Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> John Grigg wrote:
> >
> > Adian Tymes(hater of felines!) wrote:
> > Find a good use for cats, and get rid of all these dormant landmines. Actually, I was more wondering why the US wouldn't sign a treaty banning the more primitive landmines. I mean, if the US believes it is
> > resposibly using landmines, then it should have little problem asking the rest of the world to be responsible in the same way, no?
> > (end)
> >
> > The U.S. is opposed to a world ban on landmines due to the situation with the Korean demiliterized zone. The landmines there would really slow down a massive North Korean advance, thereby saving many thousands of American and South Korean lives. I w
ish the Korean situation would fizzle out so a ban could be ratified by the United States.
>
> I am no expert but the North is dirt poor compared to South
> Korea. I seriously doubt that North Korea could hope to gain
> anything from such an attack in any case. This doesn't seem
> like a great excuse for oppossing banning landmines. Also, in
> todays warfare, missles and air-power make land attack simply
> not the only or even the best option for the start of
> hostilities.
Samantha, you are no kind of expert when it comes to warfare. Missiles
and air-power alone are completely useless against a numerically
superior land force in the end-game of any conflict involving large
quantities of infantry and little artillery or armor. While submunitions
are effective in dealing with dealing with units in a fixed area, we
have no way whatsoever to deal with several million troops crossing the
border at once, especially if there are no landmines in the DMZ.
Part of the reason the North is dirt poor is because it continues to
leach about 75% of the GDP to equip and train its army, which is one of
the five largest on earth.
>
> >
> > Because we are obsessed with the notion of other nations secretly researching and building such weapons without our knowledge. This would give them the option of blackmailing the United States. I think obviously the U.S. does not want to miss the bo
at on the next technology to be a crucial equalizer.
> >
>
> We are obsessed with any nation having the means to oppose
> whatever we wish to do in the world to be succinct.
And why do you act like that is a bad thing? Name one nation in history
that has posessed the relative power we do and pursued a less
self-interested foreign policy than we have.
>
> > If we had such a treaty for weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. and United Nations would be kept very busy with invading the rogue states who are in violation! We would have a Gulf or Afghan war every year...
> >
>
> The Afghan war had nothing to do with any such thing. Neither
> did Desert Storm. Those are only subsidiary excuses.
Oh really? Just what criminally selfish economic motivations did we have
in destroying the Taliban and al Qaeda?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT