7 ms·
How is the US government allowing this? I'd be willing to wager we have some under water assets that we don't necessarily want to be discovered.
by LightskinKanye 9y ago
How is the US government allowing this?
I'd be willing to wager we have some under water assets that we don't necessarily want to be discovered.
- oska 9y agoWho gives a fuck what the US government ‘allows’? This is highly arrogant and entitled thinking.
- ouid 9y agowell, given the number of thermonuclear warheads that have been misplaced, it does seem reasonable that we should at least try to prevent those kind of missions.
- Teever 9y agoWell you might give a fuck when you try and do something and the US government 'disallows' it. Arrogance or not the force that the US government can exert anywhere in the world at any time they want is real.
- Qwertious 9y ago>Who gives a fuck what the US government ‘allows’? Iraq and Afghanistan, for starters. If the US doesn't allow something and you do it anyway, you tend to come up with a nasty case of Dead.
- jpttsn 9y agoThose two wars were different from one another, in respects that are/should be central to your argument, like the UN's role.
- wavefunction 9y agoWhy would they be more concerned about this than with several countries with the capability to do this same thing on their own? Who probably already have mapped or are in the process of mapping the seabed in high-resolution detail via satellites and surface and submersible devices and vehicles? And while that's a very long sentence, this is just a "public" version of the same.
- LightskinKanye 9y agoYou can't get that high of res with a satellite, And I would assume they would protect those assets against other submersible devices
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- simonh 9y agoFirstly the US has no jurisdiction whatsoever over international waters. Secondly most of the countries involved in this are US allies, and in fact US scientific institutions play an essential role in it. Why wouldn't they? This sort of thing is what us marine scientific research organisations exist for. Thirdly US mining companies could stand to make billions off the back of this sort of data. Why pass that up, or drive such benefits abroad? Finally, imposing such a ban would be tantamount to the US declaring unilateral sovereignty over all of the Earth's oceans and their contents. I know the current administration doesn't seem too bothered about snubbing it's closes allies, but even if the US wanted to do this, they couldn't. They don't have anywhere close to the assets to monitor and interdict all the Earth's oceans. They certainly don't have the capacity to do that and also carry out the security and defence missions their naval and air assets are already assigned to. So what part of their current security commitments do you think the US would be willing to give up to try and enforce such a ban? Do you think alienating all their allies would make it easier or harder to carry out those existing commitments? If wishes were fishes....
- pjc50 9y agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... Historically, the country which claimed international jurisdiction over the sea was the UK.
- na85 9y agoWhat sort of under water assets are you imagining here? Some kind of secret base on the abyssal plain? The cost for such a thing would be astronomical, with no appreciable benefit.
- ionised 9y agoWhy do you think they would need to allow it? They don't own the oceans.