831–840 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Withdrawing" to 1990 borders? You mean expelling the states that joined after 1990? I'm not sure that would go over well with the Baltics, Romania, Sweden and Finland. Withdrawal from NATO is voluntary and cannot be compelled.
It will be a withdrawal of US troops and bases with a wink wink. And nothing but impeachment can compel the president to actually respond to an article V call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why the are Korean soldiers fighting for Russia Isn't it better for Russia if Koreans die instead of Russians? It looks rational (but sad for Koreans dying in a war on the other side of the globe).
From Russian perspective it doesn't matter because they value Korean life the same: zero. Koreans are expensive, though. God knows what putin is trading for their troops. Probably rocket and nuclear technologies. From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder for to the language barrier and unaware of modern combat full with FPV drones.
> From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder
Well, that's the soviet doctrine. Men are useless cannon fodder. It does give the NK the chance to catch up on modern combat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is __so___ off topic, but the $ goes in front of the value for USD. It should be $500. Again, again, I know read the room, there's a tragic war going on, and the US is becoming complicit in the tragedy. But if we don't have time to be pedantic about monetary symbols then what good is the freedom we still possess.
in canadian french, its 500$ and within canada its fine to have either/or. you'll see it written based on what the writer's first language is
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. The only justifiable war in that time, in my opinion, was Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the U.S. I think the premis…
> I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. Why don't you run for office on a platform that " Pax Americana was a huge mistake!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Ukraine has retained its independence. That's a big achievement on its own.
If you call that independence, I wouldn't want one for my country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably, most developed nations are in the same boat in terms of being able to build a bomb in relatively short notice. The main challenge is probably that refining uranium is intrinsically a slow process. I do wonder how many supposedly non-nuclear developed countries have secret small-scale refinement plants and the ability to assemble nuclear warheads in short notice. It is the sort of stuff that they wouldn't wa…
Any developed nation _with a well developed nuclear energy industry_ would be able to build a bomb with years of effort. There's a lot that goes into a bomb beyond refining (e.g. miniturization of warhead). And to deploy the bomb a ton of work to achieve the gold standard of a nuclear triad, plus build enough bombs to be survivable past an initial strike (to maintain deterrence). If you learn of any countries with a…
If that is the case, then yes, it is going to take a massive investment to build and maintain that capability, which is the reason why most developed countries don't bother. But if you only want tactical nukes, it doesn't take that much.
I could not care less if e.g. Italy, Spain or Finland have developed nukes in secret. It would not surprise me one bit, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years I wonder what media do you consume to get this absolutely ridiculous idea? baltic states have no beef with Russia (except petty provocations which Russia seem to dismiss), Putin never ever said he will do anything like that and actively emphasised he won't. Where the idea of Russia attacking Baltic states or any other european nation to that matter, have stemmed from (…
Russians have been saying the same about attacking Ukraine all the way until they actually did attack. There are many signs Baltic states are next in the Russian annexation list. And if Russia going to win control over Ukraine - mobilized to Russian army Ukrainians will be in the first wave of Russian cannon fodder troops advancing through Baltic states.
If you are so informed about the "Russian annexation list", would mind enlighten us about other countries on the list?
It's unimaginable what propaganda can make to otherwise intelligent individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop. And, good luck getting any real discussion from anyone here. Most of the Redditors are here now and have brought their "hate on America" flag to HN. Regardless of how much our President does or how much the US gives, it will never be enough. And, the ironic thing is, man…
> No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. You have done that for quite literally the past 20 years in a places where no win condition could be established, and now that you have an 'easy' war, with an actual nation-state adversary that you can defeat both militarily and politically, without a need for guerilla warfare and millions of…
The criticism of decades of American foreign policy was finally vindicated. So there is very little appetite to give up that achievement by getting embroiled in yet another war that’s billed as “easy” and “just” this time (they all were—remember, “we will be greeted as liberators?”)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the base rate of dictators being Hitler, and what’s the false positive rate of that approach? That thinking seems like it would’ve gotten us into every late 20th and early 21st war that are widely regarded as mistakes.
100%ish?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a huge mistake, imo. Israel is going to continue to ostracize itself on the global stage till it's the next South Africa and all our money will have been wasted. That's my belief anyways
> Israel is going to continue to ostracize itself on the global stage Israel has been doing this for decades. It will never become a pariah like S.Africa was so long as the US continues its "unwavering support" for Israel regardless of what it does (and this is firmly supported by both parties). And then people say that the AIPAC lobby isn't real ... During the Cold War you could sort of claim that US' unwavering sup…
Yeah, I think that will run out basically. They used to have support in Europe and many other countries as well and that has all but dried up at this point.