Is there any worthwhile solution to the problem of militarization in Siachen?
While both sides agree to a military demilitarization in principle, one of the key contentious issues is the demarcation of the AGPL. India wants both sides to agree to demarcate the current army positions of both sides on Siachen before demilitarization, so that in the event of future potential occupation, the world can know what were the actual positions before and hence who has occupied territory in case of war. Pakistan does not agree to demarcating these lines before demilitarization, as according to it, this would make it into a virtual border on a glacier that was originally not demarcated. According to Pakistan, both armies do not have any legitimate claim to any border on the glacier. India fears withdrawal before demarcation because, if in case Pakistan occupies the glacier after demilitarization of both sides, then India would have no locus standi to its claim. Having won the glacier and holding on to it with a lot of difficulty, India is loathe to take any such risk. It would be prudent to note that it is the Indian army which stands on the glacier. The Pakistani army is not on the glacier itself but the nearby saltoro ridge. India sees it as a risk to withdraw from the glacier it currently controls without sufficient checks and balances (demarcation).
Would it be possible for all major militarized countries to agree to cut down on military spending, and put the money more towards programs that help the population (medicare, Medicaid)?
Great idea in concept but, unfortunately, destined to fail. There have been a few notable examples in the 20th Century. The Washington Naval Treaty was an effort at limiting the navies of major sea powers. It derived the famous 5:5:3 formula that limited, by tonnage, for example of capital ships for Britain, United States and Japan.Japan was not too happy by the ratio assigned to it. Britain took advantage of defining its ratio only to include ships in the Royal Navy and excluded the ships it had transferred to his colonies. And while it delimited the number of capital ships (viz., battleships, battle cruisers and cruisers), Britain, United States and Japan used their excluded tonnage and converted battle cruisers to aircraft carriers (e.g., Furious, Courageous, Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, etc.) And all of the participating countries increased their flotillas of destroyers and submarines.The follow-up London Naval Treaties of 1930 and 1936 really set the stage for the expansion of the navies for the major sea powers. While newly proposed tonnage limits were achieved, it was accomplished through the scrapping of obsolete, capital ships and using the saved tonnage for modern light and heavy cruisers. The post-Depression period allowed for massive naval rearmament, effectively cancelling naval treaties, the fastest growing Navy being that of the US.Each country feels it has the right to defend its sovereignty. Until there is an universal agreement for each one to reduce their defense budgets accordingly, the shift of money for non-defense programs will not occur.Thanks for A2A.
Why does America need a border wall?
Hello Punk Rock and Minerals, In my opinion it is totally unnecessary for three reasons. 1) The Government need to get their act together and root out the illegal immigrants and immediately send them back from whence they came. 2) Building the wall will NOT stop illegal immigrants from getting over it, they will find a way. Look at the Russian East/West Berlin Wall. It was securely guarded by the Russian police and military but still 1000s managed to get over (or under) the wall using many different methods including a type of resistance in East Berlin in liaison with West Berlin. 3) I don't believe the American taxpayer will want a large increase in their tax bill in order to fund the multi billion construction. It was sheer idiocy when Trump said that he would build the wall but the Mexicans' would foot the bill and the Mexican President must have rolled over laughing when Trump made that inane statement. Poseidon
Do you believe that the majority of the population of the border states wants a border wall.?
No. The population along the border strongly oppose a wall.New Mexicans, Arizonans, Texans, and Californians by a nearly 2–1 margin oppose the construction of a border wall. (See polling results below). People who live in the borderland region have long opposed any expansion of fences and barriers along the border.All of our representatives along the 1951-mile border oppose a border wall. Republican Congressman Will Hurd of the Texas 23rd District, whose district includes 802 miles of the border has called the border “crisis” a myth and most of us agree.Speaking for myself as a resident living close to the border I am also absolutely opposed to any border wall.Our borderland region, from Brownsville to San Diego is the safest region to live in the United States with some of the lowest rates of crime in the nation. You are twelve times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in Indianapolis than in El Paso.We have long lived peacefully in our binational border region, and there is no reason to build a wall between us.We oppose any further militarization of our border, or the destruction of our communities and natural environment with additional physical infrastructure like a wall.We do believe in smart border security, but a wall is not needed or wanted.Poll: Most in New Mexico oppose border wall despite security concernsAA majority of Arizonans oppose Trump border wall, survey saysAlong the border, many Texans support President Trump but don’t want a wallGOP Texas Rep. Will Hurd calls border 'crisis' a 'myth'
Can I buy militarized fighter jets?
A militarized jet? Nope, unless you have a crazy uncle in North Korea Air Force, or some-in-law with ISIS and they happen to come across one in their present region of influence.Side note: So here's a side note in case this is is a real question based on an actual need you have of an air strike. There are many (cheaper) ways to bring down some target, than employing an air strike. In any case, having just a fighter aircraft will not help you call it in for a pin point or even a general strike on any target. You need a lot of associated and support systems. An air strike can however bring about a shock and awe factor, though.
If no one in the public wants our police to become militarized, why have they become that?
There are a lot of reasons why this occurred. Deference to the Law Enforcement Experts. When the chief says he needs an Armored vehicle, who is there to argue? While the city council can say no, there is tendency to simply trust the advice of the experts. The military is a feeder for the police. A lot of police officers are prior service. Veterans hiring preferences ensure that you are going to get former military working as law enforcement. In the minds of most military people they see police work as being similar. You are going to get a lot of military style solutions when you have a former military workforce and leadership.I wanted to be in the military but I became a cop. If you have ever met a security guard that really wanted to be a cop, I am here to tell you that there are a lot of cops that wanted to be elite special operators. With the exception of a very few SWAT teams there is absolutely no comparison between SWAT and military special operations units. Its easy to inventory equipment. It is easy for management to count things like armored vehicles or special firearms. It's hard to track things like training. When you buy training it's not a permanent purchase - the trained people can leave or get reassigned.Opaque processes. A police chief doesn't have to ask permission for equipment that doesn't cost money. If he wanted to buy an armored vehicle he'd have to fight for it in the budget, if he can get it for free he doesn't really need to ask.
How did the Treaty of Versailles lead to World War II?
The blame for the first world war was laid at the feet of the Germans, which they resented. Also, they had to pay huge amount in reparations, as well as losing key economic areas (like the Ruhr, which had lots of heavy industry). Due to this, Germany was hit extremely hard by the worldwide economic depression of the thirties. With high unemployment, people were extremely dissatisfied, and looked for solutions - which Hitler promised them, in the form of re-militarization, and revenge for the harsh peace of Versailles.
Are there any similarities in the way China has occupied and militarized the South China Sea and the way Germany occupied and militarized the Rhineland before WW2?
Taking/robbing something that did not belong to you is one thing, keeping or getting back something which belongs to you is another. May be you think the Chinese is wrong in assuming something, but they truly believe in the fact that those islands belonged to the Qing Dynasty Empire and were shamefully lost during the ‘century of humiliation’ (you can Google this plenty of references).You can question their believes but at least, on any count, their intentions are noble, not like the colonization/empire forces that robbed and pilferage, and enslaves under more glorious wordings like ‘colonization’.Before the People’s Republic of China standing firm on these, the Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwanese Chinese had long had the same ideas and some even took actions nad make protests as much weaker forces against mightier oppositions. I was in Hong Kong during those years and bear witness to what I’d just said. The PRC in contrast has only acted strongly in recent years. After all, the area is called South China Sea for goodness sake, not the South US Sea or South NATO Sea.Below is a picture “China Wants War”, who looked like the Nazi ?