting in the interests of its rulers (not even in the interests of China in general).

North Korea is the anus of the world, but it's where China stopped a recent round of US expansion-by-proxy.

More revisionist BS.

Leopards don't change their spots. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags.

The US is no better than China.

You're insane.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's just libel. The US was facing an ideology that was attempting to conquer the world, and the acted in self defense and defense of others. China is just acting in the interests of its rulers (not even in the interests of China in general).

Libel has to be false. Are you actually denying that both the USA and the USSR supported total ratbags whenever there was any advantage in it for them? Or are you just saying that the USA is better because it was crying crocodile tears on the inside when it did so?

More revisionist BS.

Just historical fact, Art. China pushed the US forces back down to the current border, and it's been a fortified line ever since. Now little Bush has given notice that North Korea is on his hit list and that reopening hostilities on that front is an option. What would you do if you were China?

The US is no better than China.

You're insane.

One more straw man from Art Vandelay.

 

[geni]

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

That would depend to a lrage degree on who droped it on who.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist.

It atchived it's initial objective.

Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

The UN survived last time nukes were droped.

 

[blakehaydn]

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

Pretty close, but I think the League Of Nations had them beat.

 

[blakehaydn]

They are obviously suicidal anyways, why would a nuclear strike stop them?

And you see a different solution to the problem outside of a nuclear attack? Unless Syria and Iran are both taken out now, we will eventually see nuclear war. I prefer we drop it on them first.

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

 

[gumboot]

Where do you get that from?

I think you misread me. I was basically saying the SC would be in breach of the UN Charter if it tried to stop a nation using force under Article 51 (self defence).

I believe this is the logic Israel primarily uses for explaining its failure to comply with UN Resolutions. It considers itself under threat, thus invokes Article 51. Until such time as the SC restores peace, Israel is entitled to continue using force to protect itself under Article 51, regardless of what SC resolutions such action may breach.

All countries are legally obligated to help in the actions mandated by the SC, but I very much doubt that this help is specified or limited to one squadron of airplanes.

I was a little off, and I wasn't implying it was "limited" to that. That was simply what must be available "immediately":

ARTICLE 45

In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action...

Note the hypenation of "air-force" which identifies these assets as being air units capable of exerting force (in other words aircraft with weapons) as opposed to the "Air Force" (being a common branch of a nation's armed forces).

One interpretation of Article 45 would be that all UN member states have to have either attack or fighter aircraft of some discription that are IMMEDIATELY available to the UN upon being needed. Not having such assets would technically put you in breach of Article 45.

This was an argument many people here put forward when the our government disbanded the strike wing of our Air Force.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

The UN is never unanimous in silence and never will be unanimous in anything, assuming we are talking of the general council, let alone the vestigial cold war security council

It is actually surprising how often the UN *does* vote unanimously. The Security Council, has just voted unanimously to impose sanctions on North Korea, for example, despite North Korea having already announced it will regard such action as a declaration of war.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

The Chinese are the doodoo's of the world these days in my opinion.

I tend to be very skeptical of people declaring global war is about to errupt, but I have to admit I'm pretty worried about China. They're doing some things which are VERY scary, and there is the potential there for some major problems.

Most important of all, the things they do don't make register overly high in the media because everyone is so obsessed with Iran and N.Korea (neither of which I think are really a threat).

But China... that's another story entirely. They are already using their economic might to quite literally purchase the entire Pacific (our Defence Force came back from the last Pacific Island Summit feeling VERY concerned about China's sphere of influence).

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

The UN survived last time nukes were droped.

The UN didn't exist last time nukes were dropped.

-Andrew

 

[geni]

The UN didn't exist last time nukes were dropped.

-Andrew

Then I guess this poster is a fake:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

The UN first appeared in 1942.

 

[gumboot]

Then I guess this poster is a fake:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Naciones_Unidas_3.jpg

The UN first appeared in 1942.

To quote from the same article that picture is taken from:

The UN came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the Charter had been ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council — Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States — and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.

The poster refers to the phrase "United Nations", not the organisation. This discussion was regarding the survival of the United Nations Organisation post a nuclear attack. One would have to be stupid to think the phrase "United Nations" would suddenly and mysteriously vanish from the English language as a result of a nuclear attack.

As for the phrase "United Nations":

Franklin D. Roosevelt first suggested using the name "United Nations" to refer to the wartime Allies[1]. Roosevelt suggested the term to Winston Churchill who cited Byron's use of the phrase "united nations" in Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, which referred to the Allies at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted the name and the first official use of the term occurred on January 1, 1942 with the Declaration by the United Nations.

During subsequent phases of World War II the Allies used the term "United Nations" to refer to their alliance.

-Andrew

 

[Azure]

As soon as the first nuke drops, regardless of who drops it, the UN will cease to even exist in theory, as it only does now.

Everyone will choose their own sides (as they do now) but no longer pay them the lip service they do currently.

The UN must be the most counterproductive organization every to exist. Any falling nuke will pull that curtain back and expose it for what it really is.

Basically, the UN is doing the same thing the League of Nations did.

Nothing.

 

[Azure]

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

LOL.

 

[Kerberos]

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

You clearly never played "nuclear war".

 

[Art Vandelay]

Libel has to be false. Are you actually denying that both the USA and the USSR supported total ratbags whenever there was any advantage in it for them?

Yes. And that it did so it self defense and defense of others, rather than just self-interest.

Just historical fact, Art. China pushed the US forces back down to the current border, and it's been a fortified line ever since.

So because China attacked US forces, that means that the US was engaged in expansionism?

Now little Bush has given notice that North Korea is on his hit list and that reopening hostilities on that front is an option.

The most bellicose words have been coming from NK, not the US.

One more straw man from Art Vandelay.

No, you said "the USA has never been any more principled than the nations you are criticisng when it comes to getting into bed with ratbags".

Now you listen to me Azure, and you listen good. The only time nuclear weapons should ever so much as to even be considered being used is in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Howitzers usually work better. No pollution, you capture a larger city, and fewer city improvements are destroyed. Plus, you don't lose the howitzers. Although if you're a democracy and are tired of other civilizations forcing you to sign peace treaties, planting a nuclear device is a good way to get them to break the treaties. And it's cheaper, too. I'm not sure why planting a nuclear device is so much worse than launching one.

 

[yinyinwang]

Libel has to be false. Are you actually denying that both the USA and the USSR supported total ratbags whenever there was any advantage in it for them? Or are you just saying that the USA is better because it was crying crocodile tears on the inside when it did so?

A criminal's defence is not the same thing as an innocent man's defence.