 |
| |
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
Well, it's amusing to speculate...
Current US military tactics involve gaining "air supremacy" and pounding the enemy into submission from the air. In theory the USAF could do that, but a lack of bases would be a problem (carriers are out, there is no such thing as a 100% effective submarine detector). So they'd be operating from Iceland. Which has itself signed up to the Rome Statutes, so they'd have to invade and conquer Iceland first: probably not difficult though. B2 stealth bombers could operate directly from Missouri, but there aren't a lot of those.
It would be difficult, but not impossible. A major ground invasion, though? No.
As for nukes: I think the Europeans would use them first. I can't see them just sitting there while their power stations, bridges, factories and so forth are pounded. Tactical nukes against airbases in Iceland, where their tormentors are coming from. They wouldn't fear retaliation in kind, because European bases would already be ruins by then. And the US wouldn't want to escalate a nuclear war, for fear of losing cities. If the US did manage to bring a carrier group and fend off European submarines: that, too, would be nuked.
Result? Stalemate.
The alternative to all this is a Special-Ops mission, but I don't think that's likely to work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Well, it's amusing to speculate...
Current US military tactics involve gaining "air supremacy" and pounding the enemy into submission from the air. In theory the USAF could do that, but a lack of bases would be a problem (carriers are out, there is no such thing as a 100% effective submarine detector). So they'd be operating from Iceland. Which has itself signed up to the Rome Statutes, so they'd have to invade and conquer Iceland first: probably not difficult though. B2 stealth bombers could operate directly from Missouri, but there aren't a lot of those.
It would be difficult, but not impossible. A major ground invasion, though? No.
As for nukes: I think the Europeans would use them first. I can't see them just sitting there while their power stations, bridges, factories and so forth are pounded. Tactical nukes against airbases in Iceland, where their tormentors are coming from. They wouldn't fear retaliation in kind, because European bases would already be ruins by then. And the US wouldn't want to escalate a nuclear war, for fear of losing cities. If the US did manage to bring a carrier group and fend off European submarines: that, too, would be nuked.
Result? Stalemate.
The alternative to all this is a Special-Ops mission, but I don't think that's likely to work. |
In your scenario, the US seems to acquire air supremacy as easily as they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't think that that would happen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew1999
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I can't see the President signing that. It would limit his action too much. |
It's called "The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act". The title alone guarantees passage.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Holland forms a court, and says it will try war criminals, and they have the right to grab US military personal, so we object and we are wrong?
|
Come on Chris! At least try to find out about what we are talking about before calling us stupid. This court is not being set up by Holland - it just happens to be there.
quote:
Sorry boys, your not in control of the world anymore, unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?
|
They have every right to grab US personel if they set foot in a country which has signed the treaty (and have done something naughty obviously). If a French soldier on holiday in the US was to murder someone in the US, wouldn't the US courts have the right to arrest him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The point of course is not a French soldier murdering someone in the US, it is an American soldier killing an enemy combatant in another country which is ar war with the United States and being arrested and tried in the Hague years later because he happens to be vacationing in Europe or is there on other business.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Come on Chris! At least try to find out about what we are talking about before calling us stupid. This court is not being set up by Holland - it just happens to be there. |
I HAVE read up on this Rogan, it's supposed to be a world court, yet they are using European leagal codes and punishments, like no death penalty, for example.
Also, as a WORLD body, it must have the world's approval.
We don't appove.
quote:
They have every right to grab US personel if they set foot in a country which has signed the treaty (and have done something naughty obviously). If a French soldier on holiday in the US was to murder someone in the US, wouldn't the US courts have the right to arrest him? |
To be tried under that NATION'S law, not some "world court".
The world court is illeagal under international law, and despite what Roland thinks, grabbing people for "war crimes" by a rogue court is an act of war, and we won't allow it.
If our personal commit warcrimes, they will be tried under the law of recognized nations, with the full support of the US, or they will be taken home and tried under the UCMJ (with is as it SHOULD be), and believe me, we wouldn't be doing them a favor.
Stop trying to tell us what to do, your the ones being pushy and arrogant, not the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
The point of course is not a French soldier murdering someone in the US, it is an American soldier killing an enemy combatant in another country which is ar war with the United States and being arrested and tried in the Hague years later because he happens to be vacationing in Europe or is there on other business. |
Not "killing an enemy combatant".
Commiting a war crime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
more of a small spec-ops operation |
will fail. can't get into, and out of the country, let alone the rest of Europe.
quote:
an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States. |
sorry to break your bubble, but it isn't an act of war.
quote:
unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland? |
Sure we do. Just make sure the warcriminals you are harboring don't venture to other countries
This is so damn funny. America threathens, America *****es, America whines. And the court isn't even in service yet. I can't wait till the first American is arrested and tried. It will be the best thing ever  America will threathen some more, ***** some more, whine some more, but will be absolutely helpless to do anything to stop it. so much for being a "super"power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
Who exactly are the people that define the legal definition of War Crimes. |
Exactly the point. They define it. And they define if it is a legitimate combat situation or a "war crime". Of course while everyone is arguing over whether the suspect committed a crime or was just engaging in a legitimate battle situation the soldier sits in jail. Thanks, but no thanks.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2002 18:48
really as big news over in Europe as the recent repeated threads about it would indicate?
|