The EU kiss and make up sumit

The EU is holding a sumit in Athens and it's designed to be a 'kiss and make up' sumit. No one from the American Government was invited to the sumit, which the UK and allies in the war think was a major mistake.

What do you think both sides should do (because both sides were not willing to work eith each other) to solve the problem that has been created since the cold war?

I say we bannish the French...:p

Can someone please fill me in - Why is France a permanent member of the UN Security Council? I mean wouldn''t a nation like Japan or Germany be better suited?

I honestly don''t know the history behind why France is permanent and would love to hear and explanation.

Remember that the UN was drawn up towards the end of World War 2; Germany and Japan were the ""bad guys,"" while France, the UK, the US, and the Soviets were the ""good guys.""

And remember, France has nuclear weapons, Germany and Japan don''t, well not yet anyway (I wouldn''t count on Japan playing it fair forever when shiat meets fan in the DPRK).

It''s part of Japan''s Constitution that there will be absolutely no nuclear weapons from anybody ever deployed in their nation, but they tend to look the other way when the US violates it left and right.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

It''s part of Japan''s Constitution that there will be absolutely no nuclear weapons from anybody ever deployed in their nation, but they tend to look the other way when the US violates it left and right.

Japan will change that. The United States is Japan''s military and most don''t think that''s a bad thing. But you believe in piece through appeasement.

Thanks, I didn''t stop to think about the historical context.
It seems like there should have been a clause built in to allow the security council to re-examine it''s permanent members ever 20 years or so...

In that case the US would have been voted out a long time ago.

We would be in an even thicker stew now...

"Ulairi" wrote:

But you believe in piece through appeasement.

No, I think Japan should protest the fact that the US violates their law by bringing in nuclear weapons.

And don''t try and argue that those weapons in Japan deter North Korea; an American ICBM can hit any target from any place. Stationing American nukes in foreign countries is outmoded, controversial, and dangerous.

American ICBM''s in Japan? Are you kidding us or something? No really, that statement is pure BS, get in line with the rest of the tools

</bad attempt at trolling>

Seriously though, not a chance in the world that the US would station ICBM''s in a foreign country, its not needed and poses a big security risk. Bombers or cruise missiles are a whole other story but I think it doesn''t really matter much whether they would be stationed in Japan or in Guam so stationing them in the land of the Rising Sun could be indeed deemed asinine.

Not ICBMs, more like short range ballistic missles and nuclear warheads for standard missles and bombs carried by the US Navy and the US Air Force. Literally every warship and every bomber is capable of dropping the big one at a moments notice.

The only navy ships carrying nuclear weapons are submarines and at least the fast-attack ones tend to be loaded out with nukes only in emergency situations as far as I know. Boomers are a whole other story though, I bet they have at least a few Tridents aimed at the DPRK at the moment. Short range ballistic missiles that would be capable of hitting the North from Japan are outlawed by treaties if I''m not mistaken (trying to recall the various cold-war agreements on this topic). Air Force nuclear weapons are probably confined to the more secret aircraft anyway for security reasons, its more cost-effective and safer anyway if you supply the better protected B-1''s and B-2''s with nukes instead of every other squadron of fighter jets. Although I recognize the probability that there is a significant number of nuclear weapons stored in Japan I wouldn''t be so sure that they could be used in a moments notice if I were you. They don''t assign nuclear forces to active duty without any DEFCON 2 or 1 situation (or whatever the hell its called nowadays) for security reasons and I believe the round the clock nuclear guard in Guam and Alaska has the DPRK covered in such a way that the US doesn''t need to take the risk of supplying active forces in Japan with nukes... yet. They''re probably still stockpiled.

</ramblings>

*cough*allnavywarshipsequippedwithnukes*cough*

I happen to know this for a fact.

Seriously? I was under the impression that they decommisioned all TLAM-N''s from navy warships must be some glitch in my normally allways-perfect military knowledge system

From FAS.org:

On 27 September 1991 President Bush announced a number of initiatives affecting the entire spectrum of US nuclear weapons. The United States removed all tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, from its surface ships and attack submarines. The nuclear equiped UGM-109A TLAM-N Tomahawk was withdrawn from service in 1992, though conventional versions remain operational.

No, I think Japan should protest the fact that the US violates their law by bringing in nuclear weapons.

And don''t try and argue that those weapons in Japan deter North Korea; an American ICBM can hit any target from any place. Stationing American nukes in foreign countries is outmoded, controversial, and dangerous.

It''s for apperance. If you show countries that you''re weak they will walk all over you. Notice how both Iran and North Korea are trying to play nice, they don''t want to be next.

We''ll protect Japan just like we do Taiwan: We''ll send a battle fleet over there.

Japan has its own battlefleet that can take care of anything conventional Kim throws at them, its the nuclear aspect that frightens them most, and sadly, deterrence is still the most effective way of preventing a nuclear attack.

"Koesj" wrote:

Japan has its own battlefleet that can take care of anything conventional Kim throws at them, its the nuclear aspect that frightens them most, and sadly, deterrence is still the most effective way of preventing a nuclear attack.

It''s not there to be used. If Kim lobs a nuke anywhere we can turn the place into glass in a few minutes. It''s the image of having a battle fleet off the cost (which we do anyway). Any time China gets uppity about Taiwan we send over a fleet and things calm down.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Notice how both Iran and North Korea are trying to play nice, they don''t want to be next.

And luck for them they are not. President Hu Jintao pretty much told Kim Jong Il to knock it off and Iran''s too big of a fish (militarily, economically, diplomatically) for the US to fry right now. Today Baghadad, tomorrow Damascus!

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

Notice how both Iran and North Korea are trying to play nice, they don''t want to be next.

And luck for them they are not. President Hu Jintao pretty much told Kim Jong Il to knock it off and Iran''s too big of a fish (militarily, economically, diplomatically) for the US to fry right now. Today Baghadad, tomorrow Damascus!

Today Bahdad tomorrow...nowhere. I don''t think we''ll have to use force in another country just yet. We''re going to talk tough but that''s nothing new. 70% of the people in Iran want their government to make up with the United States and make that their top issue not the Israel/PLO conflict. What happened to those pollsters? They have gone missing.

I think Iran will fall from the inside.

Face it. Syria is stepping into the batter''s box and has a short window to decide whether or not they''ll comply or face military action. Bush and Friends want to get this done before the next election cycle so that it doesn''t turn into an election issue. Don''t expect a mass invasion, more like a mass bombing and special forces assualt to take care for the critical sites.

Economic sanctions haven''t even been tried on Syria, has the US stepped over the notion of diplomatic and economical measures alltogether :shock:?

Anyway, its been a nice chat lads but I''m afraid that the GMT+1 is forcing me to meet to the sheets and hit up on this topic tomorrow, see ya.