Donald Trump ditches Obama-era restrictions on use of landmines, citing 'great power competition'

They are not ok in Korea and should be removed.

 

Princess Diana made it a major project to get rid of them.

 

After WW1, some people (lovers of life), concerned to avoid a repeat of that catastrophe, worked to establish a "League of Nations".

ie, they promoted an investment in reason, to overcome age-old instinctive tribalism.

Only a minority of nations joined, and some withdrew when they felt so inclined....the League failed to achieve its vision of eliminating war as a means of international dispute settlement.

Why?

For the same reason that the veto was forced onto the SC during the creation of the UN in 1946, against the wishes of many delegates, mostly representatives of smaller nations, who wanted to establish a workable international rules based system for the first time in history*.

* of course Hitler should not have been able to march into Poland, but in the absence of an international rules based system in which war is de-legitimised, what followed was the natural outcome....

A veto forced onto the SC because of great power rivalry....and your world view in which absolute national sovereignty is more important than an international rules-based system (the consequence of instinct over reason).

So I'll ask you.....who are so ready to buy Starjet's Rand-based irrationality dressed up as rationality....why should you be regarded as other than a warmonger, except perhaps you are simply unaware of "the human condition" (google it) and how it affects the way you think.

 

Are you saying the UN Veto is at the heart of international conflict?
If you have a "rules based system" in 1939, who is going to impose it on Germany?

 

They are nowhere okay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Your "why" is too simplistic. I'll explain further later when I'm not cooking dinner and then having to go to work.

 

I did not claim you did ..

 

Then why mention nukes?

 

So imagine you had the chance to remove all the land mines along the Demilitarized Zone.
You are advised that doing this increases the chance armies will cross the zone and fight.
That's a Big Issue, it could lead to WWIII.
You also know these mines are in no-man's land and no effecting any civilians.
Would you still remove those land mines?

 

Kal - you have yet to. respond to my initial post to you - the long one - in a coherent fashion - never mind the nukes - it was an analogy - perhaps a big hyperbolic -- no worries ..

 

I've never seen what the big deal was about land mines. If another nation wants us to remove them they should be sure to lose the war to us.

North Vietnam wanted control of all of Indochina. They won it. Let them remove them.

 

The Confederates did that (makeshift mines anyway) Ahead of Sherman's troops. Sherman responded by ordering captured Confederate soldiers to clear them.

Suddenly the Confederates stopped laying mines....

 

The anti personnel land mines in Korea are there to protect the anti tank landmines. To keep the North Koreans from going in and clearing the anti tank mines.

 

The U.S. used very few tanks in the Vietnam War. On the other hand South Vietnam was ultimately crushed by a massive armored invasion by North Vietnam.

 

Sorry, which post number? Think I missed it? I get lots of notifications. Wish this site would only give notifications for people quoting you instead of also including notifications for people replying to a thread. Makes it a pain to find all the ones that quote you.

 

Post 108 - was a long one.

 

I'll look it up and address it when I get of off work. Replying on phones suxticates.

 

Yes.

The UN security Council which, as the ultimate adjudicator on international (but not national) law, supporting a UN Charter in which war as a method of dispute settlement is at last criminalised and delegitimised.... such an UNSC with ultimate control of 99.9% of the world's military force (even more if today Japan and Germany - the 3rd and 4th largest economies - are permanent SC members)... get the picture....?

Now of course in such a world, Germany's military build up would have been prevented, in the 1930's, under an international rules based system in which war is illegal, because a military build up in one nation obviously has international ramifications which would attract the interest of the UNSC.

In fact if an international rules based system is established, most nations would choose to limit development of their military to that which is required for management of their INTERNAL security only.
That's why those delegates from smaller nations, in 1946, could see the advantage of a powerful UNSC maintaining security in a world in which war is finally criminalised.

Reason over instinct...are you with me yet?

 

So let's see what might have happened. We have a non-veto based UN. Hitler rearms.
England, Poland, France oppose this. America, Canada, Australia don't care. Soviet
Union, Austria, Sudenetenland, Italy and the Arab nations support it (Arabs love Nazis
and USSR has a pact.)

With a modern veto system England, France and USA oppose German rearmament.
Russia and China veto any resolution condemning Germany.

In either case, no-one wants to go fight the Germans. No-one wants their troops to
be a part of any Korean War style mission.

 

I like your post (#one hundred and eight), but I have concerns re the word "legitimate" and "civilised" .

Eg, t's interesting that Starjet (you know his contributions on this thread?) and I agree on ONE THING, namely, that the concept of legal war is irrational.

Hence Starjet concludes that the rational goal of war is utter annihilation of the enemy (as with Germany and Japan in WW2)….you should see his description of how he sees the necessary fate of Moslem children and their mothers in war ...he must have knowledge of 1 Samuel 15, 1-3 (and similar ideation from Moses and Joshua, and elsewhere in the OT) with their delineation of genocide.

I conclude that war itself is should be criminalised in the UN Charter, and the "rules for conduct of war" be torn up and discarded into the dustbin of history.

Yes, well said.

So indeed this is really what we are fighting about, ie economic superiority.

Now, for my part, I would not mind accepting the US as 'world policeman' (instead of the correct solution which would see the UNSC as world policeman)….a role which the likes of Trump actually want to enforce on the world through military might and sheer economic superiority...indeed the current trade dispute with China is all about limiting China's economic clout.

But I would accept that ONLY if a social democrat like Bernie Sanders is the president, who can demonstrate to the world how a productive social democracy can eliminate poverty amongst its own people, while at the same time promoting universal sustainable development in every other nation.

 

Eventually.

 

I think there is a definition of how civilized societies should be have - the point was civilized or "uncivilized" - they still all have agreed on the landmine issue.

War is a racket - and the goal of war is to make money - these wares are conducted on basis of economic considerations - justified with moral platitudes and state sponsored propaganda.

In the broader sense - MAD has been in effect for 7 decades - such that there are only certain nations with which we can engage militarily - and the cost of engaging - as per the historical cycle - is increasing with time - and bankrupting the empire.

Trump is doubling down on this waste of money and resources - lives and our short and long term economic prosperity.

We do not need to be spending over a Trillion/year on chasing down Islamist's and pretending there is some big war we are going to be fighting anytime soon against a major power.

We have done a very poor job of policing the world. Afghanistan any better 18 years later ? It is still a jihadist wonderland and opium production has increased. How about Iraq ? That nation too we turned into a Islamist Jihadist wonderland - Libya - same thing - with the Islamist's Jihadists in charge.

We led a global effort to arm a radical Islamist proxy army in Syria - one led by Al Qaeda and ISIS. An action which led to the death of 500,000 people - war crimes, crimes against humanity .. many posted on the internet. Yemen again we are on the same side of the war as Al Qaeda.

If Bernie does nothing but stop these regime change wars - that would be a plus

Healthcare - 3.5 Trillion was spent in 2017 - near as much as total federal revenue for the year. It's a legalized extortion racket - perhaps even bigger influence/lobbyists than the Military Industrial Complex - both Oligopolies owned by the same interests in any case.

Every first world nation has Universal (UHC) - and they do it for half the money - and provide just as good care. If we were to just adopt one of the better systems - straight across the board - there is 1.7 trillion on the table.

Our current system is so obscene that even conservative groups are now calling for UHC.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

 

You are not actually considering a situation in which war is illegal.

No... in 1933, Germany would not be subject to war reparations from WW1. Hence the entire dynamic behind Hitler's rise in Germany would not exist....and in any case war is illegal in this scenario, so all arms production would be highly regulated and subject to international inspection.

That's 3 votes to 2. So now we have the decision which, by international law as per the UN Charter to which all nations have signed up (in this scenario), the SC is required to uphold.

I think you are being too caught up in the actual situation that existed in the 1930's, to see the ramifications of legitimate UNSC hegemony ie, a world without war, in today's world.

And don't forget those 50 or so delegates that actually voted to create such a UNSC, in 1946.

So I ask again, why were these delegates forced to accept the SC veto --- with this threat from the American and Russian delegations: "no veto, no UN Charter?

​

 

I can see you salivating already

 

Could we divert half of that to deficit reduction and the other half to expanding the U.S. military? We could all be winners.