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

701–710 of 738 posts

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#701

Post by candiodari »

danlugo92 wrote: post #687
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)...?

The problem with that is simple: if one side believes they are at war, 2 sides are at war.

And Russia has explained why they believe they are at war, the insane dictator at the top explained that in the 13th century it was really unfair that some army marched from Poland to what is now Chechnya (even Tucker Carlsson frowned as hard as he could and needed about 6 seconds to collect his jaw from the floor) and therefore Ukraine isn't a "real" nation and should be part of Russia. And that, in any case, Russia has the borders it chooses, as does any large country.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#702

Post by somenameforme »

ethbr1 wrote: post #686
somenameforme wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tremendou…

That was not a reaction plan, it was an offensive plan. That's why they even bothered with targeting Soviet airfields. At the time the USSR had not yet developed an ICBM and so nukes would have been delivered by air. If it was a response plan, then targeting those airfields would have been wastes of nukes. The idea was to destroy their entire country and nuclear capability, before they could do anything.

Remember, there's only one country that's ever nuked another country.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#703

Post by t0bia_s »

sobkas wrote: post #562
vajdagabor wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean, some people just consciously agree with being used and lied to and their taxes being stolen so that the leaders can be richer and more powerful while schooling, health care and economy is in decay? I don't think so.

> Do you mean, some people just consciously agree with being used and lied to and their taxes being stolen so that the leaders can be richer and more powerful while schooling, health care and economy is in decay? I don't think so. Many people actually do that, because in their minds alternative is "left" that will do the same but with added bonus of supporting LGBT, fight against climate change, unrestricted immigrat…

Also, there is 1/3 of population that don't believe in politics at all and ignore it as much as possible, because artificial culture war just distracts them.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#704

Post by georgespencer »

Ygg2 wrote: post #406
georgespencer wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?! There's nothing inherently wrong with an administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators – but in this instance I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the United States "put [Putin into power]", assuming you're referring to the United States' i…

> administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else. > That the United S…

> No. The economic shock therapy.

Ah, so you mean the United States' inaction in providing aid to Russia after Yeltsin and the IMF began to aggressively reform Russia's economy?

Your logic is that the United States installed Putin by not interfering more?

> You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else.

It's notable that your own cartoonish straw man bears no resemblance whatsoever to the specific case you're trying to illustrate, unless I'm missing the part where the US installed Putin, allied with him, and then invaded/killed him.

How many dictators has the United States installed, allied with, and then invaded or killed in your lifetime?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#705

Post by taravangian »

riku_iki wrote: post #683
7moritz7 wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But did those countries still have multiple generations that remembered what the invaders did last time they controlled them? And was what the invaders did as bad as the actions of the USSR?

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#706

Post by lispm »

nordsieck wrote: post #250
hnthrowaway0328 wrote: post #141

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

> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with…

The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are not designed to defend the EU. The UK isn't even anymore in the EU. The Brexit was also fueled by the UK not wanting to be part of an EU Army.

There is simply no EU army, the EU is not a nation, the EU is not a defense union. Several EU countries are neutral, several countries make their own military decisions, based on the constitutional law, etc.

For most purposes, NATO is the main international military organization for European countries, not the EU.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#707

Post by riku_iki »

taravangian wrote: post #705
riku_iki wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

But did those countries still have multiple generations that remembered what the invaders did last time they controlled them? And was what the invaders did as bad as the actions of the USSR?

I don't think USSR did anything specifically bad to Ukraine after ww2, in contrast, Ukraine gained lots of territories, soviets invested heavily in Ukraine, as result Ukraine became leading industrial and technology region of USSR, most developed and educated compared to all others parts of USSR with exception of handful key regions in Russia.

In fact it is common knowledge that before 2014 Ukraine and Russia were brotherhood nations. Ukraine couldn't imagine being attacked by Russia, that's why the army was a joke at that time and Putin took over Crimea so easily.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#708

Post by nordsieck »

lispm wrote: post #706
nordsieck wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with…

The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are no…

> The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot.

Not really.

> The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. ... The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

While non-US allies in NATO doesn't cover every European country, it does cover most of them, particularly the large and wealthy ones.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#709

Post by lispm »

nordsieck wrote: post #708
lispm wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. It's just very diverse. The US has one army and one commander. Europe has 20+ armies and as much commanders. Around 250 billion a year is for example a lot more than what Russia spends. There are France and UK with nuclear weapons. Each of them has their own nuclear weapons and their own technology. Their nuclear weapons are not EU weapons, they are no…

> The funding is less of a problem. European countries spend a lot. Not really. > The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. ... The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm While non-US allies in NATO doesn't cover every Euro…

Sure it is a lot. It is extremely much. Your mistake is to compare it to the US.

The US spends more, but for its world-wide empire, much of which has nothing to do with defending Europe or even NATO.

That's not what Europe needs do.

Re: Sweden Is a NATO Member

#710

Post by xedrac »

geysersam wrote: post #695
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.

Yes almost as ridiculous as the US not being able to pacify Afghanistan after 20 years of occupation.

Russia doesn't care about pacifying Ukraine. If the US had approached Afghanistan with a mindset similar to Russia, there would be no Afghans left, except the few that swore loyalty out of fear. Any dissent would mean death. The US clearly had different goals. Ones that are much much harder to achieve than just killing everyone.
Post reply on HN