Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea • Hacker News Board

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#41

Post by selimthegrim » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #39

martin_a wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. As a sidenote from a German: This is somewhat delicate and often talked about in German population. Not really happening in media, but I think everybody has his stance on this and some pros or cons. Anyway it's not easy for Germans.

Yes, it's similar to the situations in Japan and South Korea where the US has what are essentially US supporting puppet governments in power. It's impossible for these countries to kick the US military bases out of their lands.

The Philippines did.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#42

Post by sam_lowry_ » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

martin_a wrote: post #34

Retric wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short term perhaps. However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. Japan for example has the 5th most powerful military in the world. ‘Amusingly,‘ Cuba has a US base and a rather antagonistic relationship. However, long term many countries like US bases because money flows in one direction from that base into the local economy. It’s the same reason so many bases exist across the US.

> However, I doubt many people consider Germany a puppet of the US. As a sidenote from a German: This is somewhat delicate and often talked about in German population. Not really happening in media, but I think everybody has his stance on this and some pros or cons. Anyway it's not easy for Germans.

Charles de Gaule forced US troops out some 50+ years ago, so they settled mostly in Germany. In the coming years, US will relocate 12,000 troops from Germany to Belgium, because Germany wants them out.

Now Belgium has the NATO HQ, SHAPE and the 12,000 extra US solders, in addition to many thousands already present on its soil.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#43

Post by artofgo » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

hchz wrote: post #29

michaelcampbell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has the US invaded and taken as part of its own country?

Puerto Rico Texas (invaded by Americans and annexed) Guam Hawaii (USMC supported coup by European and American businessmen)

Technically, Puerto Rico and Guam were already invaded by Spain before it was handed over to the US in 1898. With Texas, I believe it won its war of independence against Mexico and later annexed by the US (1835). If you're going to go back that far they US "invasions" is probably fairly tame compared to other countries of that time period.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#44

Post by evgen » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #40

Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a history of handling territory back after invasions, which makes people less nervous. China’s invasion /annexation of Tibet for example made everyone on it’s borders very concerned.

> The US has a history of handling territory back after invasions Really?

No they keep it, which is why the US presidential elections are so very contentious in the US swing states of France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and the Philippines.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#45

Post by hpph » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #36

While a bit sensationalist it obviously poses a real problem and fortunately its being acknowledged and acted upon. however google can bring up the stuff of nightmares of what we have dumped into the oceans, worse this of course only what we know of. many countries have dumped stuff without any record keeping. Chemical Weapons and other munitions https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/decaying-weapo... https:/…

there is a documentary on youtube about oil leaking out of sunk WWII ships. Some of those ships are really close to shores and tourist destinations. Fun time.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#46

Post by newen » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #41

newen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's similar to the situations in Japan and South Korea where the US has what are essentially US supporting puppet governments in power. It's impossible for these countries to kick the US military bases out of their lands.

The Philippines did.

Because a volcano destroyed the bases. Not because the Philippines forced the US to leave.

Edit: And so what if bases are easy to rebuild? I'm talking about the politics of the matter. The US didn't want to spend money on rebuilding the base, so they didn't. The decision had nothing to do with the Philippines government. Which is my whole point. The Philippines government couldn't have kicked the US bases out if they wanted to.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#47

Post by xref » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

hchz wrote: post #29

michaelcampbell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has the US invaded and taken as part of its own country?

Puerto Rico Texas (invaded by Americans and annexed) Guam Hawaii (USMC supported coup by European and American businessmen)

US interests overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, and personally I believe a day of national reckoning over that is still inevitable.

However people using it to justify Russia annexing Crimea in 2014 strains credulity.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#48

Post by konart » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #37

konart wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So killing a fuck ton of people is okay as long as you not going to grab some land (but take some oil or any other resource), right?

Ethically, no. But at the nation state level, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that countries care much more about protecting territory than people, especially people in far away places. That’s both the story of colonialism, and the story of countries standing by and doing nothing during various genocides in the 19th and 20th century. So yes, I would absolutely expect countries to respond differently to the invasio…

>invasion of Ukraine than Iraq.

>behavior in Ukraine than in Syria.

See, the thing is - Iraq and Ukraine were `invaded`. So you can actually compare the response from the other countries.

Syria is a very different story as Russia was invited there. So it is obvious why the reaction to Russian presence there is different.

Yet when the US 'enters' the scene - everything is different. In both cases.

And this is something people over here in Russia can't really understand. Why the hell bombing the hell out of Iraq was okay, but cutting off a small region in a relatively calm manner in Ukraine is not.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#49

Post by valuearb » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #46

selimthegrim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Philippines did.

Because a volcano destroyed the bases. Not because the Philippines forced the US to leave. Edit: And so what if bases are easy to rebuild? I'm talking about the politics of the matter. The US didn't want to spend money on rebuilding the base, so they didn't. The decision had nothing to do with the Philippines government. Which is my whole point. The Philippines government couldn't have kicked the US bases out if they…

Bases are easy to rebuild.

Re: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea

#50

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

konart wrote: post #48

ashtonkem wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethically, no. But at the nation state level, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that countries care much more about protecting territory than people, especially people in far away places. That’s both the story of colonialism, and the story of countries standing by and doing nothing during various genocides in the 19th and 20th century. So yes, I would absolutely expect countries to respond differently to the invasio…

>invasion of Ukraine than Iraq. >behavior in Ukraine than in Syria. See, the thing is - Iraq and Ukraine were `invaded`. So you can actually compare the response from the other countries. Syria is a very different story as Russia was invited there. So it is obvious why the reaction to Russian presence there is different. Yet when the US 'enters' the scene - everything is different. In both cases. And this is somethin…

Because Russia took a part of Ukraine, or at least is trying to. It freaks out Europeans to see another country in the region invading neighbors and claiming territory. It’s the same basic reason why the Brits responded very poorly when the Germans invaded Belgium; everyone in the region starts worrying if they’re next.

For all the flaws of the US invasion of Iraq, the US didn’t claim Iraq as US territory. Yes, we’ve maintained a military presence there, but that isn’t the same as putting up a US flag over the country and saying “this is ours now”.