It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why not..

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Why not declare all borders "permanent",and carpet bomb any country who sends an armed force into another?

Sounds mad and not possible right..?

Why?

Every nation sends 10k of their best equipped troops to Geneva,then disbands their armed forces.Every member nation(those who have 10k troops)then only contributes to the upkeep of their own forces and enough per-annum to supply the force with say 500 bombers and enough ordinance to carpet bomb any nation back to the stone age.

Suppose 2 or 3 big nations decide not to join the alliance,that's fine..just don't step outside your border with an armed force.What are the leaders of an agressive nation gonna do?Attempt to expand,and give up their own soil in the process?(that's going bye-byes as they well know)If they make a move,give the civilians 1 months notice that they should leave if they don't live 12 miles underground,then it's bombs away.

If you don't join the alliance,it will be clear that your intentions are hostile.I say let's get all the next gen Hitlers out in the open.The Mid-East,N.I.,the Balkans etc,too bad get over it the borders are now set.l

Heh I know it's a mad idea/won't work/will never happen,but I'd like to hear from you guys what would be the major problems with this scheme.Would we be left with 6 billion ppl migrating to Tasmania after 5 years?

*Move this thread if it's the wrong forum,I checked and this seemed the right one.




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Wow..ok a week and 37 views,no response?

I've refined the idea.The 10k troops stay at home,nowhere specific to attack.They man 2 carriers/2 subs/2 destroyers per continent,for fighter/bomber support of the air raids.

Surely someone see's a hole in this plan.

Let's start with - which countries might possibly join a coalition like this?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Sound kinda NWOish but that said.....

I think most countries will be able to afford the 10K of troops but maintaining a bomber force to carpet bomb any nation back to the stone age will be expensive.

Could you see some African countries who find to differcult to feed all their people affording the bomber fleet.

And who supplies the bomber fleet? The 1st world military complex?

I like the idea of fixing borders as of today but just think of the flash points in the world today.

And I can not see Bush joining this alliance

I could see the non aligned countries joining this but not the major powers.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
um, carpet bombing is cruel and inhumane punishment of civilians for the acts of a military and government that they are not in complete control of (unless those nations are purely democratic, but we don't have any of those on this planet)



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by aylyan
Every nation sends 10k of their best equipped troops to Geneva,then disbands their armed forces.Every member nation(those who have 10k troops)then only contributes to the upkeep of their own forces and enough per-annum to supply the force with say 500 bombers and enough ordinance to carpet bomb any nation back to the stone age.

Who controls this?

Who decides when a border has been crossed? If there is illegal immigration across a border, does the immigrating nation get bombed? Into oblivion?

If rebels in one nation cross a border in a raid, does the capital that the rebels are fighting against get bombed? How is internal strife dealt with without an army anyway?


Indeed, couldn't the USA simply say 'anyone that tries to fight against us gets nuked into oblivion, whether its a terror attack or an overland invasion', instead of it being directed from geneva?


Also, what will carpet bombings accomplish? How would, for example, the threat of carpet bombing stop guerillas in vietnam or afghanistan?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Sound kinda NWOish but that said.....

I think most countries will be able to afford the 10K of troops but maintaining a bomber force to carpet bomb any nation back to the stone age will be expensive.

Could you see some African countries who find to differcult to feed all their people affording the bomber fleet.

And who supplies the bomber fleet? The 1st world military complex?



Whoever comes up with the best price to supply them would win the contract I suppose.

A poorer nation could sign the treaty and contribute a % according to GDP.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
um, carpet bombing is cruel and inhumane punishment of civilians for the acts of a military and government that they are not in complete control of (unless those nations are purely democratic, but we don't have any of those on this planet)


I think that's really the purpose of the alliance.What would a government do if they knew an incursion would be the end of them?Want to maintain control of your land?Don't invade.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Who controls this?

Who decides when a border has been crossed? If there is illegal immigration across a border, does the immigrating nation get bombed? Into oblivion?

If rebels in one nation cross a border in a raid, does the capital that the rebels are fighting against get bombed? How is internal strife dealt with without an army anyway?

Indeed, couldn't the USA simply say 'anyone that tries to fight against us gets nuked into oblivion, whether its a terror attack or an overland invasion', instead of it being directed from geneva?

Also, what will carpet bombings accomplish? How would, for example, the threat of carpet bombing stop guerillas in vietnam or afghanistan?


You'd need a council to control it,sort of like the UN I guess.They decide when a border has been crossed.You only get bombed if it's an armed "immigration"


You have your 10k troops.If they can't handle the internal strife,then maybe a revolution in that nation is justified?

The point of carpet bombing is to avoid nukes.

Guerillas generally defend not attack,or at least not attack across a border.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Borders change for a reason, due to political changes, economical or environmental changes.
A closed/fixed border will never be maintained and the whole thought of carpet bombing is silly. Carpet bombing will only graze the opposing nation which will give them a cause for war and therefore the system fails. Think of Africa for instance. Ever since the continent was totally made independent, or most of it was there have been civil wars and wars between countries for decades. This had gone through many political parties too.
If the world’s armies were to disband somewhere a nation will create a secret army of some sort and ravage the globe. The Germans did it after WWII so who says anyone else can’t.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
All that is true..hence my idea.

Carpet bombing being silly and ineffective depends on the scale you intend to do it I guess.If there's no real deterrent then it wouldn't work.

If you were the Africans would you want to lose what you have?Or if you saw once province/nation obliterated,would you proceed with attacks or settle in and relax cos no-one is coming for you.

Could an army sustain a global attack with no homeland as a base?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join