France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[Arrian]

Actually, MAD simply requires that the leaders of nuclear powers are not, in fact, mad.

They don't have to be particularly responsible. They just have to not be raving lunatics.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

On what moral gorund can the US stand, demanding others get rid of nukes entirely, if itself is not wiling to do so? And how could it ever enforce such an act if it did get rid of them before others?

That's the problem in a nutshell.

The only way around it is a much more powerful UN. A world government, even. As you say, getting 200 or so countries that mostly hate each other to agree to such a thing is unlikely in the extreme.

So what do we do? All I want is an end to morality-based hypocritical ranting by our politicians. It is, apparently, too much to ask.

-Arrian

[Az]

First of all, I'll answer your questions, GEP.

Why do the NPT and the convention on Chemical and Biological weapons stand? Why haven't those states too weak to currently battle the US, or another great power, decided that the way to personal security lies not with being able to kill as many millions as possible?

1)the NPT doesn't say that they will not have any WMD.
2)they've decided to sign the treaty because that's what the US, or at the time, the USSR, wanted them to do. You don't want to get on the bad side of your Boss, right?

OK: end the current sactions regime, install a new one, solely against weapon systems and a ban on Iraqi participation in international activities. That way, you have the Iraqi people return to wealth while keeping Saddam from effectively rearming.

AFAIK, this is more or less the current embargo. just see how the northen part of Iraq, which also operates under the food-for-oil program is prospering.

Well, the fear of total war ended in 1989: 14 years an yet no new big wars.

Nothing to do with international law, but with the fact that it is not good for the US. when the US found that war was on the best side of things, it let it occur. see the SFR Yugoslavia RIP.

No, I don't think "fear" was the only aspect to their being no new major wars: Fear of war pre-WW2 was huge, and no, I don't think nukes changed the equation much: back in the 1930's all the 'visionaries' of future war saw huge fleets of bombers gassing cities as being the future of war, yet that image of devastation was not enough to stop a huge war.

So do you want to say that it was the devoteness to the Ideas of humanism and democracy that didn't push the USSR and the US to war?

No, I think there have been no significant major new war for the same reason there were none from 1815-1914:A new system came into being, a new set of rules to play by, and the majority of the players in this system decided that, while not perfect, it was better than the possible alternatives. That system is what I call international law. Since we have no global regime, obviously it functions very differently than 'law' within states, but still it has value, it still confers "legitimacy" or "ilegitimacy" to actions. It constrains behavior, and it influences future choices by regimes about what to do.

-what was the new "system" that came into being between 1815-1914
-International law is often followed, but that's just because it is usually coinsides with the will of the superpowers. and what wonder is that? it was them who wrote it in the first place.

Could the US stop them? No. It takes months for the US to get its forces ready to attack a single state, ringed by a network of bases up for one decade, and it is using 25% of its military force. Yeah, the US might be able to fight 2 wars at the same time, but 80? Nawh. The US didn't stop India and Pak. from making nukes, and I doubt they really could have stopped them if they wanted to.

So why are you so afraid of the US making new rules? It can't enforce them anyway. ( which doesn't differ at all from the 'system' we have right now)

So, within 10 years, dozens of states could have the ability to at least deter american adventurism against them,and that of their neighbors.

it seems that it's not that easy, after all. just look at Iraq. they tried to, but have been denied repeatedly. and what about North Korea? it has nukes now. It had the ability to build nukes, AND IT DID USE THAT ABILITY. so now, they can deter american adventurism against them. as for the others, they don't need to deter american adventurism.

And some of the greatest powers choose not to be military powers. honestly, in 25 years the Japanese could build, if they wanted, a navy large enough to severely challange US control of the northern Pacific.

Actually, I believe they could do it in much less time.
But they DON'T WANT TO. they know the US will not attack them, because it wouldn't be worth it for the US. neither do they want to conquer the US, because it wouldn't be worthy, economically speaking.

They, and the Germans, could have their own ICBM's and nuclear detterents. BUt they choose not to.

because of not so distant history.

Back in 1900, very few states could have simply decided that in 10 years, they would have the ability to challenge the UK, and that was even more true in 1880. No, Britian's power in the late 19th century, compared to its fellows, was greater than that of the US today, not smaller.

a) The US started to challenge the Brits in the late 18th century.
as to europe, who exactly could challenge britain? France and Germany. France had a problem with the stability of power.
Germany did challenge Britian. in WWI.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, MAD simply requires that the leaders of nuclear powers are not, in fact, mad.

They don't have to be particularly responsible. They just have to not be raving lunatics.

If they are Minor Power leaders, they should pretend to be lunatic; just to be on the safe side.

Saddam is a case in point: His weakness is that no one thinks of him being lunatic enough to not care about his or Iraq´s survival, *IF* he can take 100.000 invaders with him. The fact that he is quite sane seems to work against him. Were I in his place, I might have better cards.

Then again, I might not be alive, because I certainly would have dropped *everything* I had on the Americans in the last war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why your hopes of using the Security Council to enforce the NPT is naive.

Who else is going to enforce it? The US cannot enforce the NPT because it isn't a US resoluton, it is a UN resolution. So if the UN can't enforce it all it means is that the NPT cannot be enforce (which for all intents and purposes... let's get real... cannot be enforced).

Btw, one of the goals of the NPT was the reduction of nuclear weapons the nuclear powers. It seems the US can't enforce its end of the bagain .

[Arrian]

I certainly would have dropped *everything* I had on the Americans in the last war.

Happily, you do not lead Iraq, or any other country.

-Arrian

edited because Imran snuck a post inbetween. Bastard.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by GePap
On what moral ground can the US stand, demanding others get rid of nukes entirely, if itself is not wiling to do so? And how could it ever enforce such an act if it did get rid of them before others?

1. Establish a truth-commision, like in South africa were the people are given a public forum were they can express their grievances.

2. Support the UN in areas of logistics and finance and improve their capability in areas of search and seizure.
The confiscation of nukes could eventually be tied up with financial recompense.

3. Make the UN a true democratic institution, maybe along the lines of the american sustem where every country have two senators in a upper house and representatives according to population in the lower.
The president is elected through a worldwide election process.

4. Make efforts to improve the understanding that everyone on the planet is a human being.

[Imran Siddiqui]

edited because Imran snuck a post inbetween. Bastard.

MWAHAHA!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian


Happily, you do not lead Iraq, or any other country.

-Arrian

edited because Imran snuck a post inbetween. Bastard.

Dunno; the North Korean strat works: 'Yes, you CAN go to war against us, but prepare to lose Seattle, if you do. And you know I mean it.'

Sounds like a powerful strat, really.

[Arrian]

Make the UN a true democratic institution, maybe along the lines of the american sustem where every country have two senators in a upper house and representatives according to population in the lower.
The president is elected through a worldwide election process

Most of the countries on the planet are not democratic. The largest one, by population, sure as hell isn't. So you would hand a ton of authority in a democratic supra-national organization to a totalitarian government?

This is just one reason why we are a loooooooooong way from a world government, at best.
-Arrian

[Arrian]

CT,

I am not questioning the apparently usefulness of the "I'm a wacko with nukes" approach. I'm just glad you do not wield power in the world.

-Arrian

[Maroule]

Originally posted by Ozz
I bet it would be easier to get agreement here on invading France than Iraq.

That's already happening. Every year 50 million people visit France

[Arrian]

Come on, you know the Brits agreed to the Chunnel so that they can enact their secret "get back Normandy & Gascony" plan in 2023.

-Arrian

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Arrian
I am not questioning the apparently usefulness of the "I'm a wacko with nukes" approach. I'm just glad you do not wield power in the world.

And you SHOULD be glad; if you support the New World Order, that is.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Maroule
That's already happening. Every year 50 million people visit France

50 Million? Is there even 50 million people in France?