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

681–690 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#681

Post by 7moritz7 »

riku_iki wrote: post #678
7moritz7 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Russia, without foreign support or not, has not managed to capture one of the poorest states in Europe is a joke. Imagine the US failing to capture Mexico after 2 years, even if Mexico got weapon supplies from abroad. That would totally discredit the US military.

It could be that moral of Ukrainians is deciding factor: million of civilians ready to turn into soldiers, dig into the ground and die there is very strong force.

That's a very weird way of phrasing that Russia has barely anything to gain while Ukraine has everything to loose. It's not like Russia needs any further territory, they are the largest country and haven't yet properly integrated the already invaded cultures.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#682

Post by skissane »

rainworld wrote: post #643
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany will be dead in 50 years by demographic suicide anyway. (Like China, conveniently.)

As opposed to what, the United States of Guatemala? It’s more or less the same story everywhere in the developed world. At least China’s not seeking to replace their extant populations with foreigners. Really strange seeing people (often gleefully) parrot these talking points, unaware of their own malaise.

> It’s more or less the same story everywhere in the developed world.

I don't think it is all the same story.

Americans don't have enough children to sustain their population, but they can make it up with immigration. So do most developed countries, with rare exceptions (consider Israel)

Compare Australia: same story, but with one fundamental difference: US is experiencing uncontrolled mass immigration over its southern land border, immigration to Australia is much more selective, with strong preference given to people like university graduates.

Uncontrolled, non-selective mass immigration is likely to cause much greater problems than controlled selective mass immigration.

And Australia isn't unique here, I think Canada and New Zealand are closer to Australia than to the US in this regard.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#683

Post by riku_iki »

7moritz7 wrote: post #681
riku_iki wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be that moral of Ukrainians is deciding factor: million of civilians ready to turn into soldiers, dig into the ground and die there is very strong force.

That's a very weird way of phrasing that Russia has barely anything to gain while Ukraine has everything to loose. It's not like Russia needs any further territory, they are the largest country and haven't yet properly integrated the already invaded cultures.

> while Ukraine has everything to loose.

the point is that many countries through the history surrendered very fast and agreed on whatever aggressor demanded.

> It's not like Russia needs any further territory

that's Putin's wish, he wants to become some historical figure, and people have little choice but follow to meat grinder

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#684

Post by nikolay »

mopsi wrote: post #661
nikolay wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Embassador at the time confirmed this was agreed upon!

"Myth," Gorbachev said in 2014 interview to ZDF. He added that there is nothing in writing because there was no agreement. Had there been an agreement, they would've written it down. Clip: https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680 And as a bonus feature, in the same clip, USSR's Minister of Defense (1987-1991) says that he's never even heard about it. USSR's Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a simil…

Yeah, man's word means nothing nowadays! Everybody's a bitch and it's normal!

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#685

Post by AlbertCory »

kazinator wrote: post #109
AlbertCory wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You, you can confidently state that at that time, they had at least one train.

I guess this is a reference to the joke, "no, what we know is that there is at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Unless we disbelieve what the guy said: we do know that they have at least the concept of a tank. He didn't actually say that they had any. That would have been a conversation-ending question for me to ask him.

I don't know what those sheep statisticians would say if they hadn't seen the "black sheep" themselves and had to rely on the testimony of other people. You can't only believe what you've seen for yourself.

As for all the people downvoting that: lighten up. It's a joke. Welcome to NATO.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#686

Post by ethbr1 »

somenameforme wrote: post #438
ethbr1 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ambiguous (or I haven't seen it written) under what conditions NATO would retaliate with NATO-controlled nuclear weapons to an attack on a NATO member. But it's definitely shy of 'never' I know during the 80s there were detailed plans to tactically nuke the larg(er) Soviet armored formations in eastern Germany et al. in the event of hostilities. I believe even before Soviet nuclear escalation.

I'm unaware of those, but I do know that US nuclear targets from the 50s were relatively recently declassified [1], and they were far more macabre. We focused on taking out Soviet air forces (to eliminate their ability to deliver nukes of their own - as this was before the USSR had developed ICBMs), but also focused on targets marked simply as "population" as well as medical production facilities. The goal was not to…

There are always a menu of pre-built reaction plans, because even in the days of strategic bombers over the arctic there wouldn't have been enough reaction time for anything custom + dissemination to combat commands.

Much less once ICBMs become common.

And at that point, the only requirement for a total war / civilian+industry apocalypse plan is that your potential opponent might also have such a plan.

It's tremendously unlikely to be used except in a "like for like" response scenario (absent an insane president), but if the US saw the Soviets throwing everything they had up with population centers targeted... there'd better be a ready to go plan to respond similarly.

And, as Dr Strangelove memorably quips, indeed the most effective deterrence effect of such a plan is to loudly tell everyone you have such a plan -- so they will have to consider that's one of your response options, and thus be disincentivized from starting a nuclear exchange.

By which it makes a lot of sense that even if the US didn't have such a plan, they fabricated one and announced they did!

(Not that I think they didn't. The Cold War was way too real to bet on a 0% chance that superpowers weren't going to escalate to total war)

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#687

Post by danlugo92 »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #369
renegade-otter wrote: post #108

Being a NATO member gives a nation more security than nuclear weapons, effectively. Nuclear states can and HAVE gone to wars - but no one wants to mess with the devastating conventional power of NATO. After the recent gutting, Russia has a few dozen SU-34s that can fly. NATO has thousands of planes.

> Russia has a few dozen SU-34s that can fly And Ukraine is about to receive their F-16s

Is this similar to sending ammunitions or "worse"(e.g. more provoking of WW3)...?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#688

Post by danlugo92 »

7moritz7 wrote: post #681
riku_iki wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be that moral of Ukrainians is deciding factor: million of civilians ready to turn into soldiers, dig into the ground and die there is very strong force.

That's a very weird way of phrasing that Russia has barely anything to gain while Ukraine has everything to loose. It's not like Russia needs any further territory, they are the largest country and haven't yet properly integrated the already invaded cultures.

They do seem to care about their accesss to the mediterranean sea though...

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#689

Post by danlugo92 »

Vilian wrote: post #644
JacobiX wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that NATO was founded after World War II, largely due to British efforts to contain the Soviet Union and its influence in Europe ?

true, but nothing there say that russia cat't apply to join

Except the "no/minor corruption" requeriment...

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#690

Post by danlugo92 »

hnarn wrote: post #475
baxtr wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have many Serbian friends going for holidays in Croatia. Unthinkable 30 years ago. So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?

> So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too? While not technically impossible, practically this is very hard to see. Unless Russia becomes a market liberal, well functioning democracy, it will not happen -- and what are the odds of that? Russia had the chance after the collapse of the Soviet Union, instead it devolved into a plutocracy and what is essentially a one-party state in anything but name. R…

> Unless Russia becomes a market liberal, well functioning democracy, it will not happen -- and what are the odds of that?

I think the odds are actually pretty good 50 years out in the future.

At the same time, some democratic or benevolent dictator country (e.g. Phillipines or El Salvador) could be totally fucked up (again) in 50 years.

Post reply on HN