How would Russia, China, Iran & North Korea react if....?

It has never happened in history against civilians. It would be political suicide, if not a chargeable offense.

 

Why? Police are allowed to kill rioters aren't they if they refuse orders to disperse or comply with the laws.

And not every president (or governor ) is going to be worried about the "politics of shooting rioters.

 

No, police are NOT allowed to shoot rioters unless there is an IMMINENT threat of serious injury or death. Issuing an order like that would end any President's career... quickly.

 

So? A president can;t serve more than two terms anyway.

 

Killing civilians like that would most likely end him up in jail. Do you have a full understanding of what "weapons free" actually means?

 

Apparently you think I do not. Care to enlighten us?

 

"Weapons Free" is a NATO term. It designates "weapon status". Let me use the easiest example to explain. Air Defense. If you are... oh... a STINGER gunner overwatching a maneuver force, you can be put on three different "weapon status". "Weapons Tight" means DO NOT FIRE. It could mean that there are friendlies in the area or something else that might cause an accident if you fire. (Even though Stingers have a system to query any aircraft to find out if it is a friend or foe - IFF)
In any case... "weapons tight" means DO NOT FIRE.

"Weapons Hold" is the next level... it says "do not fire unless the target takes a hostile action", if it fires at you or friendlies, for example. The third level is "Weapons Free". That means fire at anything. This status could result if it is known that there are no friendlies, just enemy, in the area, for example. In Air Defense parlance, its often referred to as "If it flies, it dies".

So riot control personnel being told to go to "weapons free" essentially means to shoot at anything you see... anything that moves. Not only is this inappropriate to order against civilians... its just out and out murder.

 

I can say this:
1. With China, they will up their rhetoric to invade Taiwan as their response
2. North Korea is already in a state of hysteria. That type of talk only reinforces the North Korean propaganda to its own citizens living in the country. Remember, we are the barbarians, and every North Korean is quite literally taught to hate us Americans.
3. Iran would call another jihad and we will have more terrorism on our shores through the internet. Congrats.
4. Russia will simply say that the "Satan II" Intercontinental Missiles will be launching in five minutes.

 

They might make speeches at the UN and "protest," but I don't think they will sue or take "legal action" in an international court of law since we don't participate in the ICC. More likey, any American in that country, no matter the reason, is at higher risk of arrest in order to "embarrass" the US. NATO would be mum, but it would also open the door for China and Russia to offer an alternative to US hegemony. Joint military exercises are being held now, especially with China and Russia that were near the Alaskan Aleutian Islands. However, they will increase their rhetoric and this will be more apparent and more open in places like North Korea.

They already try to recruit spies. We had two US Navy persons arrested for doing such a thing, all for money. They are now facing general court-martial charges. We even had Israel spy on us, and BTW, we do the same. That is part of the game that everyone plays internationally, including the US, Russia, China, our allies, and our adversaries. Iran primarily uses the internet in doing this and since that is free speech, anyone can listen to it if they understand Arabic.

Boycotts is not something. Sanction may be imposed by Russia. China does not do this but there is a first for everything. Iran and North Korea do not have the international monetary system to even think about sanctions.

Finally, China has the largest army in the world. North Korea has the second largest army in the world. Both are armed and with North Korea, we have that DMZ that is a major problem.

 

why?

 

No one should die unnecessarily. Like I aid earlier, the general rule is not to kill unless there is IMMINENT danger of serious bodily harm or death. Killing for the fun of it is a ticket to jail... or worse... and should be. Murder is generally considered a bad thing.

 

So killing people rioting and setting fires is "unnecessary". You must be one of the wokesters.

And isn't what constitutes "imminent danger" largely a matter of opinion?

 

It is a matter of law in which a "reasonable person" must be in imminent danger to their life. It is why the jury decided to convict the sergeant and not use his self-defense claim even though he was armed but had his firearm down and away, not pointing at anyone.

 

In other words it's a matter of opinion.

 

Not really. If you want to use opinion and be very loose in that opinion in using deadly force, then by all means do so, but be prepared to face the consequences. This is what most people don't tell you when you shoot someone because the police will determine if charges are necessary first, and then the DA will do the same. People sometimes use politics or the victim to justify the shooting. But it is based on a case by case basis. But the law is clear on what a reasonable person should tell or do. And the Supreme Court has given clear definitions on what it means reasonable.

 

Setting a fire is arson. Arson doesn't carry the death penalty unless a life is involved.
Knowing how to determine if there is an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm... or not...is one of the reasons we spend lots of time training our police.

 

What are those "clear definitions"?

 

When did I say a word about "killing for fun"?

 

Killing folks for setting fires qualifies as "for fun". It takes IMMINENT threat of death or serious injury. Arson does NOT qualify.

 

In Iran the government leads shouts of Death to America. Krushev said Russia would crush U.S. Current Russian propaganda calls for the fall of the U.S. North Korea has children count how many Americans they want to kill in elementary school. China is starting their own race superiority doctrine.

Umm, might they think that it took us long enough?

 

"Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population," Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed "everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another."
Remembering history is sometimes painful, but instructive.

 

Recent history:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527

The precedent has been set.

The above, by the way, might be one of the reasons for the hasty retreat from Afghanistan.

I don't think so. Neither China, nor Russia, are able to replace the US today. I see Germany as the most likely alternative. Japan, South Korea, and Australia, are better candidates for a new NATO.

Idle threats - the topic of this thread - have nothing to do with NATO anyway.

Yes, the actions described in my post are already taking place, at a smaller scale. Dictatorships are paranoid and schizophrenic in the best of times, so real threats will see such actions spiraling almost out of control. I forgot to mention that the first recipients of their ire will be their own citizens, with arbitrary arrests and show trials mushrooming. Dictators don't want citizens questioning their decisions.

Yes, everybody and their cats are spying on everybody and their cats. I'm talking about an increase in efforts to recruit spies.

Iranians don't speak Arabic.

Boycotts brought the apartheid regime in South Africa down.

Sanctions can be imposed regardless of monetary system. Trade barriers, for instance.

Yes, but will those armies fight to win, and will those armies be equipped with everything they need to win?

However, we're talking about idle threats, not war.

 

A sign often found hanging in Army offices all over the world...

"I came to Kuwait with 52 tanks. After 100 days of Coalition bombing I had 50. After twenty minutes against American M1 tanks.. I had none."
Iraqi Tank Battalion Commander

By the way, we now do everything we can to avoid noncombatant casualties. JDAMS, a precision weapon delivered by aircraft is a perfect example. We stopped doing indiscriminate "carpet bombing" long ago. Today, any Air Force General that bragged about killing "20 percent of the population" or claimed he "killed everything that moved"... would be relieved on the spot.

 

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden released his first national security strategy plan on Wednesday, outlining how the United States would “effectively compete” with China in the coming years, “while constraining a dangerous Russia.”

The 42-page document was initially scheduled for release last December, but was delayed when it became clear that Russia was preparing for military action in Ukraine.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/12/bid...mminent-danger-china-as-long-term-threat.html

Were you having an Emily Litella moment?

 

What about what they are actually doing.... start shifting/pressuring BRIC and OPEC countries away from the dollar and towards the yen. I note that you didn't even mention the action that they are actually taking and which is far far more important than the 12 issues you mentioned combined. If the dollar falls as the global standard for trade, that is basically the whole ballgame.