Inf Treaty

[Stuart Galbraith]

IMHO, we would do well to work towards the abolition of nuclear weapon's. Delivery systems seem a bit of a moot point when you can drop them from the bomb bay of a bomber, or even ship them in a 20ft container.

 

Its why im against missile defence. Its pretending you have a solution to nuclear weapons, and you really dont. Its like having fire insurance only, for a house on a flood plain.

[Panzermann]

IMHO, we would do well to work towards the abolition of nuclear weapon's. Delivery systems seem a bit of a moot point when you can drop them from the bomb bay of a bomber, or even ship them in a 20ft container.

 

Its why im against missile defence. Its pretending you have a solution to nuclear weapons, and you really dont. Its like having fire insurance only, for a house on a flood plain.

 

Game theory exlains the problem. In a nuclear war is only one round to be played. In such a game the most selfish, lying, deceptive, double-minded behaviour is the most advantegeous. And shoot first of course to have any chance at "winning". Which makes negotiations to reduce the threat so bloody difficult.

 

 

With dropping the ABM treaty the USA have heated up the situation and with the INF dropped it heats up even more.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Panzermann

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Americans have only heated it up, if you think that now acknowleding the Russians are breaking the treaty is cooling it. Nobody forced them to do it. It as also reasonable to expect Trump to sit on his hands as someone keeps tweaking his nose.

 

I disagree with damn near everything the man does, but he was right on this one. He is just acknowleding the facts on the ground.

[JasonJ]

Besides, the PLA Rocket Force needs a little eye for an eye treatment.

[Nobu]

He is just acknowledging the facts on the ground.

 

It may also be an acknowledgement of Washington's declining interest taking on leadership of global security measures that do not affect it directly, as due to geography, the United States is less threatened by intermediate-range missiles. If that is the case, then it is up to others to fill this vacuum.

 

If the current permanent membership of the UNSC is unwilling to shoulder this responsibility on behalf of the rest of the world (minus India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) who joined NPT, then that membership should be reformed to include those nations that are: Japan, Germany, and Brazil.

[Roman Alymov]

If the current permanent membership of the UNSC is unwilling to shoulder this responsibility on behalf of the rest of the world (minus India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) who joined NPT, then that membership should be reformed to include those nations that are: Japan, Germany, and Brazil.

Why do you think Japan have more right for nuclear arms than Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or South Africa? Or Vietnam or Indonesia?

Why Germny but not Italy or Sweeden or Spain?

Why Brazil but not Mexico?

Not mentioning the idea of nuclear Japan is hardly acceptable for China....

Edited February 17, 2019 by Roman Alymov

[Nobu]

Leaving the nuclear weapons state status of the permanent membership of the UNSC aside, the question is really why India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel think they have more right to nuclear weapons than the 189 other countries who signed NPT on the understanding that the UNSC P5 would assume the necessary leadership to ensure doing so would increase their security.

 

If the UNSC is unwilling or unable to do that, open it to those nations that can. Japan and Germany are the logical next candidates for UNSC expansion.

[Roman Alymov]

Leaving the nuclear weapons state status of the permanent membership of the UNSC aside, the question is really why India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel think they have more right to nuclear weapons than the 189 other countries who signed NPT on the understanding that the UNSC P5 would assume the necessary leadership to ensure doing so would increase their security.

 

If the UNSC is unwilling or unable to do that, open it to those nations that can. Japan and Germany are the logical next candidates for UNSC expansion.

I do not know what is "open it to those nations that can" in your understanding. As India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel example demonstrate, this option is open - but country who chose it have to carry the consequences - as technologically nuke is no more cutting edge high-tech in our age. Imagine China reacting to Japan nuclear program the same way US is reacting on NK nuclear program. Are Japanese ready to eat grass like North Koreans did? Are they ready to face China strikes on power grid, ports and key infrastructure to deny Japan ability to create nukes?

[lastdingo]

Japan and Germany are the logical next candidates for UNSC expansion.

 

I disagree considering their governments (same with Brazil).

 

Here are a couple excellent potential permanent seat UNSC members (remember, it's a jury, not an executiner's committee):

 

- Switzerland

- Sweden

- Costa Rica

- India (especially considering it'll be the most populous country soon)

[Stuart Galbraith]

Switzerland, that still holds Nazi war loot, India that can teach the PRC a thing or two about corruption?

 

I also dont see any reason to include nations that dont feel an obligation to uphold UNSC mandates having a right to vote on them. I mean no disrespect to Sweden, but they are neutrals. I cant see them taking part in operations against North Korea if it came to it.

[lastdingo]

Switzerland doesn't hold Nazi war loot, Swiss banks may be.

India may be corrupt, but it's not aggressive and will be the most populous country in the world with more than one quarter of the world's population soon. Britain's moral claim to permanent UNSC seat is laughable by comparison.

 

 

I also dont see any reason to include nations that dont feel an obligation to uphold UNSC mandates having a right to vote on them.

 

The U.S. doesn't even respect article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. It's systematically sabotaging, delaying and refusing global agreements such as the Climate Accords or the ICC. I don't see a reason why it should have a permanent UNSC seat.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Has Switzerland addressed the faults of its banks? Nope. How do you think Israel is going to take votes on its security headed by Switzerland, whose banks are still bulging with war loot? And why would they feel any more compelled to do anything but ignore it, as they do now? If its not an enhancement to the institution, whats the point?

 

 

Britain is a nuclear power, and one of the founders of the postwar world that brought the UN to fruition. Id say Germany, which has avoided taking any complicated decisions about foreign policy or active military support of UN solution for decades, is difficult sell. Any UNSC member is going to be expected to contribute troops to resolutions requiring military force. So Germany votes with the US, Britain and France, then pats them on the back and tell's them 'Good Luck'. Its just not going to work is it?

 

Its completely academic anyway. Its not Britain or America that is the problem here, Russia and the PRC are not going to bring people in that will marginalize their vote, and any change to the UNSC I think is going to require reform of the veto vote, or nothing is going to get done.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[sunday]

Is still true that having SSBNs is the distinguishing feature of all permanent member of UNSC?

[Stuart Galbraith]

There is probably some truth in that. Which would of course qualify India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Arihant

[lastdingo]

Has Switzerland addressed the faults of its banks? Nope. How do you think Israel is going to take votes on its security headed by Switzerland, whose banks are still bulging with war loot?

 

Britain is a nuclear power, and one of the founders of the postwar world that brought the UN to fruition.

 

You're focusing too much on the completely imaginary enforcement job of UNSC permanent seat countries. There's no such thing in their job description. The job at that table is about decisionmaking. It's a jury, not a bunch of executioners. The job of the council is to keep the peace, and countries that kept the peace for 200y ears belong there a lot more than warmonger countries. The U.S: habitually bombs foreign countries for practically no reason or gain.

 

Mob bosses make poor judges, and both the U.S. and the UK, but also France and Russia have severely and repeatedly violated the basic tenets of the United Nations, particularly article I.

 

The Indians, Swiss and Swedes have a clean record by comparison.

 

I'm with the Swiss if they decided to laugh Israel in the face if it ever dares claiming that Israel has a higher moral ground than Switzerland.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thats right, lets reward nations that sat out the Cold War in preference to the ones that didnt. Thats bound to work out brilliantly. You are putting the responsibility for international security in the hands of people that routinely shy away from it. Its like making a man scared of guns the town Sheriff.

 

 

In the end, it really doesnt matter, because neither the PRC or Russia is going to apply anyone that isnt like them, ie dictatorships. And Britain, France and the United States wont admit anyone that isnt like them, Democracies. If you can bridge that divide, good luck.

[Nobu]

Sweden is interesting in various ways, and I believe Stockholm's case for inclusion in a long overdue reform of the UNSC permanent membership would be a good one.

 

India's case for inclusion is not, based for the most part on the role it has played and is currently playing in the weakening of the NPT system, the continuing violence on its borders that just 48 hours ago appears to be escalating once again, and on serious socioeconomic human rights concerns.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Nobu

[DKTanker]

They were forward deploying SS20 as far west as the Baltic states. Wouldnt surprise me if they could have reached Newfoundland from there.

Ottawa, Boston, Nairobi, Mogadishu. Would have done everyone a favor by vaporizing the last one.

[DKTanker]

 

But you had the Bangles. My God, I had such a crush on Susannah Hoffs at the time.

 

You and every other post pubescent male with an intact Y chromosome.

[DKTanker]

Music in the early 1980's was great. Certainly in Europe in any case.

Like Culture Club and Kajagoogoo?

[Nobu]

Roman, if I may, I believe we may be misinterpreting each other in this instance. My belief is that Japan's adherence to the NPT system in contrast to UNSC aspirant India should add to Japan's case for UNSC permanent membership, not that it should support a case for Japan's nuclear weaponization along similar Indian lines.

 

because neither the PRC or Russia is going to apply anyone that isnt like them, ie dictatorships. And Britain, France and the United States wont admit anyone that isnt like them, Democracies.

 

Curiously, both Moscow and Beijing have endorsed permanent UNSC membership for India, which probably says something about which direction India and Indians are headed as a nation.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Nobu

[Colin]

 

If the current permanent membership of the UNSC is unwilling to shoulder this responsibility on behalf of the rest of the world (minus India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) who joined NPT, then that membership should be reformed to include those nations that are: Japan, Germany, and Brazil.

Why do you think Japan have more right for nuclear arms than Iran? Or Saudi Arabia? Or South Africa? Or Vietnam or Indonesia?

Why Germny but not Italy or Sweeden or Spain?

Why Brazil but not Mexico?

Not mentioning the idea of nuclear Japan is hardly acceptable for China....

 

Of all the countries mentioned, which one is currently promising the annihilation of another country and people?

[Roman Alymov]

Of all the countries mentioned, which one is currently promising the annihilation of another country and people?

 

 

Why is to decide where is "promising the annihilation of another country and people" and where is legitimate defense with all means possible? To make decisions like that, some kind of global governing body is needed, and it is nonexistent now.

[Roman Alymov]

Roman, if I may, I believe we may be misinterpreting each other in this instance. My belief is that Japan's adherence to the NPT system in contrast to UNSC aspirant India should add to Japan's case for UNSC permanent membership, not that it should support a case for Japan's nuclear weaponization along similar Indian lines.

 

because neither the PRC or Russia is going to apply anyone that isnt like them, ie dictatorships. And Britain, France and the United States wont admit anyone that isnt like them, Democracies.

 

Curiously, both Moscow and Beijing have endorsed permanent UNSC membership for India, which probably says something about which direction India and Indians are headed as a nation.

First, let me disagree with labeling China and Russia dictatorships - as both countries are non-Western style democracies.

Current UNSC was developed from Franklin D. Roosevelt "four policemen" concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Policemen- as we see, it is very old concept (even older than nuclear arms) dating to the age of empires and rooted in WWII results. But is it outdated? Is modification possible without having WWIII first? I do not know.

Re Japan's adherence to the NPT system as the reason for possible UNSC permanent membership - i do not think it is working this way. Indonesia, country twice as populous as Japan, is also non-nuclear - why Japan is more eligible for permanent membership than Indonesia?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Music in the early 1980's was great. Certainly in Europe in any case.

Like Culture Club and Kajagoogoo?

 

 

Now I liked 'Karma Chamelion'.

 

I cant say looking back I'm particularly proud of myself, but....