Europe and US relations

[mutz]

...both Patton and MacArthur were better realists and visionaries than the folks back home. They were at the front lines of blood, death and destruction. They weren't into the political compromise morass.

I think Powell is the man today, if the politicians don't scrub him, which they are trying to do...

[Dr Mordrid]

He seems to be the one making most all of the international "progress", such as it is. Basically the US just wants the UN to get enough spinal cacium to even pass a "put up or die" resolution for Saddam.

Or don't they have enough intestinal fortitude to produce an unambiguous piece of paper?

Dr. Mordrid

[mutz]

...I think the first rule of management is that if you want a job done, you have to delegate BOTH responsibility and authority in equal measure.

The UN has been given responsibility, but their authority is very conditional and gets withdrawn every time somebody doesn't like what the UN does, or feel the UN is affecting their "interests". It's really a frustrating Catch 22 situation they are in.

The US, for example, has a government elected by the citizens. It has a clearly defined structure between the congress, senate and executive branch headed by the president. The president has defined executive authority which he can stretch pretty far. Whether the citizens do their job well is another subject...

The UN has a structure not so clearly defined by it's members, the secretary general is elected by the body of its members, and the secretary general, as the executive branch, is given very tenuous authority, more as an administrator than an executive.

So imagine a president of a country that gets the plug pulled every time he takes a decision or embarks on an action. Like trying to drive a car with another guy pulling on the steering wheel, somebody elses foot on or under the clutch, another gang fighting over the gas, and dozens more stomping at the brakes.

So it is unfair to judge the UN as lacking in fortitude. Much of the UN's staff is highly competent and capable, and Kofi Anan is unquestionably the right man for the job, but he and his staff are incredibly hampered by the very same people they are supposed to be serving. Considering the circumstances, it's an absolute miracle that they are able to accomplish anything at all.

So, many people, in their fear, frustration and insecurity, want to see guns blazing and Rambo action and everything getting sorted out over night. But the reality is that that only happens in the movies. No such action that has actually happened hasn't been followed by many years of ramifications. Like throwing a rock in a pond, it's a long time before the waves settle down.

I think Colin Powell and Kofi Anan have the experience, the intelligence, the maturity and the competence to get the work done, but they also need the support, the authority and the patience from others to see it through.

So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

[KvHagedorn]

To clarify reality here, lacking authority, the UN has no responsibility either. In reality the UN is little more than the supper-club that was the League of Nations. Their lack of teeth has simply not been challenged to the extent that Saddam has challenged them, and their nakedness has not been pointed out until Bush's speech before them. The UN is a tool to serve sovereign nations, not a body of parliamentary democracy.

[GNEP]

A horse walks into a bar.

"Why the long face?" asks the barman

[KRSESQ]

The original purpose of the UN, like the League of Nations, was to provide an international forum for resolving conflicts between nations before they erupt in all-out war, NOT necessarily to act as an institution of democratic government. The UN presumably has more military authority than the League of Nations, but it doesn't mean very much.

In an ideal world, the UN would have a more multilateral outlook and mission. In reality it consists of 'prox' 150 member-nations all looking out for number one.

Almost No nation in the UN wants to be the first to back ANY military action because they know it could set a precedent that could bite them in the behind later on. It isn't a lack of guts that paralyses the the UN, its simple self-interest among the individual members.

Kevin

[RedRed]

If nothing else, the Cuban Missile crisis gave the UN its creedance for several generations.

Without it, there could have been a real risk of nuclear war.

dont forget it. A talking shop it might be, a tool for promoting democracy it is NOT.

RedRed

[mutz]

...Cuban missile crisis risk of war? I was sitting in Munich with helicopters on the roof with running engines, all of us hoping nobody so much as farted either side of the border, knowing you are a direct target, TS on the crypto telex listing armed & targetted nukes, every finger on a trigger of one type or another. You KNOW you are dead in a second, nobody breathing, talking in whispers, glued to the telex wondering if you will read it before it happens, knowing with absolute certainty no place to go, no place to hide, sitting in this suspense for days.

Once you have known you are dead, not a word, not a thought, not a prayer, not a hope, nothing left, nothing, and yet you lived, life takes on a different quality...

...and you don't forget it...

[KvHagedorn]

What fools we have been..

[mutz]

...what fools we still are...

...watch this:

Hey Doc, what is the destruction from ground zero out for one megaton lit at one kilometer altitude?

[Joel]

If nothing else, the Cuban Missile crisis gave the UN its creedance for several generations.

Without it, there could have been a real risk of nuclear war.

Actually IMO what advert a nuclear war, at that time, was that the other side knew that the US was willing to launch a full scale retailator strike in response. That IMO is part of the problem now in that the other side has gotten the impression, through a spineless UN, that we are now unwilling to punch back.

Joel

[KRSESQ]

Mutz:

Not specifically what you're looking for, but mildly amusing never the less:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/mapablast.html

Did I say amusing? A one megaton burst would erase my whole town.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by mutz
...what fools we still are...

...watch this:

Hey Doc, what is the destruction from ground zero out for one megaton lit at one kilometer altitude?

I agree such weapons should not be used first, which is exactly why we need to put a halt to Saddams madness before it's realised. In retaliation it's another matter; if someone hits us with one I'd hit back in kind.

To answer your question;

A 1 megaton deployed at ~8000 feet (not 1 km but it's what I have the numbers for since it's a "standard" deployment) would result in the following;

Everything within 1 mile of the epicenter would be vaporized or flattened including reinforced concrete structures. The temperature near the epicenter would immediately reach 4000-6000 C.

Concrete and steel buildings within 5-6 miles of the epicenter would be obliterated or severely damaged. Third degree burns (destruction of multiple skin layers) from the optical flash occur in 90% of those outside with the remainder receiving 2nd degree burns.

All wooden residential buildings for a radius of ~12-15 miles would be destroyed with about 10% mortality and 50-60% injured. First degree burns (equivalent to a bad sunburn) from the flash occur in virtually all of those caught outside.

Much of the combustible material not destroyed by the blast within 5-7 miles would be involved in the firestorm caused by the thermal blast, which makes up 35-40% of the total energy released by a 1mt weapon, depending on its efficiency.

Flash blindness for those looking in the wrong direction at detonation would occur at distances of up to 15 miles on a clear day or 60 miles on a clear night.

EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effects are weaker with air blasts vs. surface or high altitude blasts, but it still could knock out most electronics for a radius of 20 miles or more.

Most radiation injuries would occur within a few miles of the epicenter. Radiation exposure would depend on where one is when the blast occurs, but generally speaking;

a dose of 600 rems will kill about 90% of those exposed

450 rems will kill about 50%

300 rems will kill about 10%

50-200 rems will cause nausea and a few deaths, but for most no treatment is usually required

50 rems will show few short term effects but between .4 and 2.5% of those exposed would be expected to get cancer in the long term.

Below 50 rems of exposure the mortality calculations become dicey.

Dr. Mordrid

[GNEP]

Ever seen the film Threads (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0090163)?

Really disturbing stuff.

[GT98]

Originally posted by GNEP
Ever seen the film Threads (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0090163)?

Really disturbing stuff.

Hmm is this the same movie where there is a baby born after the nuclear attack and is the last one left after everyone dies from Radiation?