Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 326 posts

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#181

Post by VBprogrammer »

coldtea wrote: post #105
thefounder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities. They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Here you have it, it's no secret: Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. fro…

> They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to…

I think part of this narrative is the US spends an incredible amount on the military. If they don't continue to cast the entire world as with us or against us then that amount of money becomes harder to justify.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#182

Post by cturner »

RobertoG wrote: post #157
cturner wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the idea of a European army to be the stuff of fantasy. The reason Europe is so dependent on the US is because European NATO members have for decades chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations to that treaty. Certainly this includes Denmark. A quick google suggests this rich nation is spending 1.3% instead of the 2% minimum. Meanwhile, Russia, a less prosperous nation with a history of musc…

>>"chosen not to honour their spending and capability obligations [..]" This is a list of military spending by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... If you count only France and Germany they spend already more than Russia. The European Union together spend more money in defense that any other country in the world except the USA (and around the same that China). So, what's the reason…

Among reasons for the American spend (1) it helps to support the nuclear non-proliferation cause, and has historically been used to dissuade Australia and Japan and South Korea and West Germany from creating their own nuclear weapons programs; (2) because the US has historically guaranteed northern Europe against a USSR tank invasion, though this may no longer be relevant; (3) the US is security guarantor for much of east Asia, including the Korean Peninsula. Asian nations currently have strong concern about the rise of wolf warrior China.

If Europe is not freeloading, why was there so much negative reaction by European leaders to Trump reducing presence in Europe? Surely this should be celebrated!

If NATO is no longer relevant, then nations should drop out of it. There is a clear path to this. If they want to be members, they should honour their obligations.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#183

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ignasl wrote: post #124
jmnicolas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. Come on stop spreading this dumb western propaganda, Russia isn't threatening anybody in western Europe. They took Crimea back and sabotaged Ukraine because strategically they can't afford to have yet another NATO country right at their doorstep. They're not going to invade Poland any time soon (what for anyway?). They're not crazy nor blood thirsty. This…

They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky. Russia seems pretty involved in all the hotspots lately including starting a war in Ukraine. Very likely same fate would be for Poland and Baltics if they didn't protect themselves with stronger allies. And even if current Russia is not interested/capable to cause trouble to east EU - that doesn't mean it won't chan…

> They won't invade Poland or Baltics because those countries are in NATO and EU and it's way too risky

You’re literally describing the value of the security guarantee.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#184

Post by ric2b »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #167
goatinaboat wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France alone probably has sufficient military power to balance Russia. It depends on the theatre. At sea, probably, in a nuclear exchange France has sufficient deterrent capability. But in a land war, tank on tank the way God meant it to be, France’s 200 tanks are no match for Russia’s thousands. Remember purchasing power parity. Russia may be poorer than France, but it’s stuff costs a lot less too.

France has 222 active Leclercs, with 260 more in storage. Around 400 AMX variants too. Russia has around 300 known T90s, which are the real threat that matches a Leclerc. The rest are T80s, T72s and older, which, while absolutely dwarfing the french numbers, forgets about a tiny thing: they are absolutely _awful_ tanks compared to modern stuff. A Leclerc will happily shrug off T72s. Additionally, Rafales are more tha…

> forgets about a tiny thing: they are absolutely _awful_ tanks compared to modern stuff.

The USSR beat the much better Nazi tanks through sheer numbers, at some point the numbers advantage overcomes the quality advantage.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#185

Post by Ntrails »

hestefisk wrote: post #61

I’m a Danish citizen. The story doesn’t really surprise me (given the news a few years back that US spy on EU MPs in Brussels by eavesdropping Belgian telcos). The worst part is the complete apathy from Danish politicians to stand up against this kind of spying and take action. It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted; yet none of the centrist parties are interested in or motivated by standing up against…

I'm not sure precisely when we decided that intelligence gathering wasn't a part of all diplomatic relations?

I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#186

Post by elmo2you »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #179
elmo2you wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was an invasion and annexation according to international law. That is crystal clear and there is not even any leeway for interpretation about it. It is always a bit amusing, though also somewhat infuriating, whenever somebody writes something like this. It often is a good indicator of what likely is to follow. Truly ironic, that the people who (apparently) know the least about international law are usually the…

Your comment is an irrelevant ad-hominem argument. That's may be okay for Reddit but I'd expect a bit more from someone posting on HN. Besides, that international law was broken by Russia is not my personal opinion, it's backed up by the majority of countries and by almost all scholars in international law, see e.g. [1] for a good analysis. You're just plain wrong in both of your posts. [1] https://www.mpil.de/files/…

You may call it an ad-hominem attack, if you like.

However, what I am doing is calling you out .. I honestly don't know if you are a deliberate propaganda mouth piece or just an unfortunate victim of it.

Either way, the moment you mentioned international law in relation to this issue, and even had to nerve to declare that the truth of your convictions are factually undeniable, you yourself were the one who pretty much shoved all-in and closed the door for any meaningful discussion. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror first, if you want to blame someone for being called out for that.

I have a pretty decent track record of being rather respectful (definitely beyond and above average) towards to opinions of other. Just maybe not for people who talk like you. You can take your (abuse of) political correctness and ..

EDIT: I see what you are trying, but you still don't get it (regarding international law). Good luck and goodbye.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#187

Post by buran77 »

nl wrote: post #169
Dahoon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reads like you only read the first sentence. Nothing you said disproves the facts he stated.

The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.

The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "international law"? How much outside interference do you think the elections in Ukraine got and how much of it was condemned? There was no "innocent side" in the whole Crimean issue. Whether local or on the other side of the world, all parties involved played the same game to try to gain something. Civilians as usually took the brunt of the conflict.

Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law. International law is as negotiable, debatable, and esoteric as it gets. If you have enough power and support from others you claim it's on your side and do what you need to do. And that support is critical, it's why the US needs the EU on their side: legitimacy. That's why the EU could contribute pocket lint to the NATO budget and still benefit from US spending.

Google "civilians dead in the middle east" and you'll see how "international law" works. Let's not play with words. Superpowers go to extreme lengths to maintain their status. The bigger the status, the longer the lengths, because they can afford to do more and more of that.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#188

Post by [deleted] »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #181
coldtea wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor. It's amazing how this Cold War old-wives-tale is still what Americans believe... Russia is not USSR - a superpower with half of Europe under its wings -, and is not a threat to…

I think part of this narrative is the US spends an incredible amount on the military. If they don't continue to cast the entire world as with us or against us then that amount of money becomes harder to justify.

[deleted]

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#189

Post by toyg »

avar wrote: post #152
toyg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark is somewhat more reliant on the US than the average European country because of Greenland. Eastern countries like Poland are similarly beholden to NATO because Russia is an immediate threat for them. Everyone else is basically just lazy: relying on the Americans saves us a lot of money and effort that European public opinion is unwilling to spend. This allows e.g. France to play “Africa’s cop” to prop up thei…

> Trump was the first but won’t be the last US president pushing for disengagement from the Old World[...] It was Obama who started pushing for the 2% policy and got NATO countries to agree to ramp spending up to that before 2024[1]. Before that there's been decades of the US trying to push Europe to take defense spending more seriously. Trump's had more juvenile rhetoric on the issue, but he fundamentally wasn't say…

Yeah but with Obama and his predecessors it was just about money, everyone knew the score. This could be bargained at diplomatic level with other stuff. Trump looked willing and able to actually do the unthinkable and redeploy away, irrespective of strategic considerations, and his closeness with Putin and Erdogan was unsettling.

Biden will likely mark a return to the old haggling, but in 4 years' time the US might get another strongman and we'd be at risk again. Democracy will always need an arsenal, and it's not a given anymore that the US really want to be that arsenal.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#190

Post by lagadu »

Ntrails wrote: post #185
hestefisk wrote: post #61

I’m a Danish citizen. The story doesn’t really surprise me (given the news a few years back that US spy on EU MPs in Brussels by eavesdropping Belgian telcos). The worst part is the complete apathy from Danish politicians to stand up against this kind of spying and take action. It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted; yet none of the centrist parties are interested in or motivated by standing up against…

I'm not sure precisely when we decided that intelligence gathering wasn't a part of all diplomatic relations? I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.

No, I don't expect allies to spy on each other.
Post reply on HN