Jump to content

US Missile Shield over Canada


Recommended Posts

fleabag (long time no see)

QUOTE 

Canada is as much as a target as the US virtully by being next to it...A thermal nuclear wpn exploding even in calgary or edmonton would effect most of the northern half of the states with radition

Canada as a target is highly unlikely, I should say it is even foolish to think so.

Canada doesn't need to be directly targeted by a rouge States ICBMs to feel the negative effects of such an attack, both physicaly and economically.

As I pointed out earlier to Black Dog, a nuclear attack on the greater Seattle area, which houses three Naval bases (one base, Bangor is home to half the American SLBM fleet), an Army base and I beleive an Airforce base, a major port (second largest after longbeach) on the American West Coast and to say nothing of Seattle itself, would have devastating effects on the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island.

Canada, unlike the US, has not pissed off most of the world with it's arrogance and greed. We don't have our collective heads up our asses, and can look at threat assessment in a realistic fashion.

I'm sure that will save us from nuclear fallout..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd still like to know why nuclear deterrence and the MAD doctrine, which have worked to prevent nuclear war for more than 60 years, have suddeny become obsolete. Why would third world countries like Iran or North Korea present a greater possibility of launching a nuclear attack than Chiona or the former Soviet Union?

Dyer: The secret behind missile defense is that it's not about defense

Writing in the Globe and Mail, Hellyer said bluntly that "BMD . . . has about as much to do with  rogue missiles as the war on Iraq had to do with weapons of mass destruction." The notion that North Korea might fire one or two ballistic missiles at the U.S., even if it had a few long-range missiles and nuclear warheads to put on them, is ludicrous. The entire leadership and most of the country would instantly be destroyed by a massive U.S. retaliation.

Pyongyang is a very nasty regime, but it hasn't attacked anybody in the past 50 years, it isn't suicidal, and it can be deterred by the threat of retaliation just like Russia or China. So what is BMD really about? In practice, any system designed to destroy incoming ballistic missiles that depends on ground-based interceptors can easily be overwhelmed just by building more missiles. The cost to the Soviet Union of building more ICBMs would always have been far less than the cost of the interceptors needed to shoot them down and their supporting systems, so the Soviet Union could always have saturated U.S. defenses in an all-out attack.

But what if it were the victim of a U.S. surprise attack that destroyed most of its missiles on the ground? Then a good American BMD system might be able to deal with the ragged retaliation that was all the Soviets could manage.

Such a BMD system is not a technological reality even now, 20 years later, but that's what it was always about: giving the United States the ability to launch a first strike against the Soviet Union and to survive the inevitable retaliation with "acceptable" losses. It seemed less urgent when the Soviet Union collapsed, but it was never abandoned - and in the later '90s the neo-conservatives revived it as part of a scheme for establishing permanent U.S. military dominance over the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Stoker,

As I pointed out earlier to Black Dog, a nuclear attack on the greater Seattle area, which houses three Naval bases (one base, Bangor is home to half the American SLBM fleet), an Army base and I beleive an Airforce base, a major port (second largest after longbeach) on the American West Coast and to say nothing of Seattle itself, would have devastating effects on the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island.
This would only be a feasible target if the 'rogue nation' were planning to follow up with a landing force in the immediate area.

I think most Canadians, if they saw a missile flying over their heads, would start betting...Washington or New York?

The only reason the US wants Canadian participation is so that IF they shoot down a missile over Canada, and the 'fallout' kills people or damages property, they would have negated responsibility for it by claiming 'Canada was a part of it and knew of, and agreed to, the risks'. As far as 'rogue nations' or 'terrorists' attacking Canada directly, I would probably be more afraid of a snowball launched from Hades.....

I'm sure that will save us from nuclear fallout..........
As Black Dog points out with his quote from Gwynne Dyer, (one of the few, true contemporary military geniuses) a missile attack from a rogue nation would only ensure it's own destruction. Not that this is an impossibility, for many individuals in Western nations have chosen to die via the 'suicide by cop' confrontations, to have a nation choosing do this is unbelievable.

Further, the rogue nation would have the members of the UN against them, and become international pariahs, should they launch an ICBM against anyone. This scenario is just not realistic.

If you'll recall, the 9/11 attacks were only carried out against the symbols of American wealth and power. They were not planned to kill the maximum amount of people, for the death toll could have been exponentially higher.

It is time to look at serious issues, not politico-worthy or media-fantasy 'might be' events.

The questions every American should be asking is "what would I attack, if I was going to...."

Then, examine the motive. The answers will be vastly different if the rest of the sentence reads...

a. invade

b. send a message

c. kill as many people as possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to have a nation choosing do this is unbelievable.

Further, the rogue nation would have the members of the UN against them, and become international pariahs, should they launch an ICBM against anyone.

...a nation wouldn't launch a missile against another if it had a chance of winning...it would only do it if it had a chance of losing...a big chance...I believe the term is 'revenge from the grave'...Dyer is right, the US is preparing defences for 'revenge strikes'...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleabag:

I think most Canadians, if they saw a missile flying over their heads, would start betting...Washington or New York?

I think the piont is that if any nuclear wpns detonate in the USA ..that Canada will definetly be effected either by blast waves,or radition clouds....But yes we will die a slow death with a smile on our faces as we were right....we made the right choices....

The only reason the US wants Canadian participation is so that IF they shoot down a missile over Canada, and the 'fallout' kills people or damages property, they would have negated responsibility for it by claiming 'Canada was a part of it and knew of, and agreed to, the risks'.

Fall from what if the missle is intercepted it will be brought down without detonation"NO FALL OUT" just some mess on the ground to clean- up and the wpns grade plutonim scooped up and disposed of...

As Black Dog points out with his quote from Gwynne Dyer, (one of the few, true contemporary military geniuses) a missile attack from a rogue nation would only ensure it's own destruction.

Gwynne Dyer is a very good military scholar, but a military genius give me a break...Do you really think that china or Russia, India or Pakistan are going to sit by and swallow a mega Radiation cloud, so that the US can wipe out Korea in one strike....just to save face..there is only one viable option that is to use conventional warfare to strike back..

Further, the rogue nation would have the members of the UN against them, and become international pariahs, should they launch an ICBM against anyone. This scenario is just not realistic.

That would scare them pissing off the UN, ....but you are right the situation is not realistic from the amount of info that we are privey to....BMD is meant as an added insurance measure to ensure it does not happen....for what ever reason...

I think that this whole BMD thing was handled wrong from the start...our goverment should have taken the time to reseach it then to educate us all on the pros and cons...instead out present goverment has relied on polls to make decisions for us... thats not leadership thats someone trying to secure their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gwynne Dyer is a very good military scholar, but a military genius give me a break...Do you really think that china or Russia, India or Pakistan are going to sit by and swallow a mega Radiation cloud, so that the US can wipe out Korea in one strike....just to save face..there is only one viable option that is to use conventional warfare to strike back..

I'm confused. Are you suggessting the U.S. would be the first to launch a nuclear attack?

I'd still like to know why the treid-and-true concept of nuclear deterrence has suddenly become obsolete. What greater threat is posed by North Korean than was posed by the Soviet Union for almost 60 years that necessitates this sudden change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

No, it was in answer to Flea bags remarks that if North Korea was to launch against the US...

I'd still like to know why the treid-and-true concept of nuclear deterrence has suddenly become obsolete. What greater threat is posed by North Korean than was posed by the Soviet Union for almost 60 years that necessitates this sudden change?

There is a big difference, an exchange between the Soviets would be on mass....no winners or lossers for that matter, it would kill the world as we know it....

N.Korea knows that, it's borders are to close to any of the nations i mentioned and radiation cannot be contained and would require some sort of response from the effected nations....knowing that korea would have its revenge from the grave....that would leave the US military only one logical solution to rely on conventional warfare to punish korea or any other nation that tried it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N.Korea knows that, it's borders are to close to any of the nations i mentioned and radiation cannot be contained and would require some sort of response from the effected nations....knowing that korea would have its revenge from the grave....that would leave the US military only one logical solution to rely on conventional warfare to punish korea or any other nation that tried it....

So you're saying the United States would be unable to mount a nuclear retaliation in the event of a first strike? I don't buy that, simply because such an event would be an act of aggression and I'd wager most nations nearby would step aside. And even if they wanted to get involved, the threat of thier own annihalation at the hands of the U.S. would be enough to stay their hand. Remember: the U.S. has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

The key point is that a North Korean strike on the U.S. would ineveitably result in that regime's destruction by whatever means. And last I checked, power-obsessed dictators are seldom interested in committing suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Army Guy,

One thing that many are overlooking (or aren't being told) is that North Korea cannot hit the USA with missiles...none of the so-called 'rogue nations' can.

02 August 2004

North Korea deploys new missiles

By Joseph S Bermudez JDW Special Correspondent Colorado

Emerging reports indicate that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea - DPRK) is developing-- and is in the process of deploying--at least two new ballistic missile systems.

The first is a land-based road-mobile medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM)/intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with an estimated range of 2,500-4,000km. The second is a companion submarine or ship-mounted ballistic missile system with a range of at least 2,500km. Both systems appear to be based on the decommissioned Soviet R-27 (NATO: SS-N-6) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).

This is from Jane's Defence Weekly.

The distance from Seoul to Honolulu is 4550 miles, or about 7,000km.

Clearly, 'rogue-nation' missiles are not a legitimate threat. Unless Russia, Germany or Britain sudden goes 'rogue'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

So you're saying the United States would be unable to mount a nuclear retaliation in the event of a first strike?

Thats not what i said ....I said the US could not just attack Korea with a nuclear strike without severly effecting the surounding nations...

I'd wager most nations nearby would step aside.

Do you really think that China or russia would stand by when millions of acres of land become unusable, that water supplies became unuseable,that millions would be poisoned with radition, those what did not die would be effected for generations to come... what response do they have.... thank you may i have another....

And even if they wanted to get involved, the threat of thier own annihalation at the hands of the U.S. would be enough to stay their hand. Remember: the U.S. has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over.

I think we are all underestamating what a standard 100 mega ton warhead can do....it's devastion is truely unthinkable....you don't need thousands to eliment the US as Russia has ...you don't need hundreds ....maybe 20 or 30 would put the US back into the stone ages along with the rest of us....

And last I checked, power-obsessed dictators are seldom interested in committing suicide.

So why did Sadam cross the line so many times....

Flea bag:

ICBM's are not limited to land based launch systems ...as you pionted out in your article they have subs that are capable of closing in to within the the 2500 km raduis.

i also might add that so does India and Pakastan have sub cabability......for the right price anyone can buy an EX Russian sub,plane,tank,munitions..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that China or russia would stand by when millions of acres of land become unusable, that water supplies became unuseable,that millions would be poisoned with radition, those what did not die would be effected for generations to come... what response do they have.... thank you may i have another....

Regardless, a North Korean strike on the U.S. would ineveitably result in that regime's destruction. SO WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM?

I think we are all underestamating what a standard 100 mega ton warhead can do....it's devastion is truely unthinkable....you don't need thousands to eliment the US as Russia has ...you don't need hundreds ....maybe 20 or 30 would put the US back into the stone ages along with the rest of us....

And the U.S would retain the capability to destroy whoever attacked them. Which brings us back to M.A.D

So why did Sadam cross the line so many times....

Because he miscalculated. However, it's hard to miscalculate what the reponse to a nuclear attack would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

Regardless, a North Korean strike on the U.S. would ineveitably result in that regime's destruction. SO WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM?

The detonation of just one large nuclear warhead on any large US city would be a serious blow to the US....it would take most if not all thier resources to look after the aftermath of such an attack....

maybe to the piont it would alter the balance of power..for example if the US had to pull in alot of it's troops in foreign nations to deal with the after math it would alter the balance of power in those specific areas...If there was enough of these areas were effected it would level the playing field...IE US would not be the big kid on the block any longer....and hostile nations may take advantage of that....I'm not saying that N Korea would not get what is due her...I'm saying that the balance of the world would have changed and it leaves alot of what if's.....So whats in it for them "everything"....

And the U.S would retain the capability to destroy whoever attacked them. Which brings us back to M.A.D

I think you answer your own question here Why the US would not attack N.Korea with a Nuk strike....MAD

Because he miscalculated. However, it's hard to miscalculate what the reponse to a nuclear attack would be.
And last I checked, power-obsessed dictators are seldom interested in committing suicide.

Sadam is not the only Dictator capable of miscalculating, And YES i agree with you it would be hard to calculate what the US would do if attacked by a single or few nuk wpns....but by having the BMD there protecting them they would not have to worry about a nuk detonation on US soil...and could begin arrangements for conventional warfare ASAP to punish those responsable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The detonation of just one large nuclear warhead on any large US city would be a serious blow to the US....it would take most if not all thier resources to look after the aftermath of such an attack....

maybe to the piont it would alter the balance of power..for example if the US had to pull in alot of it's troops in foreign nations to deal with the after math it would alter the balance of power in those specific areas...If there was enough of these areas were effected it would level the playing field...IE US would not be the big kid on the block any longer....and hostile nations may take advantage of that....I'm not saying that N Korea would not get what is due her...I'm saying that the balance of the world would have changed and it leaves alot of what if's.....So whats in it for them "everything"....

But what good would it do the North Korean regime if the price of causing this power shift is its own destruction?

I think you answer your own question here Why the US would not attack N.Korea with a Nuk strike....MAD

But the U.S's nuclear capability far outstrips that of North Kopea. It outstrips that of China, Russia, India and Pakistan. If any of those nations chose to step in to a U.S./N.K nuclear exchange, they would themselves be wiped out. International law recognizes a nation's right to act in self-defence and I don't think a limited nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Niorth Korea, with NK playing the aggressor, would be enough to draw any other nation in. Why any of these states would ally themselves (posthumously) with a rouge regime is also a mystery to me.

Sadam is not the only Dictator capable of miscalculating, And YES i agree with you it would be hard to calculate what the US would do if attacked by a single or few nuk wpns....but by having the BMD there protecting them they would not have to worry about a nuk detonation on US soil...and could begin arrangements for conventional warfare ASAP to punish those responsable.

Here's the thing about dictators, especially ones that build their regimes around cults of personality: they are obsessed with survival. They want to keep power and maintaining it. Saddam Hussein erred in Kuwait and in the last war because he underestimated the U.S's stomach for war, but he never acted directly against the U.S.A. because he knew that any attack against U.S. forces would definitely result in his end. He gambled, but lost. However, there's no reason to think a power-mad megalomaniac like Korea's Dear leader would take a step, such as launching a nuclear attack, that would guarantee his destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black dog:

But what good would it do the North Korean regime if the price of causing this power shift is its own destruction?

Not if the balance of power shifted and those now in power told the US to Back down....

But the U.S's nuclear capability far outstrips that of North Kopea. It outstrips that of China, Russia, India and Pakistan. If any of those nations chose to step in to a U.S./N.K nuclear exchange, they would themselves be wiped out.

Lets say the US does mange to find the sub, or land station that fired the one or few missles....after detonation....that those countries surrounding the N Korea would not be on the phone telling the president that we can not allow you to strike back with nuk wpns due to fact we can not sustain the damage on our side of the border...and a launch would be consider an act of war...

Im "hoping" that the US would agree an inform them that the US would use conventional means to punish who ever....

International law recognizes a nation's right to act in self-defence and I don't think a limited nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Niorth Korea, with NK playing the aggressor, would be enough to draw any other nation in.

Not if other nations are going to suffer as well....you don't think a huge radiation cloud would ....one that could kill thousands of your own countrymen would be worth a response of some sort...other than hey nice shot

Why any of these states would ally themselves (posthumously) with a rouge regime is also a mystery to me. you mean China and N.korea...

Korea's Dear leader would take a step, such as launching a nuclear attack, that would guarantee his destruction.

He has already threaten war with the US ...the N korean border is at the highest state of alert in the world...is that a sign of a stable man..if the US was to show any of those countries a sign of weakness they would take advantage of it....and it does not have to be N korea....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if the balance of power shifted and those now in power told the US to Back down....

The U.S's nuclear arsenal and conventional military might means they will retain the upper hand.

Lets say the US does mange to find the sub, or land station that fired the one or few missles....after detonation....that those countries surrounding the N Korea would not be on the phone telling the president that we can not allow you to strike back with nuk wpns due to fact we can not sustain the damage on our side of the border...and a launch would be consider an act of war...

What do you suppose the U.S.'s response would be. I reckon it would be something along the lines of "Tough titty. Sorry you're downwind, but stay out of our business."

Regardless, even a conventional response by the U.S. would enable them to wipe out Norh korea, bringing us right back to the core, which is whether any one belives North Korea would committ suicide just to inflict some damage on the U.S.A.

Not if other nations are going to suffer as well....you don't think a huge radiation cloud would ....one that could kill thousands of your own countrymen would be worth a response of some sort...other than hey nice shot

I think you're exagerating the degree of response. I doubt we'd see a wholesale blanketing oft he North with nukes. What would probably happen would be the U.S. would use small tactical nukes to target military facilities, and othe rhigh value targets.

Frankly, there's also too many "if's" in your scenario.

you mean China and N.korea...

If forced to choose between its largest economic trading partner (which also happens to have the largest military force in the world, as well as the backing of most other western nations) and a pissant, third-world despot, who would China (rationally) side with, especially in the face of North Korean aggression?

He has already threaten war with the US

AntiAmerican bluster plays well with the home crowd.

...the N korean border is at the highest state of alert in the world...is that a sign of a stable man..

Tet they've avoided war for 50 years and, prior to Bush's "Axis of Evil" bullshit, were moving towards normalized relations.

if the US was to show any of those countries a sign of weakness they would take advantage of it....and it does not have to be N korea....

What kind of "sign of weakness"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, even a conventional response by the U.S. would enable them to wipe out Norh korea, bringing us right back to the core, which is whether any one belives North Korea would committ suicide just to inflict some damage on the U.S.A.

I don't think the question is whether North Korea as a whole would choose to launch; the only opinion that matters is the guy giving orders. If he feels his regime is being brought down and his life is in danger, does the fate of the rest of the country matter a lot to him?

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he feels his regime is being brought down and his life is in danger, does the fate of the rest of the country matter a lot to him?

TRhat would indicate he's being threatened, right? But my understanding of BMD is that it's to protect the States in the event that a "rogue" nation attacks first. In otehr words, if the U.S wanted to pull a regime change in North korea, then yeah, he might use a nuke. But then I would expect the use of a nuke would have to be strategic. for example, why hit L.A., when you can wipe out your attacker's forces? Does NK even have the ability to hit North America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRhat would indicate he's being threatened, right? But my understanding of BMD is that it's to protect the States in the event that a "rogue" nation attacks first. In otehr words, if the U.S wanted to pull a regime change in North korea, then yeah, he might use a nuke. But then I would expect the use of a nuke would have to be strategic. for example, why hit L.A., when you can wipe out your attacker's forces? Does NK even have the ability to hit North America?

Use a nuclear device as a tactical weapon on the battlefield? I suppose that's a possibility. Whether they have missiles with the capability of hitting North America, or are developing them, I couldn't say. I'm sure Stoker might have more information on all of these issues.

However, I believe the capability of hitting North America with a nuclear weapon *is* a threat that a nut-cup dictator could and would use to preserve his regime. To borrow from an episode of The Simpsons, one might say that for the US to depose the regime in North Korea or Iran would be like taking candy from a baby... but if that baby had a pistol, taking the candy could be hazardous indeed, as Monty Burns found out the hard way. (there is certainly the argument to be made that one shouldn't be taking candy from babies in the first place, but there are a great many variables to consider that I won't go into here. One thing is for sure, which is that if one decides that it is necessary to take candy from the baby, and if that baby does indeed have a handgun, the issue becomes a lot more complicated.)

There's also the question of whether a nuclear device even has to be fired to be used. If someone runs into a convenience store waving a pistol and demanding money, have they used the pistol in committing a robbery? Sure. Even if they never fire a shot. The pistol has been used to demonstrate the capability of inflicting grievious harm or death, and to intimidate the clerk into cooperating out of fear of the potential consequences. If/when North Korea or Iran or Israel or whoever demonstrate the capability of inflicting a nuclear attack, they've already begun using their nuclear weapons. They're using their capability to alter their relationship with other nations. And I think the goal of BMD is to prevent nuclear missiles from being used in this manner, just as much as it's to prevent the actual employment of nuclear missiles.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I believe the capability of hitting North America with a nuclear weapon *is* a threat that a nut-cup dictator could and would use to preserve his regime.

Well, yeah. It's called "deterrence". And the problem with sabre rattling (like, oh, say, calling a country part of an "axis of evil") is that these nations say to themselves "Hey, they're coming for us, and the only way we'll be able to deter them is by getting nukes." So, BMD is a band-aid to cover up diplomatic failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I believe the capability of hitting North America with a nuclear weapon *is* a threat that a nut-cup dictator could and would use to preserve his regime.

Well, yeah. It's called "deterrence". And the problem with sabre rattling (like, oh, say, calling a country part of an "axis of evil") is that these nations say to themselves "Hey, they're coming for us, and the only way we'll be able to deter them is by getting nukes." So, BMD is a band-aid to cover up diplomatic failures.

Indeed. However, do you suppose it's conceivable that at some point it might be in the best interest of the common good to depose some regime? Do you suppose that there are some situations where diplomacy is almost certain to fail?

Just to be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm not myself particularly sure BMD is a good idea to start with, and I think there are a great many things that could be done with the hundreds of billions of dollars that would do more to increase the day to day security of Americans. I had that argument with Stoker months ago and we somewhat agreed to disagree. But my feeling also is that if they're going ahead with it and they're financing the development, then it doesn't hurt us. And if we're involved in its deployment in a NORAD-like arrangement, I think that would be in our best interest as well.

-kimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear kimmy,

However, do you suppose it's conceivable that at some point it might be in the best interest of the common good to depose some regime? Do you suppose that there are some situations where diplomacy is almost certain to fail?
Indeed, and it is likely. However, it is imperative that international law, and therefore the UN (or an organization of states like the UN) be the sole judge of international transgressions, not individual nations. The risk of acting unilaterally could place the world back in the days of pre-wwII, with allegiances, alignments and alliances.
But my feeling also is that if they're going ahead with it and they're financing the development, then it doesn't hurt us.
While I would like to agree, and perhaps years ago would have, Canada should not be doing anything that gives the unilateral actions of the US any sort of legitimacy.

here is a strange analogy of the Canada/US relationship....

suppose your next door neighbour joins the Hell's Angel's, and starts a couple of 'turf wars', assassinates some rival gang members, and gets really, really rich. Then, your neighbour says..."Things are starting to get pretty hot, and there may be some shooting around here...no fault of mine, of course,...But, I am going to build a bulletproof fence around my property. Say, why don't I include your place when I build it? Just think, a free bulletproof fence! How could you possibly not want it?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flea bag:

Indeed, and it is likely. However, it is imperative that international law, and therefore the UN (or an organization of states like the UN) be the sole judge of international transgressions, not individual nations. The risk of acting unilaterally could place the world back in the days of pre-wwII, with allegiances, alignments and alliances.

The UN is a toothless beast run by third world wanna bes, while they sit and debate in there air conditioned forums....transgressions as you call them such as Rwanda, somolia, Bosina, and many many more went on killing thousands ...there are sometimes when a Nation must standup save the lives regardless of international laws...when it's done the UN can debate whether it was wrong or not.... But at least that nation can say it did the right thing....

Lets throw this into your senario, while you have been debating whether or not to put this fence because it's free, and your moral valves don't or won't allow you to have anything to do with the bikers....and your to cheap to put up your own fence up..... your 3 year old son is shot dead in your front yard....is your moral valuves worth all that...

How could you not possiable want it....since our majic wand is in the shop we can not change who are niebours are,or what they do....but we can take some steps to prepare ourselfs for what may happen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Army Guy,

transgressions as you call them such as Rwanda,
Canada, Belgium and a couple of other countries sent troops to Rwanda, the US refused. They did a 'cost analysis', and figured a ratio of 85,000 Rwandan deaths were worth the approximate value of 1 US soldier.
The UN is a toothless beast run by third world wanna bes, while they sit and debate in there air conditioned forums
I will certainly agree the UN needs reform, but not abolition. As to third world wannabes, the nations that have veto power in the UN are;The United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France. Hardly a collection of 'tin-pot dictators'.
But at least that nation can say it did the right thing....
By what standards, and by whom shall 'the right thing to do', be judged? It must be the international community, not one member.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one might say that for the US to depose the regime in North Korea or Iran would be like taking candy from a baby

Where did you come up with that idea. Look at the problems that the USA has had in Iraq which was basically disarmed with no WMD. Is that your idea of taking candy from a baby. Well look out for "BABY"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flea Bag:

Canada, Belgium and a couple of other countries sent troops to Rwanda, the US refused. They did a 'cost analysis', and figured a ratio of 85,000 Rwandan deaths were worth the approximate value of 1 US soldier.

We sent troops after the carnage was completed a field hospital, and HQ organization barely 300 troops ..Gen Delaire pleaded with the world to act...they did not...he also pleaded to Canada his own country...they did not act...so we are hardly the postition to throw stones...

I will certainly agree the UN needs reform, but not abolition. As to third world wannabes,

The UN does have it's place, but not in keeping the worlds peace or even handing out world aid....my comment was it was run by third world wanna bes with there own agenda.....

By what standards, and by whom shall 'the right thing to do', be judged? It must be the international community, not one member.

Inter-national Law is set in my opinion to the average western standards of Moral conduct and values...But having said laws are useless if they are to be debated in the UN assembly for more than 100 days while over 800,000 are being killed by dull machettes....

We can continue this on another thread if you wish....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...