11 ms·

Surveillance satellites are very different to directly flying this equipment into US airspace, including the fact that this equipment could hold paylods other t

Surveillance satellites are very different to directly flying this equipment into US airspace, including the fact that this equipment could hold paylods other than ISR. Not to mention this comment implies China does not have equivalent spy satellites, which it does. Also the UN is an absolute joke. That article links has China and Russia complaining about the West being aggressors so honestly its kinda BS. Also forgetting about China's [ASAT test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengyun) which has been the worst in history.

gambiting 4y ago
>>Also the UN is an absolute joke UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Nothing more nothing less. I have no idea why people expect UN to take action, when UN is explicitly not an organisation for taking any actions.
- handedness 4y ago
  The UN is certainly something more than that, and not literally just a forum. They have an active duty peacekeeping force of approximately 81K people. While that's similar in size to the active duty forces from a nation like a Peru or Chile, the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history in places like Central Africa. For example: "Consider a small sample of heinous cases: in April 2016 Foreign Policy reported that, in the Central African Republic, a French commander tied up four girls and forced them to have sex with a dog. Soldiers from France, Gabon, and Burundi sexually abused at least 108 women and children in a single province. In July 2015, The Washington Post reported that peacekeepers in Haiti engaged in ‘transactional sex’ with over 229 women and girls in exchange for food, medicine, or other necessities. "Most recently, it was published in the The Washington Post in February 2016 that ‘four peacekeepers had allegedly paid girls as young as 13 as little as 50 cents in exchange for sex in a different camp for the internally displaced’ and ‘as many as 14 troops from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea allegedly raped and sodomised six boys ages nine to 15’." https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D878FE485 https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D8... I'm guessing if one lived in any of the areas mentioned above, the UN would feel about as much like an invading force as just about anything. The UN as a peacekeeping force was a great concept, but it's had a very mixed history when put into practice. But it exists, so many people expect it to be a solution to their problems.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    "the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history" First, I don't think calling them "blue helmets" has the negative connotation you think it does. Second. What's the difference between the UN peacekeepers and any other army? All have a mixed history and I'm pretty sure have let's say a high amount of immunity. People do bad things, especially soldiers who have power and the cover of war. This will never change. Of course crimes should be prosecuted as well but I don't know much about the details of the UN peacekeepers.
    - dsego 4y ago
      During the balkan wars in the 90s people would jokingly call them "smurfs".
    - handedness 4y ago
      As you stated you don't know much about their details, it wasn't meant to be pejorative: they're actually called Blue Helmets (and Blue Berets). I would wager their most defining visual characteristic is their helmet color, which is quite terrible as camouflage and wholly unsuitable for a conventional military force. Their Rules of Engagement are also significantly different from those of a conventional military force. The International Court of Justice (the IJC–not the ICC) is part of the United Nations System. At that body, at least, UN peacekeepers enjoy blanket immunity. To oversimplify it, it's another case of, "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." The UN nominally expects host countries to prosecute the war crimes of their peacekeepers, but in reality the nature of deploying to somewhere needing peacekeepers is that the rule of law on the ground is already minimal, at best. So there's no real enforcement mechanism to prosecute these crimes. It is not a trivial distinction. One can debate their virtue and utility value one way or the other, but the distinction is real and significant. They operate under a unique set of circumstances and saying war is hell and victors typically enjoy their own brand of immunity is true enough, but not entirely applicable here.
      - pasabagi 4y ago
- tezza 4y ago
  It can provide legal cover for invading countries… Bosnia, Iraq etc. The UN courts can issue judgements… Human Rights Courts: e.g. Slobodan Milosovic, Radavan Kardzich etc A lot of the global treaties are kicked around there They also enforce peace zones (poorly) like Lebanon, Israel demilitarised zone. They coordinate aid programs UNRWA etc
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I don't think legal cover is the right term. My understanding that basically all nations view their domestic laws as higher than the UN. UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      I think you might have a typo: "you and decisions" may mean "UN decisions".
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      The UN is a powerful, active international organization. If you aren't aware of that, you don't know what you are talking about. It's certainly limited in many ways and imperfect, but it transforms international affairs, freedom, and human rights. Ignorant, cynical claims on the the Internet do a lot of harm to real people, by tearing down valuable things that people need.
    - xpe 4y ago
      > UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority Not so; "veil" or "facade" implies fakeness or concealment. The U.N. does not hide its mission or its position on human rights. > One of the great achievements of the United Nations is the creation of a comprehensive body of human rights law—a universal and internationally protected code to which all nations can subscribe and all people aspire. The United Nations has defined a broad range of internationally accepted rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. It has also established mechanisms to promote and protect these rights and to assist states in carrying out their responsibilities. [1] The lack of consensus and consistency is an ongoing challenge, sure, but it doesn't make the goals fake. Countries are flawed and have competing interests, but it is important to nudge the world in a better direction. [1] https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - wiml 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - braingenious 4y ago
        [flagged]
        awwaiid 4y ago
        Looked it up. In 2020 we spent $2bn on the UN. We brought in $3421bn, so (ignoring that we overspent by 2x) that is like 0.06%. if you make $100k you pay like $18k in federal tax. So that comes out to $10.50 or so.
        neodymiumphish 4y ago
        This is such a pedantic and unnecessary line of questioning. Based on my understanding of the federal budget, my contribution to the UN last year would be somewhere between $100 and $200. Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Isn't that more than enough to be irritated with their existence or capacities? $150/year is a significant amount that I'd definitely rather not pay. This is based on one estimate that 1.2% of the federal budget was for the UN. Another estimate says 11.2b in 2020, when the federal budget was 4.79t. That estimate knocks my contribution significantly lower (anywhere from $10-40).
        braingenious 4y ago
        >Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Curiosity for me! Out of (further) curiosity, what makes a post on this website “unnecessary” vs (I’m assuming) “necessary”?
- rmk 4y ago
  This is misinformed. The UN does take a lot of 'actions', one of the most important ones being Peackeeping missions. The explicit mission of the UN is to avert violent conflict. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
- backtoyoujim 4y ago
  /derail
  - kidme5 4y ago
    Feels like intentional bury. The OP about Space Development Agency is a big deal.
- 00kevn 4y ago
  I just went on a ride about how the UN UN-Nazi'd the world
- nwatson 4y ago
  UN World Food Programme. Absolutely meaningful. Some other humanitarian coordination too.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. E.g. here are some passages I hilighted from Chapter 1: "Americans could envision the Soviet Union joining the United States in policing the peace in the brighter new world that would arise from the carnage [of WW2]" (page 2) "The Soviet ambassador... was even stronger than the others in pleading for a security council with teeth" (page 9) "Chopping the air with his hands to emphasize his words, Truman said the new UN must keep the world 'free from the fear of war'." (page 19) More generally the ongoing theme of the book is the extent to which the UN has been successful, and unsuccessful, at ensuring world peace in various conflicts that have flared since its founding. I did get the impression that not a lot of thought was put into the design of the UN, and there is the possibility that it could've been much more successful with a radically different design. [Edit: To be more concrete -- Google tells me that global military spending was $2.1 trillion in 2021. You'd think it would be worth putting a mere 1% of that $2.1 trillion, something like $21 billion, into essay competitions, agent-based simulations, online diplomacy games, academic literature reviews, etc. in order to design an optimal UN structure that minimizes the risk of war. But the actual structure of the UN was designed using far, far less than $21 billion worth of analysis, based on what I recall from the Meisler book.] That's not to say that the UN being a forum is bad or unnecessary. But it's interesting to me how everyone seems to have forgotten its original eutopian aspiration to create a world free from war. Maybe has something to do with the fact that people who lived through WW2 are mostly dead now, and few living people understand at a visceral level how horrifying war between great powers really is.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nl 4y ago
    > It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. It's worth thinking about this context when considering the Korean War when it was UNC (UN Command) that was the primary defense force: https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conflict/ https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conf...
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Article 43 of the UN Charter would, if it were ever implemented, create a military force under the control of the UN Security Council. >The potential of the United Nations and its Charter remained a dominant subject in schools and communities into the 1950s, focused especially on those Charter promises to protect member states "against violators of the peace." Chapter VII dealt with enforcement action: Article 39 first authorized the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"; Article 42 was designed to respond with "air, sea or land forces as may be necessary"; and Article 43 committed all UN member states "to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security." Although much hope for the future was placed in the ratification of Article 43, it was never implemented. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E35a4e14b https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap...
- wolverine876 4y ago
  The UN Security Council especially, and other organs, have singificant influence for setting and enforcing interntional law. The UN also handles much more than military missions, including health, technical coordination, and much more.
- dx034 4y ago
  And they are able to get leaders/delegates from nearly all countries in a room regularly. That alone can be crucial.
ziftface 4y ago
[flagged]
- moose_man 4y ago
  [flagged]
- esperent 4y ago
  Can you be more specific? I'm from a country that people would consider part of "The West". However we've never attacked anyone except invaders in entire country's history. I'm sure you could dredge up some connection to the US and get angry with us about it, if you were an Islamic extremist or something. More realistically though, you could find fault with any country with that attitude. Speaking of current geopolitics instead of historical, the recent blame for causing a rise in aggression lies firmly with Russia and China. The US is not blameless but neither are they starting any new wars in almost two decades. So, tell me again about why everything is the fault of "The West", including all the western countries who have never attacked anyone, in your mind?
  - infrawhispers 4y ago
    The Iraq War of 2003 [1] began with an invasion almost two decades ago (anniv will be in March 2003 iirc) with participation of a coalition of Western governments. That "almost" is doing heavy lifting given that this war officially lasted until ~2011 and led to further interventions as recently as 2014[2]. Notably, a non-trivial rationale for this war were lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction - which unsurprisingly, were never found. I am curious if your government participated in this war. Ignoring the ongoing interventions in foreign conflicts [3][4], US Foreign Policy has been absolutely _disastrous_ for a number of countries around the world. From the perspective of the US Govt, this may be fine though I would argue that the real effects from destabilization and strained bilateral relations are simply accumulating. Happy to provide citations for multiple blunders in the last 3 decades. It is not surprising that many countries in the global south now see China|Russia|India as better bilateral partners. Devolving critique to simply originating from "if you were an Islamic extremist of something" is very reductive and I would implore you to read more about global politics from different national perspectives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_I... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_t... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya_(2015%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya...
arwineap 4y ago
I'm failing to understand how balloons are different from satellites, save for altitude; those sats could be carrying payloads other than ISR as well.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KarlKemp 4y ago
  It’s impossible to operate satellites if you need approval from every single country you might fly over.
- AareyBaba 4y ago
  Balloons can loiter over a location.
  - xpe 4y ago
    So can teenaged geosynchronous satellites.
- flakeoil 4y ago
  I guess a balloon could drop bombs. A balloon could also be in the way for airplanes. A balloon could also drop its payload, on purpose or by accident. The recent balloons have been reported to carry a load the size of up to several buses so I guess if that falls to ground it could cause quite some damage. Not sure satellites can shoot missiles or drop bombs that could hit earth in any effective manner.
  - georgeg23 4y ago
    Low Earth satellites can indeed shoot missiles or drop bombs. It's what the DoD chief called for, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/space-based-missile-defense-is-doable-dod-rd-chief-griffin/ https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/space-based-missile-defe... and almost happens decades ago with Brilliant Pebbles.
- usrusr 4y ago
bigcat12345678 4y ago
> China's [ASAT test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengyun) which has been the worst in history. Check your source, per your cited wiki page: > The shootdown, and the subsequent creation of a record-setting amount of in-orbit debris, drew serious international criticism.[15][16][17][18][19] The shootdown refers to the ASAT test on FY-1C For the reference [15] http://www.centerforspace.com/asat/ http://www.centerforspace.com/asat/, cannot be opened, the site is unreachable. For [16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17497766 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17497766 It's referring to a debris from Russia rocket, itself is a routine affair in the space. > The crew of the International Space Station (ISS) briefly took refuge in escape capsules as a piece of space junk hurtled by. > The debris - a discarded piece of Russian rocket - was detected on Friday when it was too late to move the ISS. For reference [17], a piece from BCC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm BCC's reporting on China is about as accurate as Fox's reporting on Democratic party. Go figure For reference [18], an intro page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_France-Presse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_France-Presse AFP Not sure what's relevance with a ASAT For reference [19], https://www.npr.org/2007/01/19/6923805/chinese-missile-destroys-satellite-in-500-mile-orbit https://www.npr.org/2007/01/19/6923805/chinese-missile-destr... > The governments of Britain, Japan and Australia are voicing concern over China's apparent test of an anti-satellite missile. The United States says China shot down one of its own aging weather satellites last week, in a kind of target practice in low Earth orbit. > "I was surprised that they were able to do it," Kristensen says. Seems about routine as any space tests... Then the conclusion is that China's ASAT test is "the worst in history." With evidences that are as substantial as web3's value to society. This type of post on HN is simply not passing the quality bar on HN...
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Reference 16 is cited because of the following paragraph: > The single biggest debris-generating event happened in 2007, when China used a missile to destroy one of its own satellites. The explosion created more than 3,000 trackable objects and an estimated 150,000 debris particles. Also, comparing the BBC to Fox on coverage of anything is disingenuous at best. Even if they have clear biases, the BBC is one of the most respected news outlets in the world, and have been very rarely just lying about facts. Edit: also, reference 15 includes an archive link, so the fact that it is currently unreachable is entirely irrelevant. Here is a sample from the archive link you misleadingly ignored: > The official debris count from China’s anti-satellite missile test has reached 1,337 pieces big enough to be tracked and NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office is estimating more than 35,000 pieces larger than 1 cm [...] This makes the January 11 test the largest debris-generating event in history, surpassing the previous record set in 1996, according to Dr. T.S. Kelso. Dr. Kelso serves as Senior Research Astrodynamicist in the Center for Space Standards & Innovation (CSSI) and webmaster of CelesTrak, a site dedicated to tracking space objects and monitoring them for in-orbit collisions.
culi 4y ago
> That article links has China and Russia complaining about the West being aggressors so honestly its kinda BS Right, that's why we should only ever trust Radio Free Asia for our news sources about what's happening internationally

gambiting 4y ago

>>Also the UN is an absolute joke UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Nothing more nothing less. I have no idea why people expect UN to take action, when UN is explicitly not an organisation for taking any actions.

handedness 4y ago
The UN is certainly something more than that, and not literally just a forum. They have an active duty peacekeeping force of approximately 81K people. While that's similar in size to the active duty forces from a nation like a Peru or Chile, the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history in places like Central Africa. For example: "Consider a small sample of heinous cases: in April 2016 Foreign Policy reported that, in the Central African Republic, a French commander tied up four girls and forced them to have sex with a dog. Soldiers from France, Gabon, and Burundi sexually abused at least 108 women and children in a single province. In July 2015, The Washington Post reported that peacekeepers in Haiti engaged in ‘transactional sex’ with over 229 women and girls in exchange for food, medicine, or other necessities. "Most recently, it was published in the The Washington Post in February 2016 that ‘four peacekeepers had allegedly paid girls as young as 13 as little as 50 cents in exchange for sex in a different camp for the internally displaced’ and ‘as many as 14 troops from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea allegedly raped and sodomised six boys ages nine to 15’." https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D878FE485 https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D8... I'm guessing if one lived in any of the areas mentioned above, the UN would feel about as much like an invading force as just about anything. The UN as a peacekeeping force was a great concept, but it's had a very mixed history when put into practice. But it exists, so many people expect it to be a solution to their problems.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "the Blue Helmets have had a de facto quasi-blanket immunity when committing war crimes, and have some pretty horrifying history" First, I don't think calling them "blue helmets" has the negative connotation you think it does. Second. What's the difference between the UN peacekeepers and any other army? All have a mixed history and I'm pretty sure have let's say a high amount of immunity. People do bad things, especially soldiers who have power and the cover of war. This will never change. Of course crimes should be prosecuted as well but I don't know much about the details of the UN peacekeepers.
  - dsego 4y ago
    During the balkan wars in the 90s people would jokingly call them "smurfs".
  - handedness 4y ago
    As you stated you don't know much about their details, it wasn't meant to be pejorative: they're actually called Blue Helmets (and Blue Berets). I would wager their most defining visual characteristic is their helmet color, which is quite terrible as camouflage and wholly unsuitable for a conventional military force. Their Rules of Engagement are also significantly different from those of a conventional military force. The International Court of Justice (the IJC–not the ICC) is part of the United Nations System. At that body, at least, UN peacekeepers enjoy blanket immunity. To oversimplify it, it's another case of, "we have investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." The UN nominally expects host countries to prosecute the war crimes of their peacekeepers, but in reality the nature of deploying to somewhere needing peacekeepers is that the rule of law on the ground is already minimal, at best. So there's no real enforcement mechanism to prosecute these crimes. It is not a trivial distinction. One can debate their virtue and utility value one way or the other, but the distinction is real and significant. They operate under a unique set of circumstances and saying war is hell and victors typically enjoy their own brand of immunity is true enough, but not entirely applicable here.
    - pasabagi 4y ago
tezza 4y ago
It can provide legal cover for invading countries… Bosnia, Iraq etc. The UN courts can issue judgements… Human Rights Courts: e.g. Slobodan Milosovic, Radavan Kardzich etc A lot of the global treaties are kicked around there They also enforce peace zones (poorly) like Lebanon, Israel demilitarised zone. They coordinate aid programs UNRWA etc
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I don't think legal cover is the right term. My understanding that basically all nations view their domestic laws as higher than the UN. UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    I think you might have a typo: "you and decisions" may mean "UN decisions".
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    The UN is a powerful, active international organization. If you aren't aware of that, you don't know what you are talking about. It's certainly limited in many ways and imperfect, but it transforms international affairs, freedom, and human rights. Ignorant, cynical claims on the the Internet do a lot of harm to real people, by tearing down valuable things that people need.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > UN decisions are more like a veil or facade of moral Authority Not so; "veil" or "facade" implies fakeness or concealment. The U.N. does not hide its mission or its position on human rights. > One of the great achievements of the United Nations is the creation of a comprehensive body of human rights law—a universal and internationally protected code to which all nations can subscribe and all people aspire. The United Nations has defined a broad range of internationally accepted rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. It has also established mechanisms to promote and protect these rights and to assist states in carrying out their responsibilities. [1] The lack of consensus and consistency is an ongoing challenge, sure, but it doesn't make the goals fake. Countries are flawed and have competing interests, but it is important to nudge the world in a better direction. [1] https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights
phpisthebest 4y ago
[flagged]
- wiml 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - braingenious 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - awwaiid 4y ago
        Looked it up. In 2020 we spent $2bn on the UN. We brought in $3421bn, so (ignoring that we overspent by 2x) that is like 0.06%. if you make $100k you pay like $18k in federal tax. So that comes out to $10.50 or so.
      - neodymiumphish 4y ago
        This is such a pedantic and unnecessary line of questioning. Based on my understanding of the federal budget, my contribution to the UN last year would be somewhere between $100 and $200. Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Isn't that more than enough to be irritated with their existence or capacities? $150/year is a significant amount that I'd definitely rather not pay. This is based on one estimate that 1.2% of the federal budget was for the UN. Another estimate says 11.2b in 2020, when the federal budget was 4.79t. That estimate knocks my contribution significantly lower (anywhere from $10-40).
        braingenious 4y ago
        >Why are you and the other GP asking about individual contributions? Curiosity for me! Out of (further) curiosity, what makes a post on this website “unnecessary” vs (I’m assuming) “necessary”?
rmk 4y ago
This is misinformed. The UN does take a lot of 'actions', one of the most important ones being Peackeeping missions. The explicit mission of the UN is to avert violent conflict. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter
backtoyoujim 4y ago
/derail
- kidme5 4y ago
  Feels like intentional bury. The OP about Space Development Agency is a big deal.
00kevn 4y ago
I just went on a ride about how the UN UN-Nazi'd the world
nwatson 4y ago
UN World Food Programme. Absolutely meaningful. Some other humanitarian coordination too.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. E.g. here are some passages I hilighted from Chapter 1: "Americans could envision the Soviet Union joining the United States in policing the peace in the brighter new world that would arise from the carnage [of WW2]" (page 2) "The Soviet ambassador... was even stronger than the others in pleading for a security council with teeth" (page 9) "Chopping the air with his hands to emphasize his words, Truman said the new UN must keep the world 'free from the fear of war'." (page 19) More generally the ongoing theme of the book is the extent to which the UN has been successful, and unsuccessful, at ensuring world peace in various conflicts that have flared since its founding. I did get the impression that not a lot of thought was put into the design of the UN, and there is the possibility that it could've been much more successful with a radically different design. [Edit: To be more concrete -- Google tells me that global military spending was $2.1 trillion in 2021. You'd think it would be worth putting a mere 1% of that $2.1 trillion, something like $21 billion, into essay competitions, agent-based simulations, online diplomacy games, academic literature reviews, etc. in order to design an optimal UN structure that minimizes the risk of war. But the actual structure of the UN was designed using far, far less than $21 billion worth of analysis, based on what I recall from the Meisler book.] That's not to say that the UN being a forum is bad or unnecessary. But it's interesting to me how everyone seems to have forgotten its original eutopian aspiration to create a world free from war. Maybe has something to do with the fact that people who lived through WW2 are mostly dead now, and few living people understand at a visceral level how horrifying war between great powers really is.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 4y ago
  > It's interesting to me that this has become such a common internet talking point. A while ago, I finished reading a history of the UN (the one by Stanley Meisler), and I definitely got the impression that the founders of the UN wanted it to be more than just a forum. It's worth thinking about this context when considering the Korean War when it was UNC (UN Command) that was the primary defense force: https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conflict/ https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conf...
GeekyBear 4y ago
> UN is literally just a forum for countries to meet and discuss matters. Article 43 of the UN Charter would, if it were ever implemented, create a military force under the control of the UN Security Council. >The potential of the United Nations and its Charter remained a dominant subject in schools and communities into the 1950s, focused especially on those Charter promises to protect member states "against violators of the peace." Chapter VII dealt with enforcement action: Article 39 first authorized the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"; Article 42 was designed to respond with "air, sea or land forces as may be necessary"; and Article 43 committed all UN member states "to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, facilities, including rights of passage necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security." Although much hope for the future was placed in the ratification of Article 43, it was never implemented. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap&v=2.1&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E35a4e14b https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA514849456&sid=sitemap...
wolverine876 4y ago
The UN Security Council especially, and other organs, have singificant influence for setting and enforcing interntional law. The UN also handles much more than military missions, including health, technical coordination, and much more.
dx034 4y ago
And they are able to get leaders/delegates from nearly all countries in a room regularly. That alone can be crucial.

ziftface 4y ago

[flagged]

moose_man 4y ago
[flagged]
esperent 4y ago
Can you be more specific? I'm from a country that people would consider part of "The West". However we've never attacked anyone except invaders in entire country's history. I'm sure you could dredge up some connection to the US and get angry with us about it, if you were an Islamic extremist or something. More realistically though, you could find fault with any country with that attitude. Speaking of current geopolitics instead of historical, the recent blame for causing a rise in aggression lies firmly with Russia and China. The US is not blameless but neither are they starting any new wars in almost two decades. So, tell me again about why everything is the fault of "The West", including all the western countries who have never attacked anyone, in your mind?
- infrawhispers 4y ago
  The Iraq War of 2003 [1] began with an invasion almost two decades ago (anniv will be in March 2003 iirc) with participation of a coalition of Western governments. That "almost" is doing heavy lifting given that this war officially lasted until ~2011 and led to further interventions as recently as 2014[2]. Notably, a non-trivial rationale for this war were lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction - which unsurprisingly, were never found. I am curious if your government participated in this war. Ignoring the ongoing interventions in foreign conflicts [3][4], US Foreign Policy has been absolutely _disastrous_ for a number of countries around the world. From the perspective of the US Govt, this may be fine though I would argue that the real effects from destabilization and strained bilateral relations are simply accumulating. Happy to provide citations for multiple blunders in the last 3 decades. It is not surprising that many countries in the global south now see China|Russia|India as better bilateral partners. Devolving critique to simply originating from "if you were an Islamic extremist of something" is very reductive and I would implore you to read more about global politics from different national perspectives. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_I... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_t... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya_(2015%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_Libya...

arwineap 4y ago

I'm failing to understand how balloons are different from satellites, save for altitude; those sats could be carrying payloads other than ISR as well.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
KarlKemp 4y ago
It’s impossible to operate satellites if you need approval from every single country you might fly over.
AareyBaba 4y ago
Balloons can loiter over a location.
- xpe 4y ago
  So can teenaged geosynchronous satellites.
flakeoil 4y ago
I guess a balloon could drop bombs. A balloon could also be in the way for airplanes. A balloon could also drop its payload, on purpose or by accident. The recent balloons have been reported to carry a load the size of up to several buses so I guess if that falls to ground it could cause quite some damage. Not sure satellites can shoot missiles or drop bombs that could hit earth in any effective manner.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  Low Earth satellites can indeed shoot missiles or drop bombs. It's what the DoD chief called for, https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/space-based-missile-defense-is-doable-dod-rd-chief-griffin/ https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/space-based-missile-defe... and almost happens decades ago with Brilliant Pebbles.
usrusr 4y ago

bigcat12345678 4y ago

> China's [ASAT test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengyun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengyun) which has been the worst in history. Check your source, per your cited wiki page: > The shootdown, and the subsequent creation of a record-setting amount of in-orbit debris, drew serious international criticism.[15][16][17][18][19] The shootdown refers to the ASAT test on FY-1C For the reference [15] http://www.centerforspace.com/asat/ http://www.centerforspace.com/asat/, cannot be opened, the site is unreachable. For [16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17497766 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17497766 It's referring to a debris from Russia rocket, itself is a routine affair in the space. > The crew of the International Space Station (ISS) briefly took refuge in escape capsules as a piece of space junk hurtled by. > The debris - a discarded piece of Russian rocket - was detected on Friday when it was too late to move the ISS. For reference [17], a piece from BCC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm BCC's reporting on China is about as accurate as Fox's reporting on Democratic party. Go figure For reference [18], an intro page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_France-Presse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_France-Presse AFP Not sure what's relevance with a ASAT For reference [19], https://www.npr.org/2007/01/19/6923805/chinese-missile-destroys-satellite-in-500-mile-orbit https://www.npr.org/2007/01/19/6923805/chinese-missile-destr... > The governments of Britain, Japan and Australia are voicing concern over China's apparent test of an anti-satellite missile. The United States says China shot down one of its own aging weather satellites last week, in a kind of target practice in low Earth orbit. > "I was surprised that they were able to do it," Kristensen says. Seems about routine as any space tests... Then the conclusion is that China's ASAT test is "the worst in history." With evidences that are as substantial as web3's value to society. This type of post on HN is simply not passing the quality bar on HN...

tsimionescu 4y ago
Reference 16 is cited because of the following paragraph: > The single biggest debris-generating event happened in 2007, when China used a missile to destroy one of its own satellites. The explosion created more than 3,000 trackable objects and an estimated 150,000 debris particles. Also, comparing the BBC to Fox on coverage of anything is disingenuous at best. Even if they have clear biases, the BBC is one of the most respected news outlets in the world, and have been very rarely just lying about facts. Edit: also, reference 15 includes an archive link, so the fact that it is currently unreachable is entirely irrelevant. Here is a sample from the archive link you misleadingly ignored: > The official debris count from China’s anti-satellite missile test has reached 1,337 pieces big enough to be tracked and NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office is estimating more than 35,000 pieces larger than 1 cm [...] This makes the January 11 test the largest debris-generating event in history, surpassing the previous record set in 1996, according to Dr. T.S. Kelso. Dr. Kelso serves as Senior Research Astrodynamicist in the Center for Space Standards & Innovation (CSSI) and webmaster of CelesTrak, a site dedicated to tracking space objects and monitoring them for in-orbit collisions.

culi 4y ago

> That article links has China and Russia complaining about the West being aggressors so honestly its kinda BS Right, that's why we should only ever trust Radio Free Asia for our news sources about what's happening internationally