Search results

Had heard of that. But we had got our wires crossed. There's a difference between the distance between point of delivery and impact on the one hand, and the range of impact once deployed. I was initially referring to the latter.

Your point is that they'll reap massive destruction, wiping out hundreds of millions in the process?

Agree with you on rule by committee, and conflicting interests, but it has enormous legitimacy around the world. That's in stark contrast to what the organisation actually is, which is something to be picked up and put down whenever it wants by the US. NATO will never have similar legitimacy...

League of Nations was formed in 1919. United Nations in 1944/5. NATO in 1949, for the very reason you indicate.

Not your best response. They're nearly 400km apart. I was responding to a comment about Russia and Ukraine, which are adjacent.

Somehow I'm not convinced that nuclear weapons were designed to be dropped on neighbouring countries.

NATO came into being pretty much at the same time as the United Nations. The continued existence of the former continues to undermine the efficacy of the latter. The ineffectiveness of the latter continues to sew the malaise that spreads throughout the globe. And that "questioner" who no doubt...

Not her most impressive moment. But what would you blame climate change for?

Charlotte Church :kiss::blush::drool: You can have Charles Moore.