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

German intelligence offices snub Palantir software

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: German intelligence offices snub Palantir software

#31

Post by esseph »

esseph wrote: post #15
uejfiweun wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this a good thing though? Europe becomes more self-reliant and less dependent on US technology, the US is able to refocus to the Pacific which is a more strategically relevant area, the anti-US people in Europe become happy, and the anti-Europe people in the US become happy. It's not like tourism or cultural distance is going to disappear. All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, wa…

> All that disappears is the military entanglement, which to be honest, was mostly obsolete after 1991 anyway. https://www.wearethemighty.com/tactical/royal-marine-command...

Also:

- F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) Program: The UK is the only Tier 1 partner in this program, procuring F-35B aircraft for the Royal Navy/RAF and considering F-35A variants.

- Trident Nuclear Missile System: A continuation of the 1982 amendment to the Polaris Sales Agreement, the US provides Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles for the UK’s Vanguard-class and future Dreadnought-class submarines.AUKUS Submarine Combat Systems

- Boeing P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft: The UK procured nine P-8A aircraft to improve maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, with deliveries starting in 2019.

- AH-64D/E Apache Attack Helicopters: The UK acquired Boeing Apache gunships, later upgrading them to the AH-64E standard.

- C-17 Globemaster III Transport Aircraft: The Royal Air Force acquired and has maintained a fleet of Boeing C-17s for strategic airlift.

- MQ-9 Reaper & Protector Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS): The UK operates MQ-9 Reaper drones and is transitioning to the improved MQ-9B Protector (Protector RG Mk 1) to modernize its surveillance and strike capabilities.

- Chinook Helicopters: Ongoing procurement and upgrading of Boeing Chinook heavy-lift helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

- Hellfire and Guided Missiles

These are just some of the more expensive programs of procurement the UK has done with US arms since 1991. I'm not suggesting the UK buys everything it needs from the US, but it has a habit of doing a lot of it.

Re: German intelligence offices snub Palantir software

#32

Post by loopback_device »

bell-cot wrote: post #23
shevy-java wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US-European alliance is on its deathbed. Agreed, though the nuclear issue still has to be solved. IMO the EU needs a nuclear arsenal. Any future dictator from the east will keep on probing otherwise. But, even IF the US-led over-dominance would be maintained, I really don't understand why my taxes paid, go into US companies. This model really does not work anymore after the USA allied with Russia (de-facto, if…

> IMO the EU needs a nuclear arsenal. What's wrong with the British and French nuclear arsenals? And where are the "EU" armed forces, and nuclear weapon supply chain, and military and civilian command structures that would be needed to design/test/build/test/deploy/use nuclear weapons?

> And where are the "EU" armed forces, and nuclear weapon supply chain

Well, in France and in England, although the other european countries have them as well, and/or are part of that supply chain - but it's not exactly advertised due to the general population's (imo understandable) disdain for nuclear weapons; and probably a collection of geopolitical reasons too.

Re: German intelligence offices snub Palantir software

#34

Post by try_the_bass »

redeeman wrote: post #9
drstewart wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

lol, its ridiculous to think this is happening, this is one of the stupidest things trump is saying

Is it really false, though? I don't think the claim is that such benefits are directly subsidized, but indirectly. For example, the EU relies (relied?) heavily on the US military to be their "big stick", freeing up some portion of their budgets to be spent on social programs rather than defense ones.

I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Trump was elected, it seems true-ish.[1]

[1] https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/ukraine-suppor...

Re: German intelligence offices snub Palantir software

#35

Post by redeeman »

try_the_bass wrote: post #34
redeeman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, its ridiculous to think this is happening, this is one of the stupidest things trump is saying

Is it really false, though? I don't think the claim is that such benefits are directly subsidized, but indirectly. For example, the EU relies (relied?) heavily on the US military to be their "big stick", freeing up some portion of their budgets to be spent on social programs rather than defense ones. I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Tr…

but does EU really? EU has, even without the UK, the second biggest military in the world. Are we seriously saying that this is not enough to defend EU? if not, why not?

also, the numbers for ukraine support are not comparable like that, much of the money the EU gives ukraine are not "given", because the EU cannot just do that, they give them loans that they then later give up on (because EU is corrupt and likes to not follow own laws).

In addition to that, it is ridiculous to say that even ANY support to ukraine is needed to defend EU. Consider this, if EU really wanted to give it all, how much more could EU muster than what is currently given to ukraine? how could russia possibly hope to defeat EU?

so no, it is in fact not at all true

Re: German intelligence offices snub Palantir software

#36

Post by try_the_bass »

redeeman wrote: post #35
try_the_bass wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really false, though? I don't think the claim is that such benefits are directly subsidized, but indirectly. For example, the EU relies (relied?) heavily on the US military to be their "big stick", freeing up some portion of their budgets to be spent on social programs rather than defense ones. I don't know how true that is in practice, but given the numbers on aid given to Ukraine, and the difference before Tr…

but does EU really? EU has, even without the UK, the second biggest military in the world. Are we seriously saying that this is not enough to defend EU? if not, why not? also, the numbers for ukraine support are not comparable like that, much of the money the EU gives ukraine are not "given", because the EU cannot just do that, they give them loans that they then later give up on (because EU is corrupt and likes to n…

I dunno, but this hardly a convincing rebuttal. Can you provide some citations about loans and such? I believe the thing I linked included loans as part of the "aid given".

And I'm pretty sure Russia or China have the second biggest military in the world? So I'm not sure your stats are right, either?

Post reply on HN