|
TildeATH posted:Why does NATO want to prevent Russian access to the Mediterranean? You don't see why the ability to effectively prevent naval access from Russia's Black Sea bases to the rest of the world would be wanted? Really? Deteriorata posted:NATO doesn't actively prevent it. The Bosporus is a free transit zone. In peacetime there is no issue. No they have other warm water access. It's over at Vladivostok. Which is conveniently a) way far away from Europe and b) pretty decent to cover from bases in and around Korea/Japan. It's not as easy as the ability to block the Bosporus for the Black Sea ports to be neutralized or to guard the exits of the Baltic Sea to neutralize the Kaliningrad and St Petersburg area ports.
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
TildeATH posted:No. Somehow I think a WWIII Battle of Jutland is an idiotic refrain that spergy cold warriors trot out over and over again without thinking about. Who cares if Russia's tiny, lovely navy can get anywhere in the event of a war. Nobody cares about their motorboats, they care about their nukes. Uh first of all I don't remember a time when the Soviet Union existed. Second, they really do need to be able to use their fleets if they want to actually do a war. It's not just about what to do in case Putin tries to nuke Chicago. Zeroisanumber posted:Keeps them out of the Atlantic, makes any transit to the Atlantic in the event of a war much more difficult, and gives us a way to shut down the only port that they have which is open 365 days a year. Again, Vladivostok is open 365 days a year, it's just way too far away to be useful to them most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:We're worried that Russia is going to pour out of the Black Sea with invasion troops and SSBMs? That sounds silly. That sounds like something some guy worried about in the 80s back when the Soviet Union was a superpower. Russia is just a regional bully. Who cares if they have access to the Mediterranean? What an absurdly outdated fear. Do you not get that it's not like we built Turkey to close off that route? Like it's already there, so yes it is strategically useful that at any time we could destroy the usefulness of their entire Black Sea port infrastructure. Not just for military uses but also civilian trade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:But why would we do that? Why would we ever do that? Because crippling their navy and their civilian economy is a thing you do in war or to punish them for things without war. I really don't understand why you think crippling part of a country's military and a lot of their economy isn't an effective thing to do! Also again, it's not like we spent 5 trillion dollars to come up with this. The position of those straits from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean has been a chokepoint since thousands BC. Turkey can block that poo poo by piloting a couple ships across one of the sets of straits.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f94b_story.html "Start"? You're being rather generous.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
az posted:Tell me more about the liberatarian natsoc ideology, I'm legit fascinated by that idea. Also do you have a party or is it just you. I'm pretty sure "libertarian socialism" is just a fancy term for "left anarchism". And the "national" part just means it's not going to immediately be a global thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
BaurusJA posted:
WHYY radio runs BBC world service from 12-5 AM everyday and BBC World Update from 5-6 AM on most weekdays. The BBC Newshour runs from 9-10 AM Monday-Thursday, and an extra hour of BBC World Service runs 11 PM-12 AM on Saturday and Sunday.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Wouldn't pissing the Saudis off and getting them to cut their oil supply be a big boon for the US economy given that it would make their fracking industry profitable again? Are you confused? It's still profitable in America, because the major costs were in getting started, not in ongoing extraction.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Rukeli posted:Based on what? Saudi Arabia's military expenditure is about as big as that of Russia. Just wasting a lot of money doesn't mean you can actually keep up an intense war.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Libluini posted:To be fair, the US isn't any better in that regard. OK sure there isn't any official religious authority, but if you think a Non-Christian president would ever be a thing, you're kidding yourself. That's more because 70% of the country or so still identifies as Christian (even if tons of them no longer go to church).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:How do we tell NATO to go gently caress themselves and declare war on Turkey in the event of attempted genocide against Kurds? Uh, NATO is us, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
The small international flat rate box will certainly fit it - so will the regular International Priority mail Flat Rate Padded Envelope. Your hat will arrive a bit creased up but whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:What's his mental illness? Being a goon? Or is that more of a catchall symptom? He has diagnosed schizophrenia just to start.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Sergg posted:You realize that 4chan is a board created by our former SA users when we kicked a bunch of pedophiles out, right? No it isn't. You're thinking of 8chan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Do it, congress.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I was under the impression that the intention of the UN was to prevent another world war, not be the world police that intervenes in all conflicts around the world. Am I wrong? The one thing requires the other thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:No, the UN is an arena for open diplomacy, so that conflicts and disagreements between the great powers can be negotiated and resolved there rather than through war. That is its primary purpose and the thing it is actually quite useful for. And then there's the military forces of the UN that can enforce decisions, instead of pulling the League of Nations poo poo where they just ask everyone pretty please to play along. If they didn't enforce ever, instead of only enforcing in limited circumstances, it couldn't accomplish its goals.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I don't think so. If a great power intervening in a smaller country's conflict would cause further conflict with another great power, then the UN-- if the primary interest is preventing WW3-- should work to discourage intervention in the interest of greater peace. You can "not think so" all you want, they have intervened militarily dozens of times, and quasi-militarily even more times, in order to enforce decisions of the security council or general assembly. It's why those decisions have any effect at all. If they blanket refused to do that, it'd have fallen apart just like the League of Nations.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Where has "The UN" intervened militarily? Peacekeeping operations are military occupations. The Korean War straight up had UN forces (technically, still does!).
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:No, they're not military occupations by any relevant definition of the term you can find. A military force is literally occupying a country, sometimes for decades on end, often engaging in outright battles. You can pretend this isn't military force being used, but that's just wishful thinking.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:They're not occupations by the definition of the law of armed conflict, which is really the most salient definition when discussing armed conflict, so shut the gently caress up fishmech and stop making GBS threads up the thread. Except they are. And the UN enforces many decisions by military force.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I know you're afraid that your self-destruct circuitry will kick in, but you are literally, technically, semantically, objectively, pedantically, unequivocally incorrect here. The UN certainly does use military force, and it engages in long-running peacekeeping missions with uniformed UN troops in sovereign countries, sometimes without those countries' authorizations, yes. But the United Nations, here on Earth, has never been an occupying state, nor even shared that distinction with an occupying state as certain other IGOs such as the OAS or SADC or ad hoc organizations such as the Allied Control Council. The United Nations does not need to be an occupying state itself to engage in and order military occupation.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Can you name then a single military occupation in which United Nations troops took part? Are you going to pretend that the United Nations wasn't involved in, say, the United Nations Command military occupation above the 38th Parallel while they held territory during the Korean War?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Why would you want to do that? Is it so you can politicize this tradegy? You make me sick. Have some respect for the dead. Uh what? I think he mostly just wants to read actual news not Random Guy #4584's totally sincere wishes.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:I'm not saying history must repeat itself but I don't think it's wise to cheerlead any faction in a civil war for whatever reason. Er, this seems like a pretty stupid thing to say. Do you think it was bad, say, for people to support other people over Literal Fascists in the Spanish civil war? That it would ahve been a bad idea to support the Union in the US Civil War?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Support all you want and reason however you want, but it doesn't have to involve cheerleading, rose-tinted glasses and apologism. Why should you not be happy if a side you support wins? Nenonen posted:Are you Caro? Contrary to popular belief, you are not required to go to Syria to support completely unrelated factions in wars that happened decades ago.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Also, if a country has an Air Force they're pretty much universally the most highly trained branch since they're dealing with equipment that is way loving more expensive than a technical or even a tank, not to mention the pilots are almost always coming from well off and well educated families since it's service that has the least probability of getting killed due to how far from any front line most air bases are. And they also tend to be screened for government loyalty because aircraft can be among the most powerful things to use in a rebellion if you can get them. if say a base of really fancy tanks 400 miles away from the capital rebels, it will take quite some time for them to show up and try to shoot the government up. If a similar amount of fighters and bombers has crews decided to rebel, they might be able to pose a credible threat to the capital in under an hour.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:It's really easy to sit a prosperous western welfare state and pass judgement on people who are under constant and indiscriminate air bombardment for executing the people doing it to them, but in the absence of any practical alternatives I find that a bit arrogant. It's kinda funny because most of those same people would have no problem with them having been slightly better at shooting the plane in the first place, so they all died a couple minutes sooner.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Of course that won't actually work at all, because terror cells will just move towards face to face communication and couriers. You know, like Bin Laden already did, which is why it took the US so long to find him. Most of them can't be bothered to actually do this, plus it inherently reduces their ability to react fast and plan and execute things quickly. If we could ensure all their operations from tomorrow onward had to be coordinated by couriers doing poo poo face-to-face, it would be an immense boon towards keeping them from killing as many people.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:In regards to the missing ships, what's the Turkish side of Cyprus' relationship with Erdogan? Would that be a place coup supporters could hide out? I have to say it would be pretty funny if the decades-long occupation of Cyprus ends just because the residents wished to spite Erdogan
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm excited about Turkey leaving nato and out of desperation hitching up with Putin. This would literally result in an actual US-backed coup
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:I thought formatting and then zero filling a few times was pretty much impossible to recover. That's what we did with patient data. Yes, on modern drives you only need to overwrite the data a single time. Doing it with all 1s, all 0s, or a random pattern of as and 0s are all equally effective. The reason you often see claims for "military-spec" 7 passes or 35 passes is because you needed to do that on ancient 1960s/1970s storage devices, where the physical area taken up by each bit of data was so comparatively large that the original data could be pretty easily detected. If you're using a hard drive built since 1985, a single pass will kill your data just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Why is the fertile crescent no longer fertile anyways? Thousands of years of intense cultivation and changing climates.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:There's also been some suggestion that the Siege of Baghdad by the Mongols destroyed the irrigation infrastructure and it was never repaired or rebuilt. Overall, the Fertile Crescent has gone through a ton of poo poo in the past 1000 years that's turned it into a useless desert. That sort of thing has happened a lot of times, destroying the irrigation infrastructure I mean. Even if you were to build it back up with modern irrigation techniques though it still wouldn't be as great as it was back then, let alone as it was in 1 AD or 1000 BC or 2000 BC.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
pro starcraft loser posted:I'm still confused as to why we're willing to start a war with Russia over Syria. Its...Syria. The UN is by design incapable of dealing with any security council member, or any country a security council member is willing to go to bat for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Russia was in practical terms encircled back in the 1960s with the first couple NATO expansions and the various allied Asian nations, so things like the 2009 expansion to countries that weren't even closer in than existing countries wasn't increasing it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
uncleKitchener posted:I guess the Persians had some wisdom seeding this 1400-year old sect conspiracy to start conflicts just to mess with Saudis. A ton of these groups have been there for decades. There just wasn't a reason for them to be engaged in full scale war.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Yeah that too. People want to believe we can still do to Syria what we did to Yugoslavia, and Putin's whole career has been built on the idea that the US won't be allowed to humiliate Russia in that way again. Pretty sad if Putin tried to build his career on something impossible. Russia is getting humiliated daily.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:
This didn't happen. Putin unilaterally started to pull away from things as soon as he got into power, in 1999.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:He's been pretty consistent in citing Kosovo as one of the reasons for that. You can think he's using it as a pretext, or you can think it was a justified war despite the breach it caused in US-Russia relations, but it definitely seems to have made a strong impression on the Russians. Yes, he was consistent in using that as an excuse to be a big ol baby, but it would have been terrible to let genocidal Serbs do whatever they want to the Croats, Bosniaks, Kosovars, non-genocidal Serbs, etc. Oh I am soooo sorry that getting Serb war criminals stopped hurt poor little Vova's feelings.  Friendly Humour posted:The West wasn't exactly holding on to Russia with both hands, it didn't take a whole lot of pulling. Uh yeah, Russia was just treated like any other random country, because that's all they deserved. If they wanted special treatment, they should have done something to justify it? It's not like the west makes special effort to hold on to other countries.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 17:50
|
|