Environment Newsin

[The_Reaper]

Very much the current universe.

Actually yes.
If the Yanks weren't involved.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[Poseidon]

 

[worbod]

There is a school of thought that if a major nuclear weapon were to be dropped somewhere upon Earth, the safest place to be would be downtown Hiroshima, because what are the odds of them copping it twice?

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[neroblack]

China is not worried about the US.
China would attack Japan over any significant issue between themselves, regardless whether the US will or wont step in.
And knowing the US would have Japan's back if attacked wouldn't prevent them from attacking Japan for any significant issue between themselves.

Pretty doubtful.

The majority of things said by both China and North Korea are mostly for internal purposes. China especially have too much to lose right now by getting into any conflict, but they need to appear ready.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[crazyman27]

This is probably a good thread to ask, does anybody know how much history is taught in primary/secondary schools these days (in Australia and abroad)? I only learnt about the World Wars (we actually only looked at WWI) in some detail in year 12 as I chose to do a history subject. I still have very little knowledge about Vietnam, Cold War etc. but that history class really opened my eyes about what really goes on in a large scale war.

The old saying is that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, so I wonder if the next generation will be more inclined to go to war as WWI and WWII (and the pain and suffering that accompanied them) become distant memories.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[Plugger35]

Don't worry Matthew Broderick will save us.

 

[The_Reaper]

China has used 'attack the USA' rhetoric recently (last few years) themselves, warning the US not to get involved in some issue I forget now...perhaps Nth Korea.

It was over their territorial dispute with Japan and with everyone else in the South China sea.

 

[Lavender Gooms]

This is probably a good thread to ask, does anybody know how much history is taught in primary/secondary schools these days (in Australia and abroad)? I only learnt about the World Wars (we actually only looked at WWI) in some detail in year 12 as I chose to do a history subject. I still have very little knowledge about Vietnam, Cold War etc. but that history class really opened my eyes about what really goes on in a large scale war.

The old saying is that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, so I wonder if the next generation will be more inclined to go to war as WWI and WWII (and the pain and suffering that accompanied them) become distant memories.

Having finished high school in 2011 doing history the both world wars are looked into as well as two of the American, French, Chinese and Russian revolutions. I'm majoring in history at university which is where the Cold War and Vietnam are taught.

 

[Mooster7]

The North Koreans don't have a missile that can hit Washington state, let alone Washington D.C.

They don't have nukes despite what they say.

They have no means to invade any country other than South Korea. If they do invade South Korea the forces already in place there are enough to throw them back across the parallell. The U.S. wouldn't even have to deploy reinforcements, although we would. That's as far as it would go. It would be a lovely excuse to drive all the way through to Pyongyang and overthrow their ridiculous communist utopia, but I think China would advise against that, and Obama would suck the Chinese dick and halt at the 39th.

Finally, this is all bullshit anyway. Every time N Korea runs low on economy and food, they rattle the sabre. Then people send them boatloads of wheat and rice to shut them up - even the US. This whole story is NK as a baby crying for its bottle. The communist utopia is hungry. It's time for a diaper change too.

 

[Poseidon]

This is probably a good thread to ask, does anybody know how much history is taught in primary/secondary schools these days (in Australia and abroad)? I only learnt about the World Wars (we actually only looked at WWI) in some detail in year 12 as I chose to do a history subject. I still have very little knowledge about Vietnam, Cold War etc. but that history class really opened my eyes about what really goes on in a large scale war.

The old saying is that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, so I wonder if the next generation will be more inclined to go to war as WWI and WWII (and the pain and suffering that accompanied them) become distant memories.

When did you finish High School? I finished in '08 and we didn't learn any until I chose it as an elective in years 11 & 12. We did Nazi Germany, Russian Revolution, America between WWI and WW2 and Australia in the 20th century.

I think before that only did some very light Australian history in whatever class it was.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

I knew this would be yet another crappy tin foil hat thread by GG as soon as I saw the title.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[rayven]

After Iraq Syria and libya, the Russian and the Chinese get in the way of anything remotely like that. Also, the neighboring countries will not be looking forward to any radioactive fallout. The koreans will send nukes at any aircraft carrier bombing her..

But then, all this carry on in the media is just the koreans trying to avoid sanctions. FYI,If you didn't know, sanctions are an act of war, under the UN charter.

 

[Mooster7]

FYI,If you didn't know, sanctions are an act of war, under the UN charter.

What part of the UN Charter are you reading that? It most certainly can't be Article XII Chapter 41 which authorizes and endorses sanctions as a means to prevent war as subsequently implied in Chapter 42.

Nations have an implicit right to enact sanctions as it is simply a matter of choosing for themselves how and with whom they wish to conduct trade. You may be thinking of a blockade which without doubt is an act of war.

While on the subject though, sanctions are almost completely ineffective in coercing a political decision, and hurts the sanctioner as well as the sanctionee. Sanctions are economically ******ed. I say do away with them. All those bloody years in Vietnam accomplished nothing but horror and waste. But now the Vietnamese are peaceful prosperous little entrepenuers. That's because they were invaded by McDonalds and Coca Cola. Lift the sanctions and do the same with North Korea and they would all be happy gentle little lambs in five years time.

 

[ag6858]

This is probably a good thread to ask, does anybody know how much history is taught in primary/secondary schools these days (in Australia and abroad)? I only learnt about the World Wars (we actually only looked at WWI) in some detail in year 12 as I chose to do a history subject. I still have very little knowledge about Vietnam, Cold War etc. but that history class really opened my eyes about what really goes on in a large scale war.

The old saying is that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, so I wonder if the next generation will be more inclined to go to war as WWI and WWII (and the pain and suffering that accompanied them) become distant memories.

In NSW, both World Wars are taught in year 9, however they're part of the Australian history course, so the curriculum has an Australian focus on the wars. Both wars took up about a month of lessons, and everything was fairly in depth.
We learnt about Vietnam in year 10, with less depth than the world wars and it was closely connected to learning about the cold war as most of the topic was about Australia's views and relationships with communism.
I just started year 11 modern history, but I don't know how much we'll learn about the wars because at the moment we're doing the Russian Revolution which only touches on WWI.

 

[Papa Juggs]

North Korea has delivery capability.

Putting one small nuke an some old rocket isn't going to get past things like THAAD.

The USA isn't threatened in any way by anything.

It's pure propaganda that the US is in any way intimidated by anybody. Even Russia/China are weaklings. They keep inside their borders and sit on their giant nuclear arsenals as a way to feel safe.

Anybody without nukes isn't safe.

That's why Iran and North Korea want them. Not warmongering, it's a security blanket.

 

[rayven]

What part of the UN Charter are you reading that? It most certainly can't be Article XII Chapter 41 which authorizes and endorses sanctions as a means to prevent war as subsequently implied in Chapter 42.

http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqlaw.html

Charter of Economic rights & Duties of States, UN General Assembly, 1974: No state may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind.
Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Convention, 1977, Part IV, Section 1, Chapter III, Article 54: (1) starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. (2) It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for an other motive.
UN General Assembly Resolution 44/215, December 22, 1989. Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries: Calls upon the developed countries to refrain from exercising political coercion through the application of economic instruments with the purpose of inducing changes in the economic or social systems, as well as in the domestic or foreign policies of other countries. Reaffirms that developed countries should refrain from threatening or applying trade and financial restrictions, blockades, embargoes, and other economic sanctions, incompatible with the provisions of the charter of the United Nations and in violation of the undertakings contracted multilaterally and bilaterally against developing countries as a form of political and economic coercion that affects their political, economic and social development.
International Conference on Nutrition, World Declaration on Nutrition, Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization, 1992: We recognize that access to nutritionally adequate and safe food is a right of each individual. We affirm that food must not be used as a tool of political pressure.
UN General Assembly, December 1997: "starvation of civilians is unlawful".

International Terrorism as defined by the U.S. legal code (Title 18-2331): (1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. or any State; (2) appears to be intended: (I) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (3) occur primarily outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. , or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum

 

[Mooster7]

http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqlaw.html

Rayven, that has to do with destroying a nation's sovereignty (land taking it) or obtaining unfair/unequal trade agreements through threat of sanction. Has nothing to do with imposing sanctions against another nation because you squarely disagree with what they're doing. Otherwise, every nation would then be forced to trade with any nation that wanted them to.

I don't know if the rest of those paragraphs were also meant to be quoted, but the section about starving civilians is discussing an occupying force not starving the local civilian population. It's not saying that a nation which has a food surplus must trade with a nation who doesn't.

The last bit defines terrorism. Again a sovereign nation has an aboslute right to choose with whom they will or will not conduct trade. A sanction is a decision not to trade. To equate that with terrorism is the most ludicrous thing I've heard all day since someone said, "Good morning" to me moments after my alarm clock bolted me out of a blissful sleep. Absolutely nothing can be sillier than "Good morning."

 

[Bluelegs]

The only really worrying thing I could see happening out of this is South Korea and North Korea instigating in a conflict, then China intervening (not on either side but because they don't want these two fighting on their doorstep) the US supporting South Korea and then China and the US butting heads over it. It could cause some poor relations if that were to happen.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

The North Koreans don't have a missile that can hit Washington state, let alone Washington D.C.

They don't have nukes despite what they say.

They have no means to invade any country other than South Korea. If they do invade South Korea the forces already in place there are enough to throw them back across the parallell. The U.S. wouldn't even have to deploy reinforcements, although we would. That's as far as it would go. It would be a lovely excuse to drive all the way through to Pyongyang and overthrow their ridiculous communist utopia, but I think China would advise against that, and Obama would suck the Chinese dick and halt at the 39th.

Finally, this is all bullshit anyway. Every time N Korea runs low on economy and food, they rattle the sabre. Then people send them boatloads of wheat and rice to shut them up - even the US. This whole story is NK as a baby crying for its bottle. The communist utopia is hungry. It's time for a diaper change too.

I remember an news article 15 or 20 years ago about Nauru declaring war on the US. Their reasoning behind it was that they were broke and if the Americans came in and bombed them, that they Americans would then help to rebuild them.

Obviously worked a treat.

 

[crazyman27]

When did you finish High School? I finished in '08 and we didn't learn any until I chose it as an elective in years 11 & 12. We did Nazi Germany, Russian Revolution, America between WWI and WW2 and Australia in the 20th century.

I think before that only did some very light Australian history in whatever class it was.

I finished in '09. I went to a pretty small public school though, so there wasn't many subjects offered outside the standard maths, science, english etc. But I'm super grateful that I chose the history class in year 12 as it really changed my view of war. It disturbs me though that a lot of the people who graduated with me don't have the same knowledge.

I'm planning on doing a 20th century history class as an elective at uni next semester to hopefully broaden my knowledge.