NationStates Jolt Archive

As I watch the siege continuing in Mumbai, India, I am wondering why there are no international anti-terrorist attack forces assembled that could fly into any country where this occurs to combat it WITH the local police.

Why are local police left alone to fight against terrorists who have more sophisticated arms (grenades etc.) and have taken over several areas of a city, which taxes the local police? When 911 happened, I notice that NYC relied on the local police forces of other states (as far away as NH and VT) o come in and help the NYPD and NYFD in their efforts.

Assuming countries agreed to allow an international anti-terrorist attack force in situations such as the Mumbai situation, they could contribute to training costs and so on in conjunction with their own police.

I wondered what others thought.

Well India commandos did a pretty good job.But for countries that wouldn't have the money to form such a reaction force it would be helpful. But then you have the problem of countrys not wanting to give any taskforce bsuch borad sweeping powers to take control in a nation hotspot and things like that.

lolrainbow6

Well India commandos did a pretty good job.But for countries that wouldn't have the money to form such a reaction force it would be helpful. But then you have the problem of countrys not wanting to give any taskforce bsuch borad sweeping powers to take control in a nation hotspot and things like that.

This is it.

It's a matter of sovereignty.

Too costly, or it would take a good amount of time for response if it was a single entity.

Also I agree with fighter, I don't like the idea of a world police that has jurisdiction of wherever.

Local knowledge has a lot going for it, as does speed of deployment.

It would need some sort of space station to co-ordinate things...something like this
http://davidszondy.com/future/Thunderbirds/thunderbird5.htm

It would need some sort of space station to co-ordinate things...something like this
http://davidszondy.com/future/Thunderbirds/thunderbird5.htm

Have you even SEEN the International Space Station lately?

That if it hadn't fallen out of the sky yet.

Assuming countries agreed to allow an international anti-terrorist attack force in situations such as the Mumbai situation, they could contribute to training costs and so on in conjunction with their own police.

That's one hell of an assumption right there. Plus, given the general Third-World conditions of that part of the world, I doubt they'd be inclined to contribute to an extra-national force.

Hmmmph. Not an attack force. Beyond the sovereignty issue, there's the issue of having enough down-time between missions, or having a large enough unit to be effective on an international scale. Terrorism is happening all the time, right now. There are relatively few incidents that actually manage to make the International News relative to how many incidents occur in a given month.

A better "Task force" might be... hmmm... what if? what if Interpol had decent funding and better gear? Find, advise, assist, but let the locals take the thugs down, maybe run a training centre or something to help local governments beef up their antiterror units?

Would this be the U.N.'s job? Specifically, the U.N. Security Council? I know that member-nations have to contribute some kind of aid to an international force, which is why Switzerland refused to join.

Yes, but trying to get the UN to agree on something that nobody would veto means nobody probably gonna give a damn enough to do something. Those more funding to interpol is always a good thing.

Don't you think a country would call in the international task force it participates in to help its local police in such situations?

lolrainbow6

My thoughts exactly. We need John Clark, people!

Also I agree with fighter, I don't like the idea of a world police that has jurisdiction of wherever.

INTERPOL

'nough said?

Looks like a job for Megaforce!
http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/1162540800/_i/15167585/1.jpg
they got flying motorcycles-
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/stills/megaforce.flv.jpg

As I watch the siege continuing in Mumbai, India, I am wondering why there are no international anti-terrorist attack forces assembled that could fly into any country where this occurs to combat it WITH the local police.

Why are local police left alone to fight against terrorists who have more sophisticated arms (grenades etc.) and have taken over several areas of a city, which taxes the local police? When 911 happened, I notice that NYC relied on the local police forces of other states (as far away as NH and VT) o come in and help the NYPD and NYFD in their efforts.

Assuming countries agreed to allow an international anti-terrorist attack force in situations such as the Mumbai situation, they could contribute to training costs and so on in conjunction with their own police.

I wondered what others thought.

I would think this should be a UN function. However, they have shown considerable incompetence in dealing with this sort of thing in the past. (they have a much better record with things like WHO and UNESCO).

Would this be the U.N.'s job? Specifically, the U.N. Security Council? I know that member-nations have to contribute some kind of aid to an international force, which is why Switzerland refused to join.

Switzerland refused to join the UN on that basis? :confused:

The SC's job is regarding the maintenance of international peace and security - these attacks are internal state affairs.

As I watch the siege continuing in Mumbai, India, I am wondering why there are no international anti-terrorist attack forces assembled that could fly into any country where this occurs to combat it WITH the local police.

Why are local police left alone to fight against terrorists who have more sophisticated arms (grenades etc.) and have taken over several areas of a city, which taxes the local police? When 911 happened, I notice that NYC relied on the local police forces of other states (as far away as NH and VT) o come in and help the NYPD and NYFD in their efforts.

Assuming countries agreed to allow an international anti-terrorist attack force in situations such as the Mumbai situation, they could contribute to training costs and so on in conjunction with their own police.

I wondered what others thought.Some main problems:

Sovereignty - One country allowing another country to handle it's terrorist problems happens very rarely. The hijacked Lufthansa plane in Mogadishu is one example, but this is probably mainly because Somalia had nothing they could use to storm the plane and wouldn't receive blame when the Germans did it themselves.
Logistics - Stationing a force anywhere is going to cause issues with transporting them to the scene of the attack in a timely manner. Stationing a branch in each country makes no sense, since you can just let the individual countries set up their own SWAT equivalent forces. A regional force might make sense, but it certainly wouldn't have worked in this case given the enmity between Pakistan and India and the unlikely scenario that both would grant such a force permission while the other does the same.
Familiarity - A force you suggest would lack local knowledge (from knowledge of the area down to languages, which would largely be necessary to negotiate or listen in on the terrorists). A police force that is stationed in the country in question would not lack these.


Would this be the U.N.'s job? Specifically, the U.N. Security Council? I know that member-nations have to contribute some kind of aid to an international force, which is why Switzerland refused to join.Switzerland is in the UN.

INTERPOL

'nough said?
Interpol isn't an international police force. It's an organisation that facilitates cooperation between different worldwide police forces to deal with crimes that cross national borders. It has no enforcement powers of its own, it depends entirely on domestic police forces to enfroce the law.

Some main problems:

Sovereignty - One country allowing another country to handle it's terrorist problems happens very rarely. The hijacked Lufthansa plane in Mogadishu is one example, but this is probably mainly because Somalia had nothing they could use to storm the plane and wouldn't receive blame when the Germans did it themselves.
Logistics - Stationing a force anywhere is going to cause issues with transporting them to the scene of the attack in a timely manner. Stationing a branch in each country makes no sense, since you can just let the individual countries set up their own SWAT equivalent forces. A regional force might make sense, but it certainly wouldn't have worked in this case given the enmity between Pakistan and India and the unlikely scenario that both would grant such a force permission while the other does the same.
Familiarity - A force you suggest would lack local knowledge (from knowledge of the area down to languages, which would largely be necessary to negotiate or listen in on the terrorists). A police force that is stationed in the country in question would not lack these.


Switzerland is in the UN.
Re Sovereignty: I do not suggest that one country allow another to handle its terrorist problems. I suggest that each country participate in an international anti-terrorist task force by sending some of its own (and its money) for appropriate training in weaponry and strategy and counterstrategy etc. When terrorism such as what occurred in Mumbai arises; i.e., in several different areas in a city, then the international anti-terrorism task force could be called in by any participating or non-participating country whose local police force alone is insufficient to handle the problem.

Re Logistics: As members of the international terrorism task force are from around the world, there would always be some trained personnel in a particular country or nearby to assist while other members fly in from other countries. In Europe, where countries are next to one another, this poses no logistical problem and there would be a quick response time. In more continental countries like India, US and Austrailia, there would be a lag in time, but jets etc. would still get there faster than the 5 days it took to quell the problem in Mumbai. My guestimate would be that it would have taken 2 days instead of 5, and a saving of lives and property.

Re: Familiarity--As noted, the international force would be working with local police in any particular situation. In addition, their training could occur at sites in different countries with the local police, to give them some preliminary familiarity.

Finally, I agree that the UN is supposed to do this, but I don't think they focus on "anti-terror" and, instead, they seem to focus on "peacekeeping" so even if called in, I don't think they could handle this type of situation well.

As I live in NYC, and view what is occurring in Mumbai, it occurs to me that the NYPD and NYFD simply could not handle multiple sites (say a simultaneous attack on the empire state building, chrysler building, shea stadium, yankee stadium and the subway) and would require international help sooner, rather than later. As great as they are, they simply do not have the necessary manpower and armaments to handle buildings with 100 floors or which hold tens of thousands of people and so on.

In other words, as the terrorists have "cells" all over the world wconsisting of people who are training to fly or take a boat into whatever country they intend to attack, don't the nations of the world need to start thinking globally like the terrorists do and train members similarly for an "anti" or "counter" terror exercise? Don't the nations have to get themselves into the 21st century and stop thinking parochially about sovereignty when they are under attack by terrorists?

Switzerland is in the UN.

Only since 2002, which I think was his point.

Ever heard of the USA?

"Sir, a miniscule fraction of the population of this Middle Eastern country, acting without the authorization and indeed against the lawful government, has launched attacks involving less than a platoon of men against strategically useless sites inside our country, in which all of the enemies died by their own actions."

"Do they have oil?"

"Um... yes, sir."

"INVADE!"