The Hague Invasion Act

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well, it's amusing to speculate...

Current US military tactics involve gaining "air supremacy" and pounding the enemy into submission from the air. In theory the USAF could do that, but a lack of bases would be a problem (carriers are out, there is no such thing as a 100% effective submarine detector). So they'd be operating from Iceland. Which has itself signed up to the Rome Statutes, so they'd have to invade and conquer Iceland first: probably not difficult though. B2 stealth bombers could operate directly from Missouri, but there aren't a lot of those.

It would be difficult, but not impossible. A major ground invasion, though? No.

As for nukes: I think the Europeans would use them first. I can't see them just sitting there while their power stations, bridges, factories and so forth are pounded. Tactical nukes against airbases in Iceland, where their tormentors are coming from. They wouldn't fear retaliation in kind, because European bases would already be ruins by then. And the US wouldn't want to escalate a nuclear war, for fear of losing cities. If the US did manage to bring a carrier group and fend off European submarines: that, too, would be nuked.

Result? Stalemate.

The alternative to all this is a Special-Ops mission, but I don't think that's likely to work.

[Deathwalker]

Please do you really think it would be so easy for America to beat a united Europe.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

I don't think Europe will nuke first US cities. Maybe group of ships with carriers, advanced base ...

The first who nuke the cities of the other opponent will ignite a nuke war. Survivors will have the chance to play at Fallout 1 & 2 without computer and with full 3D environment.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Well, it's amusing to speculate...

Current US military tactics involve gaining "air supremacy" and pounding the enemy into submission from the air. In theory the USAF could do that, but a lack of bases would be a problem (carriers are out, there is no such thing as a 100% effective submarine detector). So they'd be operating from Iceland. Which has itself signed up to the Rome Statutes, so they'd have to invade and conquer Iceland first: probably not difficult though. B2 stealth bombers could operate directly from Missouri, but there aren't a lot of those.

It would be difficult, but not impossible. A major ground invasion, though? No.

As for nukes: I think the Europeans would use them first. I can't see them just sitting there while their power stations, bridges, factories and so forth are pounded. Tactical nukes against airbases in Iceland, where their tormentors are coming from. They wouldn't fear retaliation in kind, because European bases would already be ruins by then. And the US wouldn't want to escalate a nuclear war, for fear of losing cities. If the US did manage to bring a carrier group and fend off European submarines: that, too, would be nuked.

Result? Stalemate.

The alternative to all this is a Special-Ops mission, but I don't think that's likely to work.

In your scenario, the US seems to acquire air supremacy as easily as they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't think that that would happen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Amazing what bull**** gets throuh congress. Or did you just make that up, Dino ?

You give me too much credit, Roland.

"An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States."

Not if he moves his ass into that country's jurisdiction.

Can the ICC really ask for the arrest of person from a non-signatory country or are we talking about something along the lines of the possible BS extradition request from a court in Chile?

[Roland]

That was a general point about state jurisdiction. The ICC has jurisdiction if the home state or the state where the crime took place is a member. For Kissinger it's irrelevant anyway because the ICC statute is not retroactive.

[DinoDoc]

Roland: Is the "Hague Invasion Act" really as big news over in Europe as the recent repeated threads about it would indicate?

[Roland]

Not at all. IIRC it appeared as a footnote in the reports about the ICC statute getting enough ratifications to enter into force.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I can't see the President signing that. It would limit his action too much.

It's called "The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act". The title alone guarantees passage.

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Roland: Is the "Hague Invasion Act" really as big news over in Europe as the recent repeated threads about it would indicate?

I haven't heard anything about it on the main BBC news.

[Chris 62]

Stupidity reigns...

You guys kill me.

Holland forms a court, and says it will try war criminals, and they have the right to grab US military personal, so we object and we are wrong?



Sorry boys, your not in control of the world anymore, unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?

Man, you guys are silly.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Stupidity reigns...

Originally posted by Chris 62
Holland forms a court, and says it will try war criminals, and they have the right to grab US military personal, so we object and we are wrong?

Come on Chris! At least try to find out about what we are talking about before calling us stupid. This court is not being set up by Holland - it just happens to be there.

Sorry boys, your not in control of the world anymore, unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?

They have every right to grab US personel if they set foot in a country which has signed the treaty (and have done something naughty obviously). If a French soldier on holiday in the US was to murder someone in the US, wouldn't the US courts have the right to arrest him?

[Lincoln]

The point of course is not a French soldier murdering someone in the US, it is an American soldier killing an enemy combatant in another country which is ar war with the United States and being arrested and tried in the Hague years later because he happens to be vacationing in Europe or is there on other business.

[Chris 62]

Re: Re: Stupidity reigns...

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Come on Chris! At least try to find out about what we are talking about before calling us stupid. This court is not being set up by Holland - it just happens to be there.

I HAVE read up on this Rogan, it's supposed to be a world court, yet they are using European leagal codes and punishments, like no death penalty, for example.
Also, as a WORLD body, it must have the world's approval.
We don't appove.

They have every right to grab US personel if they set foot in a country which has signed the treaty (and have done something naughty obviously). If a French soldier on holiday in the US was to murder someone in the US, wouldn't the US courts have the right to arrest him?

To be tried under that NATION'S law, not some "world court".
The world court is illeagal under international law, and despite what Roland thinks, grabbing people for "war crimes" by a rogue court is an act of war, and we won't allow it.

If our personal commit warcrimes, they will be tried under the law of recognized nations, with the full support of the US, or they will be taken home and tried under the UCMJ (with is as it SHOULD be), and believe me, we wouldn't be doing them a favor.

Stop trying to tell us what to do, your the ones being pushy and arrogant, not the United States.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The point of course is not a French soldier murdering someone in the US, it is an American soldier killing an enemy combatant in another country which is ar war with the United States and being arrested and tried in the Hague years later because he happens to be vacationing in Europe or is there on other business.

Not "killing an enemy combatant".

Commiting a war crime.