Is the world teetering at the very edge?

[pickles]

More like joined up thinking at last. Bankroll the next door country to do the fighting for you and take the casualties. Then, kill anyone you want that gets flushed out in the fighting.

And don't worry about the status of the casualties as you utilise your latest weapons, and never mind the sovereignty of yet another nation...

The current situation worldwide reminds me of a tune from my youth (ish.. )

Islam is rising
The Christians mobilising
The world is on it's elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message
And worships the creeds

Armageddon days are here again
Armageddon days are here again

I haven't noticed al qaeda respecting anyones borders lately Ellal. Personally, on this particular thread Armaggedon out of here now.

 

[ellal]

I haven't noticed al qaeda respecting anyones borders lately Ellal.

'Chicken & Egg' situation then!

 

[Richardp]

So if the americans spot an al qaeda training camp in the uk from one of their amazingly good spy satellites like the one that spotted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!!! then they should bomb us? yah right! and them camps have ''al qaeda training camp'' wrote over the entrance, hell! look how often they get things wrong like shooting down our aircraft and blowing up our tanks.
and spotting weapons of mass destruction.

 

[ETHunter]

I think the Somalia issue is not what we have been told. Ethiopian Trrops entered Somalia, with Solmalian Government troops, and retook control of Mogidishu after the Islamic Rebels retreated.

Neither the Ethiopians or the Somalian forces have the capabilities to fight a protracted campaign, and they robably don't have the inclination after so many years of fighting in their own respective conflicts. Again neither have the capabilities to strike at these training camps without alerting the groups in advance and either not finding anyone home upon their arrival, or they would suffer heavy casulaties as a result of the fighting. The fact that both the Somalian and Ethiopian defence Ministers, and several other key players in both governments have come out in 100% support for the attacks must leave us with the idea that perhaps they gave the intelligence to the US and requested their help in hitting them in a way that they themselves could not. Afterall it is strange that the US security and intelligence services are claiming to have known about these camps since 1998, when they claim they were part of the attacks on US interests in Africa, and yet chose to do nothing about them till now.

Addressing the original thread topic, I thought you might like to know which countries either have, have had or are suspected of possessing either weapons programs or actual deliverable nuclear devices.

• United States of America
• United Kingdom
• France
• China
• India
• Pakistan
• North Korea (Tested in 2006: Partial Success; Yeild between 0.75 and 1.25Kt)
• Belorus (Inherited fromSoviet Union: No launch codes)
• Kazakstan (Inherited fromSoviet Union: No Launch Codes)
• Ukraine (Inherited fromSoviet Union: Launch Codes available, promised to dismantle)
  
• Israel (Uncomfirmed, but believed to have bought from US in the mid 1970's and since developed their own short to medium range missiles {GLCM & ALCM} as well as battlefield tactical warheads)
  
• Iran (Believed to have development program in place. Ready supply of materials, technology and knowledge)
• Saudi Arabia (Believed to have started a development program in 2003 due to reduction in relations with the Western Powers, currently unconfirmed, but they have access to materials, technology and knowledge)
• South Africa (Known to have constructed at least 6 devices with a suspected test in the Indian Ocean in 1979 {Possibly in collusion with Israel}. Claims to have dismantled the devices, but this remains unconfirmed)

There are also about 20 nations that have, at some point in the last 50 years, innitiated a Nuclear research program that would lead to weapons technology, most have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and stopped their programs, but some still run them. A selection of these are:

• Canada
• Australia
• Argentina
• Brasil
• Japan
• Germany
• Poland
• Egypt
• Romania
• Switzerland
• Sweden
• Taiwan (Republic of China)

 

[Zampa]

There is no way any nation could justify a Nuclear strike on another that the international community would find acceptable.

America can and will justify anything it wants!

Oh and we will back them up too (based on reliable British intelligence info of course)

 

[ETHunter]

America can and will justify anything it wants!

Oh and we will back them up too (based on reliable British intelligence info of course)

America cannot justify a Nuclear attack on anyone without first being the victim of such an attack on US targets, or that US targets are the point of attack of similar weapons of mass destruction.

Contrary to the popular myth about our President, he does not have the authority to launch a strike of any type without the express approval of Congress, unless the US was attacked first, then he would have de facto rights, although it would still need to be ratified by Congress.

The Congress is answerable to the US people, and so, for that matter is the President. I accept that there are many in the US, military, security services and the civilian population who would support the first strike scenario, however they are a small minority and and such both Congress and the President needs to be cautious of the views of the majority.

The UN and the majority of nations in the world would not accept that the US would have the moral or legal right to launch a Nuclear attack on Iran. There are very strict controls regarding the release and use of nuclear weapons, and even the US would find that the majority of the international community would condemn, unreservedly, any such attack, and this would make things extremely difficult for the US and any nation that supported it.

I cannot speak for how the British Security Services would react,or the Government of this Island nation. I understand there are serious fears here that your politicians have blindly followed the will of the US for many years, sometimes I see these fears are groundless, but in many instances I see there is good justification for them. In my time in the UK I see the British people as overly accepting of bad leadership, but I do feel that should your leaders support or help the US launch such a Nuclear attack on Iran, then civil unrest would be a real possibility as I feel that all but a few misguided fools would not accept that a Nuclear attack justified or defensible.

There are many ways that this crisis could and should have been dealt with, but the insane ramblings of all the politicians and their stupid rhetoric have taken us down the wrong path, yet again, and this is only stirred up by the childlike utterances of the popular press.

 

[Zampa]

Thats a very fair post...

I would stick my neck out here and say the majority of people in the UK beleive we wern't so much led blindly into the gulf war par deux...but certainly feel that Blair didnt have the balls to say no..

The fact that we were, at the time, still paying or dept for WW2 may have also had a baring.

America is the most powerful and richest nation in the world, congress or not they are more than capable of doing exactly what they want and how they see fit.

They certianly wont worry about 'world condemnation' what will that mean to a country of that stature? .. it certainly does'nt seem too bothered about the amount of criticism regarding it attitide to its contibution to greenhouse gas'es...the country is self sustainable..its not going to be affected by a trade embargo...(not that anyone would dare)

There is a general feeling over here, you must have picked up on it, that Bush is a war monger and he certainly isnt universally trusted.

The first Gulf war was about oil...not people...the last one was about, rightly or wrongly, 'setling the score' and based on a complete fabrication from both intelligences services...where were the WMD?..where was the threat to the west?

We were conned for months beforehand about Iraq by our own intelligence people.

I cant say that the majority of people here opposed taking Saddam out though...us Brits love a bit of Jingoistic 'giving the fuzzie wuzzies a bloody good hiding.

Im no CND marcher...in not a pacifist as such and im certainly not anti American...and I odnt read the Sun!...Saddam needed sorting thats quite obvious

But I dont trust Bush and I still beleive that America will get the first one in..they will not wait for another country to drop one one them first. They didnt need resolutions for the second invasion...they wasnt worried about the fact that the rest of the world opposed military action..Blair was given a straight 'yes? or no'?...Bush was quite happy to go it alone.

We tagged along...

 

[Softus]

Contrary to the popular myth about our President, he does not have the authority to launch a strike of any type without the express approval of Congress...

That's quite interesting - do you happen to know which part of the US constitution gives Congress this power?

 

[mlb3c]

knew it was in there....just had to find it.

from our constitution:

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

 

[Softus]

Well that certainly saves Eddie from having to look it up.

Does this mean that the President is classed as a "state" in this part of the US Constitution?

 

[mlb3c]

if you get past all the fancy wording and cr*p.....which dont get me wrong, we live by the constitution.....for the most part

but this sums it better:

Declaring War
The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.

 

[Softus]

After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.

Oh. OK. So what was Big_Spark referring to when he wrote "Contrary to the popular myth"? It sounds like the popular myth is actually the correct impression.

 

[mlb3c]

After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.

Oh. OK. So what was Big_Spark referring to when he wrote "Contrary to the popular myth"? It sounds like the popular myth is actually the correct impression.

uh.......yeah.