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

261–270 of 326 posts

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

#261

Post by smeeth »

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 know it’s not a popular opinion, but I’d like you to at least consider the possibility that spying between both allies increases peace and diplomatic cooperation.

The outcome of spying is that we know what our allies are going to do. If our intelligence verifies something our allies told us already, this process fosters trust and better relations. If our intelligence uncovers lies, we have forewarning and are not caught completely off guard.

I like both outcomes, though I can see how being spied on would feel bad. I suspect governments have come to much the same conclusion, because it seems tolerated that pretty much every embassy on earth is 50% spies. Yes, even european embassies in the US. In fact, opening new embassies in allied countries and increasing the number of staff in them is seen as a mark of friendship.

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

#262

Post by virgilp »

hestefisk wrote: post #245
virgilp wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on Earth would Russia invade Ukraine?

Because Putin historically has boosted his popular vote by creating a foreign enemy and being the tough guy.

And in that context, is it really impossible that Russia would decide e.g. to annex Bornholm, if they would deem it feasible?

https://www.thelocal.dk/20150625/russia-rehearsed-takeover-o...

Remember, Ukrainians were literally "brothers"; if it happened to them, is any weak neighbor really safe?

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

#263

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by tremon »

paganel wrote: post #110
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…

The problem with an European Army is that the French or the Italians or even the Germans won't send their young men to die at the Eastern border in order to defend Poland or Romania, it's as simple as that (see also the "phoney war" that only ended when Nazi Germany actually decided to invade France and the Benelux). The Americans inspire a little more trust, even though they live half a world away (maybe because of…

The main problem with a single European army is one of authority: what would the chain of command look like? I think no single nation would cede control of their military to a supernational entity, so an EU army would look more like a UN task force than a cohesive army: multiple independent divisions operating under a central strategic command.

But yes, I agree (partly) with your assessment, there doesn't seem to be a lot of willingness in the Western nations to support Eastern Europe militarily (or sometimes, to even acknowledge they have a military). However, when it comes to it, they may not have a choice: an occupied Poland puts the enemy within striking distance of Berlin, so defending Poland is of strategic importance. The same applies (to a lesser extent) to Finland and the Baltic states, losing them means losing control of the Baltic Sea.

I'm not sure exactly how that would work out for Romania, from a purely West-European point of view I would draw that line across Slovakia/Hungary rather than further to the east, however as things as are now, Hungary and the former Yugoslavian nations would be a liability, so Romania may be essential to defending Italy and Austria.

That being said, I very much hope the above remains idle speculation.

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

#265

Post by rweir »

cturner wrote: post #182
RobertoG wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"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…

Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them, not because the US told them not to or promised to use them on it's behalf. it's so historically uninterested that it doesn't even have a nuclear power industry.

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

#266

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

virgilp wrote: post #238
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on Earth would Russia invade Denmark?

Why on Earth would Russia invade Ukraine?

Because it's on Russia's doorstep, was part of Russia for 400 years until 1991, has a large Russian minority, the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol, the Russia-friendly government had just been toppled in a coup backed by the US and Western European powers, and Russia didn't want another NATO member on its doorstep.

I can't see what would possibly lead to a Russian invasion of Denmark.

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

#267

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

themihai wrote: post #226
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on Earth would Russia invade Denmark?

Because (if) it can. You know there was a time when Russia/SU annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, right?

Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and Denmark isn't in the Baltic.

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

#268

Post by buran77 »

thefounder wrote: post #232
buran77 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "inte…

Russia's old whinning: U.S is doing bad things (i.e in middle east) so we want to do bad things without sanctions as well...why the world gives us this "unfair" treatment?

You didn't actually contradict anything I said though. You just let your personal feelings decide which identical half of the coin looks better. Don't fall prey to emotion just because the facts make you angry or don't fit the narrative you learned to love.

All superpowers act from the same playbook. The more "super" the power, the worse they're willing to do to hang on to it. Look at history for a confirmation. Not accepting reality doesn't make you right. The US isn't inherently better or worse, more or less immoral than other superpowers but it does have the military, economic, and political power to do whatever they need to do to grow it or at least not lose any of it. If it means bombing a hospital, imposing sanctions on an enemy, or strongarming an ally they'll do it because not doing it means giving up an inch. One here, one there, pretty soon they're a mile behind. So no quarter given.

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

#269

Post by virgilp »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #266
virgilp wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on Earth would Russia invade Ukraine?

Because it's on Russia's doorstep, was part of Russia for 400 years until 1991, has a large Russian minority, the Russian Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol, the Russia-friendly government had just been toppled in a coup backed by the US and Western European powers, and Russia didn't want another NATO member on its doorstep. I can't see what would possibly lead to a Russian invasion of Denmark.

> in a coup backed by the US and Western European powers

Seriously? I'm sure the fact that Ukrainians could see contrast with next-door Poland had nothing to do with Maidan... no, it was CIA, definitely.

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

#270

Post by cturner »

rweir wrote: post #265
cturner wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them, not because the US told them not to or promised to use them on it's behalf. it's so historically uninterested that it doesn't even have a nuclear power industry.

    > Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them
I don't think you did any investigation before posting that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_weapons_of_mass_...

Australia didn't need a nuclear power industry during this era, it was a major coal producer and nobody cared about emissions.

Post reply on HN