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

cite, truth and justice, please, because I think that is incorrect

 

why do republicans promote lying, cheating, attacking gold star families and war hero's - sad thing is, their party supports it openly now...crazy

anything bad Trump does is ok with them it seems

 

would you trust one enough to walk on it, I would not - how about as it ages and starts to break down?

 

I wrote it slightly wrong and perhaps my point does not really address your point number 2. Satellite coverage may adequately cover Russia but it would need to do more than that - satellites would need to be able to recognise the relatively small ICBM plume at launch and trigger a defense sequence rapidly.

In 2017, it was claimed that a test was successful in intercepting a single ICBM for the first time when in ideal conditions. This was later admitted that it actually failed. More tests were later carried out which also failed.

Another test in 2019 was claimed as successful for the first time and was set up using ideal conditions such as setting up the satellite to observe the known launch site and knowing exactly when launch was to occur and knowing the ICBM trajectory and no decoys. However further examination showed that it was not as much a success as reported:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...-icbm-test-one-expert-has-some-concerns-49252

The timing of the announcement of success was conveniently made when more funds for future tests was needed. This test was just against a single ICBM in ideal test conditions. In an actual war there would be hundreds launched from many locations and also many decoy launches. No country is anywhere near being able to intercept all launched ICBMs yet

 

Yes. the U.S. has intercepted ICBMs in tests. Repeatedly.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

Looks like there have been plenty of successful tests of the ABMs currently deployed in Alaska. Sure we have only 44 and it takes a salvo of four missiles to raise the inception rate to near certainty (97%) which means right now we could only stop 11 ICBMs with what we have though the U.S. is going to deploy 20 more ABMs in Alaska.

But there is no reason we couldn't deploy 4,000 rather than just 44. Giving us the capability of intercepting 1,000 ICBMs once they are launched. That's far more than the Russians have deployed.

 

You just answered my own point.
Let's be clear - those SC members are most likely only in the UN
because they were assured their powers would not be curtailed.
If Russia, fer instance, had no veto power then she would not
have joined the body - same with America. And China would
have been happy for Taiwan to have kept her seat in the SC.
America can work with the UN, or without it.
It can work with NATO or without it.
It can work with allies or without them.

As a SC member, has China's wings been clipped? Not even
her signing of the Convention of the Sea has stopped her from
violating international laws in this area.

 

I wonder how many megawatts of power you need to destroy an ICMB with a laser?
Or even, use a laser to create a "tunnel" through the atmosphere and fire some sort
of electron or particle beam into the missile. Be interesting. Israel has a desperate
need for a weapon of that type.

 

It's an interesting point.
I understand mines were sown along the Cambodian-Thai border.
If you say "only children were harmed" then that suggests to me
the mines did their job - keeping combatants apart and saving
lives WHICH CAN'T BE COUNTED.
For sure, mines need to be removed after conflicts.

But to force America to ban mines would be handy for nations
like Russia. It could sow its own mines, confident it's not going
to step on any American/NATO mines. It would be good for
Russian tank commanders too - antitank mines are something
they fear if they invade Europe.

 

And it is the children who are losing limbs

 

Not sure why you said I didn't respond? I did. Perhaps you missed it? Here:

 

I think you kind of shoot your argument in the foot when you say "except weapons of mass destruction"

What is the problem with WMD - say Sarin Gas - Answer: It kills indiscriminately

What is the problem with Landmines - Answer: It kills indiscriminately.

What is the problem with depleted Uranium - Answer: It kills indiscriminately.

Tanks and Missiles and Guns are pointed towards a specific target - and fired - sure you may have collateral damage - and if significant is anticipated - and you fire - you may be breaking the rules of war

There are rules - rather well defined ones - on what means indiscriminate killing - and we are signatories to these rules .. or "were" in this case - although congress would never pass such a thing.

I don't like breaking these rules - You do not mind so much it seems. OK - but dollars to donuts -the arguments for my position will be better than yours

You have to define your bar better - as I have done in part - we can look up some of these definitions if you need convincing .. but I assure you I have done this previously.

Yes - we are limiting ourselves to the tools of war - and have done this intentionally - as has every other civilized nation on the planet and most of even the non civilized ones..

Indiscriminate killing - is "uncivilized" - in fact even primitive societies learned this distinction ..

What is your excuse ?

 

Have they?
Why not pay for the houses and land they steal for how long? What would you do, if someone stronger than you came along and took your home - without paying?
Reg.

 

What you say about the veto power is basically correct. It was forced because certain countries didn't want to give up sovereignty and others wanted to make sure other countries didn't get too powerful. But that is not all that there is to it. It's a small sliver actually.

War is also about preservation. And no, I'm not just talking about fighting defensively. It's about preservation of our culture. It's about preservation of what we grew up with knowing/believing that what we grew up with is "right and good". It's about opposing those things that might end our culture. Some people want complete change. But those people are far and few in between. Probably less than a hundred people world wide. Even those that espouse "complete change", of which there are a larger number, don't actually believe in "complete change". There are things that even they wish to preserve.

Other people don't want any change at all. They want to preserve everything that they possibly can. And will fight tooth and nail to do so.

And here we circle back around to "It's about preservation of our culture." If there is even a slight belief by people that X culture is threatening their culture then there is going to be conflict. Even if there is no validity in their "belief". It's the perception that leads to distrust. And even the slightest misstep can expand that distrust into hate. Which as Yoda said, leads to anger etc etc. All culminating in fighting and then war.

For that reason the UN could not have been formed without that veto power. Because that veto power gives X culture power to say "no, you're stepping to close to violating my culture" to Y culture.

This is not to say that money, power, and greed is not playing their part in all this. They most certainly are. But those two are a part of culture. Whether one wants to admit it or not.

But war will never be "de-legitimized". For the same reason that the Veto power was "forced". War will be frowned upon. Hated. People the world over will cry for it to stop. But in the end people will do whatever they can to preserve their culture. Including war.

 

The problems with the League of Nations and later the United Nations was that it sought to eliminate war between nations entirely when instead it should've focused on reducing the destructiveness of wars, confining and limiting them.

 

Sarin Gas also contaminates the surrounding areas for 6 weeks or so. Making it hard for any living thing to exist in that area. Killing off wildlife, food production etc etc.

Depleted uranium weapons leave behind radioactive dust that can affect an area for 4.5 billion years. (that's the half life of depleted uranium).​

Landmines, if exploded, only effects the immediate area around it by a few yards at most and then for only a split second.

Remember, my argument is centered around "if we're going to conduct a war then go all out so that it can be done and over with as soon as possible so we can clean up the mess and get on with our lives". "cleaning up the mess" is going to be a little hard when you can't live in an area due to radioactive contaminants or food and food production gets screwed over.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to avoid excess casualties of innocent life. But we also shouldn't let it stop us from getting a war done asap. Ex: If an enemy is hiding in a hospital and there's no easy way to get them out then bomb the hospital. However if there is an easy way to get the enemy out then get them out and shoot em between the eyes.

I say this NOT because I don't value lives as some in this thread would no doubt claim. Quite the opposite. It's because I value lives that I hold this belief. It's my belief that the longer a war is drawn out the far more casualties will occur. And not just direct casualties. But long term casualties. Casualties caused by a crashing economy caused by war. Casualties caused by food shortages etc etc etc.

Whereas with a short term war going all out, the immediate direct short term casualty rate may be high, but the long term casualty rate will be far shorter.

Again, note that this is all prefaced with "if we're going to go to war then....."

 

Ever heard of the Jezreel Valley? Northern Israel, Galilee.
The Jews bought this valley for an inflated price, as was the
case when Arabs or Turks sold land to the Jews. It was swamp
land - people suffered, some died of malaria, to drain the land
and begin the slow process of recovering it for farm land.

A British man was taken to see this valley by a Palestinian
official in the 1930's or 1940's if I recall. He looked down on the
little red roof houses, children playing, crops growing etc.. The
Palestinian said to him, "You see all this? The Jews stole it
from us."

When in fact the Jews paid through the nose for something that
had been theirs until the second century AD.

The fighting began when Arabs took offense at Jews owning land
they had legally purchased during Ottoman times. Arabs thought
they could attack each isolated farm or settlement. That's why
the Jew linked settlements to form contiguous land areas for the
purpose of defense. And during each war since, and each time
the Arabs refuse to recognize Israel, each time they declare they
will kill all the Jews given half a chance - a bit more chance is
taken from them.

 

I am all for Greater Israel and settling the Palestinians in British Columbia.

 

Israel occupies ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF ALL THE
LAND OF MIDDLE EAST. I say send the Arabs of Palestine back
to Arabia.
The Muslims occupied the Levant and Spain after the sixth or
seven Century. They were driven out of Spain, now they will
eventually, after endless fighting, get kicked out of Palestine.

 

No, I did not answer your own point; you think I did because your ideological blindness ensures your thought processes are irrational*.... and so you think war ("legal" or not) is a necessary condition of Man, which is the very essence of irrationality.

* Irrationality caused by the triumph of your self-interested instincts over your capacity to reason, aka "the human condition" which is the psychosis resulting from the freedom to search for knowledge, in opposition to the course of action dictated by our instincts. (Humans, with a highly developed cerebral cortex, and the capacity for individual conscious thought and self-awareness independent of instinctive impulse, are unique among animals in suffering from the resulting psychosis. [Recall, the words of the song "From a distance" if you doubt the universal psychosis displayed by the human race].

To your point in the above paragraph:
yes, of course, those five nations (victors in WW2) only agreed to be permanent members of the UNSC, not "most likely" but definitely "because they were assured their powers would not be curtailed" (and because they were the victors and most powerful nations (or bloc in the case of the USSR), in 1946)

In other words, none of them accepted the concept of an international rules-based system, from the very beginning, despite the fact that c.50 delegates from smaller nations begged them not to adopt the global security-destroying veto.

And so millions of children have been killed in wars since 1946....continuing this absolutely psychotic behaviour on a species-wide scale.

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe". H.G. Wells.

 

Are you a lover of Kant?
There are some similarities in your argumentation, that as far as my memories go. But I have to admit it has been a while reading his philosophical works, he certainly has left some lasting impressions:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/

For those who strive and question their own mind and judgement .....
Reg.

 

A thoughtful post, thanks.

"But in the end people will do whatever they can to preserve their culture. Including war."

Absolutely. That's why I love this HG Wells' admonition:

"(Human) civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe".

So that means eg, religious conflict, caused by adherence to the parts of culture based on outmoded belief, can finally be understood and eliminated.
eg, there is One God/Reality; education - lacking in the world at present - can ensure rational thought will prevail above attachment to any particular ancient scripture. The whole war on terror thing is caused by the failure to examine such issues beyond one's own culture.

And economics: there are in fact enough resources in the world to eradicate poverty; education will expose the old classical schools for their false premises, as AI and IT advance (and connect everyone on the planet via the internet.

Never is long time, in the history of the remarkably inventive - if psychotic* - species "homo sapiens".

*see my note about "the human condition" in post #270.

 

You need to give me an example of where UN powers could have curtailed a major war.
Have you seen the number of anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UN?
And how the UN has declared the Jewish temple in Jerusalem is actually Muslim?

 

I haven't read Kant, but I have found biologist Jeremy Griffith's exploration of "the human condition" to be quite revelatory. If the late 18th century philosopher Kant and the 20/21st century biologist Griffith have come to similar conclusions, that's rather interesting in itself.

 

[Assume 5 ("enlightened") SC members committed to an international rules-based system, in 1946, with no veto power].

The case of Israel is very informative.

In 1947, the UN voted to partition British mandate Palestine, to allow for establishment of a Jewish homeland. Jews of course accepted the UN resolution.
But the Arab states refused to accept the UN vote (they wanted to preserve the hegemony of the their own Muslim culture in Palestine; (see Kal'Stang's post #264).

Now a united UNSC acting with one voice could have been capable of guaranteeing the security of the new state of Israel (with the UNSC having access to about c. 99% of the world's military force).

But since the UNSC with veto cannot act on its security mandate (because of allegiances to different cultures), Israel has been at war with Arabs, and then more narrowly with Palestinians, ever since.

Of course the UN has always been trying to implement its resolutions in regard to Palestine eg 181 and 242, because these are the just and correct solutions to opposing viewpoints, as developed in international law.

So UN resolutions are NOT 'anti Israel', they are attempts to maintain a Palestinian state along side the original Israeli area mandated by the UN. But since the UN has not been able to prevent war between Palestinians and Israel, no UN resolutions have been implemented (mostly blocked by the US veto....)

To your final question:

There is a 1400 year old Islamic shrine (the famous "Dome of the Rock" with its golden dome, one of the earliest extant examples of Islamic architecture) sited on top of the ancient foundations of Herod's long destroyed temple in Jerusalem (destroyed by the Romans). Obviously UN Res 181 is the just recognition/adjudication of historical claims to such sites in Jerusalem.

That's the history.

..not sure your statement

is accurate, but the most recognisable feature on Jerusalem's skyline (the shrine with its golden dome), which is sited on the foundations of the 3rd Jewish temple, is certainly Islamic.


(As for the UN curtailing a "major" war, MAD itself has achieved that, so far).