Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to break a volunteer army...

124»

Posts

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    You have to think of those veto powers as "Well, if we told you that you had to do this no matter what, you'd just tell us to Fuck Off anyway. So we'd figure we'd give you an official way to do it, to make it look like there's a system that everyone follows in place.".

    I understand exactly what the veto powers are, but they make a mockery of the whole system and the more countries are involved the more ridiculous it gets. There are 192 countries in the UN and 191 can agree on something but be blocked by 1 country. It's an even bigger joke when a country can veto a resolution against itself.

    Well, how many of those 192 countries can blow up a goodly portion, or even the whole planet?

    This is why I say it makes a mockery of the system. If being more powerful than most gives a country an excuse (and the right) to ignore international law then it is not law. Furthermore, it encourages countries to increase their military power in order to get to the point where they can use the threat of force to get what they want regardless of the law.

    "Everyone do what I say because I've got the bomb!" is hardly a sound basis for an institution intended to prevent and resolve conflict.

  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    It's not sound basis, but it's human nature for sure.

    "Get off that swing or I'll throw a rock at your head."

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fuck.. the army suicide rate has hit a 26-year high.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • FarseerBaradasFarseerBaradas Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    You have to think of those veto powers as "Well, if we told you that you had to do this no matter what, you'd just tell us to Fuck Off anyway. So we'd figure we'd give you an official way to do it, to make it look like there's a system that everyone follows in place.".

    I understand exactly what the veto powers are, but they make a mockery of the whole system and the more countries are involved the more ridiculous it gets. There are 192 countries in the UN and 191 can agree on something but be blocked by 1 country. It's an even bigger joke when a country can veto a resolution against itself.

    Well, how many of those 192 countries can blow up a goodly portion, or even the whole planet?

    This is why I say it makes a mockery of the system. If being more powerful than most gives a country an excuse (and the right) to ignore international law then it is not law. Furthermore, it encourages countries to increase their military power in order to get to the point where they can use the threat of force to get what they want regardless of the law.

    "Everyone do what I say because I've got the bomb!" is hardly a sound basis for an institution intended to prevent and resolve conflict.

    It's not something I agree with, and I also think it's bullshit.

    But I'm also a realist, and I realize this will not change anytime soon.

    sigeb2.png
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited August 2007
    In some ways, I can see the world benefiting from a few countries like Iran joining the nuclear club.

    Hell, the reason the UK built nukes was so that the US would pay attention.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    In some ways, I can see the world benefiting from a few countries like Iran joining the nuclear club.

    Hell, the reason the UK built nukes was so that the US would pay attention.

    The problem is that Iran could give the nuke to terrorists, who would then bomb the US/Israel and claim responsibility. We would all know where it came from, but Iran could come up with some crappy excuses and Russia and China would back Iran in the security council.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    In some ways, I can see the world benefiting from a few countries like Iran joining the nuclear club.

    Hell, the reason the UK built nukes was so that the US would pay attention.

    The problem is that Iran could give the nuke to terrorists, who would then bomb the US/Israel and claim responsibility. We would all know where it came from, but Iran could come up with some crappy excuses and Russia and China would back Iran in the security council.
    As I understand it the main fear isn't so much Iran "giving" nukes as someone not quite on the level with the Iranian government as an entity letting 1 get away. I'm not really sure how rational that is a reason for them to not have them though since it doesn't seem to really make sense for Iran to give away a nuclear bomb just because everyone would know they did it and no one would then give a fuck about leveling large sections of their major infrastructure (which would still, ironically, be a bad idea for us to do).

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    In some ways, I can see the world benefiting from a few countries like Iran joining the nuclear club.

    Hell, the reason the UK built nukes was so that the US would pay attention.

    The problem is that Iran could give the nuke to terrorists, who would then bomb the US/Israel and claim responsibility. We would all know where it came from, but Iran could come up with some crappy excuses and Russia and China would back Iran in the security council.

    Yeah, because if a nuclear bomb destroyed an American city we would be putting the question of retaliation to the security council. Good analysis.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    In some ways, I can see the world benefiting from a few countries like Iran joining the nuclear club.

    Hell, the reason the UK built nukes was so that the US would pay attention.

    The problem is that Iran could give the nuke to terrorists, who would then bomb the US/Israel and claim responsibility. We would all know where it came from, but Iran could come up with some crappy excuses and Russia and China would back Iran in the security council.

    Everyone would, even if Iran itself launched a nuclear attack on an american city I really can't see nuclear retaliation being the result.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    In some ways, I can see the world benefiting from a few countries like Iran joining the nuclear club.

    Hell, the reason the UK built nukes was so that the US would pay attention.

    The problem is that Iran could give the nuke to terrorists, who would then bomb the US/Israel and claim responsibility. We would all know where it came from, but Iran could come up with some crappy excuses and Russia and China would back Iran in the security council.

    Everyone would, even if Iran itself launched a nuclear attack on an american city I really can't see nuclear retaliation being the result.

    It really doesn't matter. If swift harsh destruction of a country's infrastructure, government and major utilities is all you need to do then the US air force is still easily able to accomplish it (note: I am not going "lol air power for decisive victories" just "lol bombs!")

124»
Sign In or Register to comment.