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

Sweden Is a NATO Member

government.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#421

Post by dralley »

simion314 wrote: post #309
lumb63 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend. For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen. It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO. So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ? From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.

>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?

Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#422

Post by ethbr1 »

guappa wrote: post #157
ethbr1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did get the Internet, space programs, satellite-based sensing, phased array radar, MAD theory, and some other stuff out of the spending.

And it costed us 100x more than if we just put the money into science directly! YAY!

:) Politics decides funding allocation in a democracy.

And it's a lot easier to justify military spending than it is research.

Same reason NASA is the way it is, but we still have a space program.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#423

Post by The_Colonel »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #11
bilekas wrote: post #4

This is great news and NATO benefits hugely from this. I have to hand it to putin for bringing further solidarity across Europe and NATO.

The exercise in team work has not been going great so far. It doesn't look like their is a path to victory in Ukraine and Europe is hesitant to commit any troops. There are some rumblings from Macron but most of Europe would prefer to send just enough weapons so Putin can't move forward and Ukraine can't push them out.

Depends what you call "victory". The western priority is preserving sovereign Ukraine, even if it has to concede some land. There is a path to achieve such goal.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#424

Post by protomolecule »

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #259
nostrebored wrote: post #192

I get that we've decided 'NATO Good' now -- but are people really so sure that it's sphere of influence is geopolitically stabilizing? I don't see how it could be. If I were Russia, or an ally of Russia, an expansionist NATO would be galvanizing for me and would accelerate a counterbalance alliance. Creating a potentially entrenched conflict in countries that have surface-to-surface access to Moscow would be in my be…

> counterbalance alliance Russia had that in CSTO. After Russia ignored Armenia’s request for help, it’s worthless. And Russia has already created entrenched conflicts in a number of countries for exactly that reason.

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#425

Post by ifyoubuildit »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #410
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you define "control" narrowly enough, nothing controls anything. But if you use a plain reading of "control" as in "can and will influence the actions of", it seems like "doesn't control in any way" is trivially false.

In this context 'control' means having power over. If you're not independent then another country has power over your actions. Mere influence is insufficient since the influence runs two ways, which is the case between the EU and US.

Doesn't this imply that the EU and the US are equal powers?

They aren't, right?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#426

Post by whereismyacc »

hnthrowaway0328 wrote: post #141

It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.

In a way, sure. But it would also be nice if we were more codependent, in a way?

For example, it's wild to me that there's no bilateral trade agreement between the US and EU. It seems like the most obvious no-brainer you can imagine.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#428

Post by tharmas »

Hamuko wrote: post #74
ethbr1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, Ukrainians are being killed (although GP is incorrect -- Ukraine has specifically been drafting older, non-youth people) and their industry is being bombed. On the other hand, they're still a sovereign, free state. Opinions may vary on which of those is more important. As historical context, I would point out that the last time ethnic Russians controlled Ukraine, they killed 3M+ of them via starvatio…

> Opinions may vary on which of those is more important. Survey data from last October suggests that 60% of Ukranians want to keep fighting until Ukraine wins and 31% are in favour of negotiating an end to the war ASAP. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-...

[flagged]

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#429

Post by rsynnott »

hinkley wrote: post #166
rsynnott wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to say that it'd beat a bottle of wine from Sweden, anyway, but felt the need to fact-check my joke, and apparently Swedish wine is a thing!

There’s a little wine country just off of Lake Superior. The water buffers the temperatures enough to keep grapes happy. I know the Baltic is probably colder than Lake Superior, but it sounds like it works anyway.

Looking at the weather averages for Duluth (chosen at random), no, that actually looks probably colder than the heavily populated bits of Sweden, certainly in the winter.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#430

Post by somenameforme »

eduction wrote: post #272
somenameforme wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's effectively impossible to invade a country that has nuclear weapons. There might be small scale border skirmishes, but large scale organized invasions are essentially a nonstarter. The main purpose of conventional weaponry, for nuclear nations, is to invade non-nuclear nations, or to engage in proxy skirmishes to try to expand one's geopolitical power. We're rapidly approaching a century with 0 major and unrestr…

Do you think UK or France would use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear Russian attack on other NATO members (e.g. Germany)? Are they obligated to do so?

I think the most likely scenario is that they would transfer control of a number of nuclear weapons to Germany in such a scenario. And that would be more than enough to end the war, or to end the world.
Post reply on HN