From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Dec 24 2001 - 17:15:27 MST
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 wish 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.
>
> 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 boat 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.
> 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.
> Of course, all very powerful nations would be given "get out of jail free!" cards. We can't risk WWIII by invading folks who are too numerous and well-armed! And I seriously doubt the U.N. will mount a military expedition against the U.S. if we are found to be treaty violators! lol!
Not funny. I am very slowly coming around to the view that the
UN should have the best firepower. Except then they would be
the Great Bully. Failing that, it is in the interest of freedom
as long as we insist on using violence with one another, that
more states are well armed and able to resist agression rather
than less. Of course, personally, I believe that we don't stand
a chance of surviving much longer without eschewing violence as
completely as possible (the Vulcan model?).
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:48 MST