EPTGive back alaska!
Ukraine Crisis - Page 393
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
Give back alaska! | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6344 Posts
On April 03 2014 18:12 Fjodorov wrote: This is a bit funny: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/alaska-back-russia/SFG1ppfN Give back alaska! If it passes the 100,000 mark then the US president will have to make a statement. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On April 03 2014 18:01 Simberto wrote: Yes. One needs a military because others have one, and if they have one and you don't you are fucked. Doesn't change the fact that a military fundamentally does nothing except allow you to either not get fucked by people with a military, or alternatively fuck people who don't have a military as big as yours. It does not do anything useful, but if others have one you need one too. A much better solution would be if people could agree to not waste gigantic amounts of money on something utterly useless, but sadly that is apparently impossible. The russians need a big military because the americans have one. Europeans need a big military because the russians have one. Etc. It's a giant circle that eats ressources for no gain whatsoever, but there is no easy way out either. I would not say there is no gain. There is a limited amount of resources on this planet and the West has been exploiting those for a long time at the cost of most of the world. The military of the West is all that keeps those being exploited from saying "Fuck you" and not play ball anymore. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
On April 03 2014 18:01 Simberto wrote: Yes. One needs a military because others have one, and if they have one and you don't you are fucked. Doesn't change the fact that a military fundamentally does nothing except allow you to either not get fucked by people with a military, or alternatively fuck people who don't have a military as big as yours. It does not do anything useful, but if others have one you need one too. A much better solution would be if people could agree to not waste gigantic amounts of money on something utterly useless, but sadly that is apparently impossible. The russians need a big military because the americans have one. Europeans need a big military because the russians have one. Etc. It's a giant circle that eats ressources for no gain whatsoever, but there is no easy way out either. So what happens when we have no military and a group of 100 Belgians come across the Dutch border and start raiding a village? A military defense force will always be necessary as a deterrent. There's even a fair argument to be made for an interventionist military in certain cases like when there's persecution of a minority group going on in a certain state. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On April 03 2014 18:34 RvB wrote: So what happens when we have no military and a group of 100 Belgians come across the Dutch border and start raiding a village? A military defense force will always be necessary as a deterrent. There's even a fair argument to be made for an interventionist military in certain cases like when there's persecution of a minority group going on in a certain state. Those Belgians. You never know when they might go berserk and start raiding peaceful villages again. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On April 03 2014 19:14 hypercube wrote: Those Belgians. You never know when they might go berserk and start raiding peaceful villages again. If they bring their chocolate though.. On topic, since i (and obviously my unit) "fought" on the so called "Oder-Front" (river "Oder" goes ham once in a while, we were schlepping sandbags etc), i strongly disagree with the statement "army is basically useless and not needed". What i would agree is, that a conventional army is getting more and more useless, and spending should not be concentrated on tanks etc. Times change, a big standing army is pretty much useless, and way too expensive to sustain for what it's worth. I mean, when was the last time the US actually used their arsenal? Couple of planes etc yes, but when was the last "real war" they fought in, that would justify vast amounts of tanks etc? Not even iraq did, it was 100-150k US soldiers (don't know about vehicles, but i bet my ass it was nowhere close to the maximum number). That's a number many european countries could field. Nobody reacts to that as a deterrent though, if you have nukes anyway. PS: the US used its army for the last 25 years for more or less useless wars (mostly, if not at all, as aggressor). Its cute if people talk like "we defended you long enough", it's not like the US army is that big because of that. Russia not having the only functional military in Europe would be a great thing for relations That's true indeed. Especially between EU/US, since american influence would shrink by quite a margin. In a positive outcome, it would probably improve unity in the continent (including Russia obviously) How much you wanna bet, that this is the last thing the US government wants to see? I mean it would be fun to see Obamas face if putin marries merkel tomorrow (poor dude), hollande throws the wedding party, cameron sends some tea and happy wishes but can't make it because he's on an island, etc. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
EU temporarily cuts customs duties on Ukrainian goods until November 2014. About 98% of the customs duties that Ukrainian iron, steel, farm produce and machinery exporters pay at EU borders will be removed by a proposal backed by European Parliament on Thursday. This unilateral measure will boost Ukraine’s struggling economy by saving its manufacturers and exporters €487 million a year. Source The 2% not free is where the real money is, but it's a nice way to show that there's real money in moving towards the EU. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On April 03 2014 18:18 -Archangel- wrote: I would not say there is no gain. There is a limited amount of resources on this planet and the West has been exploiting those for a long time at the cost of most of the world. The military of the West is all that keeps those being exploited from saying "Fuck you" and not play ball anymore. This would be at the same time that life expectancy, literacy, and vaccination in "most of the rest of the world" rose spectacularly, and poverty was halved globally, correct? West is so good at exploiting global resources at the cost of most of the rest of the world that most of the rest of the world is better off now than it was before this dastardly exploitation started... Nice fantasy about most of the rest of the world really just wanting to tell the West "fuck you" and not play ball anymore. Must be why most of the rest of the world keeps trying to immigrate to the US / Europe and not the other way around. What i would agree is, that a conventional army is getting more and more useless, and spending should not be concentrated on tanks etc. Times change, a big standing army is pretty much useless, and way too expensive to sustain for what it's worth. That opinion became an anachronism on February 23rd. Not that it wasn't extremely foolish before... ask Russia and China and Pakistan and India and any number of countries in Africa and Colombia and South Korea if a big conventional army is getting more and more useless and way too expensive to sustain what it's worth. Sadly it's not what you think is worth it it is what the other guy thinks is worth it. I mean, when was the last time the US actually used their arsenal? Today. Couple of planes etc yes, but when was the last "real war" they fought in, that would justify vast amounts of tanks etc? Tanks were and are invaluable in both conventional and guerrilla warfare and in a reversal from basically all of tank history the modern MBTs of Western countries are pretty useful in urban warfare now, you have to make a really humongous IED to get through a Western tank's armor and other than that there's not much way to disable / destroy them. Tanks were used very extensively and successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not even iraq did, it was 100-150k US soldiers (don't know about vehicles, but i bet my ass it was nowhere close to the maximum number). They deployed so many vehicles in Iraq that when it was time to rotate units there were many units that would leave their vehicles there for the next guy to use. I guess you don't remember all the controversy over stop-loss and extended tours of duty, 100-150K soldiers is a huge investment in modern conventional war. That's a number many european countries could field. Name one. You can't because there are no European countries other than Russia (if you consider Russia a European country) that could currently field an army anywhere near 100-150K soldiers. The only countries that even have the active manpower to try would be Germany, France, Greece, Poland and the UK, and that would require putting nearly all their active soldiers into this single "army" and none of them have the vehicles to make it a truly modern army capable of extended and extensive operations, it would be a very infantry-heavy army. PS: the US used its army for the last 25 years for more or less useless wars (mostly, if not at all, as aggressor). Its cute if people talk like "we defended you long enough", it's not like the US army is that big because of that. Only war US has been aggressor in in the last 25 years is Iraq war. If Serbia was so useless Europe shouldn't have wanted us to do it so badly and the West should have gone into Rwanda so it wouldn't have felt such a compulsion to make up for not going into Rwanda by going into Serbia. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait not the other way around. US involvement in FARC war gave Colombia the edge to finally start winning decisively so all of a sudden FARC decided peace talks were a good idea. An organization operating out of Afghanistan kind of flew planes into buildings in the USA so we kind of decided to go over there and see how they liked it. Libya was pretty useless though. The US Army is precisely big because it was built to fight a Russian invasion of central/western Europe, again it's after February 23rd that doesn't look so anachronistic now does it. Dunno where you get your information but statements like "most, if not all as aggressor" is pure ignorance and so is the opinion that the US Army is not big because of the need to defend Europe from Russia. That is precisely why the US Army is so big and the biggest chunk of US military hardware and servicepeople abroad are in Europe. They didn't build bases in Germany and the UK for the last 60 years to fight a war with China. That's true indeed. Especially between EU/US, since american influence would shrink by quite a margin. Yeah... no. Increased European military strength would only increase American influence since America dominates military relationships at the officer and civilian policymaker levels and an increase in European military strength wouldn't change that. NATO is set up so that non-Americans occupy powerful positions and would during any war as well, the days of British-American or French-American rivalry during WW2 or over NATO ended with the defeat of the Nazis and the death of de Gaulle. Although France is still the most independent and maverick-y of the NATO members. The days of the Eurofighter and F-22 being a sign of some kind of rivalry and daylight between US and Europe militarily are long gone. The only country that has the means to send astronauts into space currently is Russia since the US discontinued space shuttles. The US has way more to lose in space from this. Civilian space activity is a sideshow for the Star Trek geeks and such, in military space activity the US and China have left Russia far in the dust. That's where the action is, the militarization of space. Which is against treaty of course but China is putting a lot of money and energy into "satellite killers" and electronic warfare capabilities using satellites, whoever gets an advantage in space has the ultimate high ground and will not be easy to dislodge from that advantage so that's why you've seen this very secretive X-37B space plane from the US that obviously they want everyone to know about because it's not actually very secret... its existence anyway. Its capabilities are kept very tightly under wraps. And why launches of military satellites and who knows what else from Vandenberg have been going off like crazy the last half-decade or so. Yes. One needs a military because others have one, and if they have one and you don't you are fucked. Doesn't change the fact that a military fundamentally does nothing except allow you to either not get fucked by people with a military, or alternatively fuck people who don't have a military as big as yours. It does not do anything useful, but if others have one you need one too. A much better solution would be if people could agree to not waste gigantic amounts of money on something utterly useless, but sadly that is apparently impossible. The russians need a big military because the americans have one. Europeans need a big military because the russians have one. Etc. It's a giant circle that eats ressources for no gain whatsoever, but there is no easy way out either. You keep describing why militaries are fundamentally needed and then insist that what you just said actually supports the opinion that they are not fundamentally needed. Self-defense is a fact of life from the lowly amoeba to the individual human being to the nation-state. Militaries are useless because war is bad is extremely naive and not how the world works. You also might want to consider than when some huge earthquake or tsunami or monsoon hits somewhere and kills thousands of people and leaves huge swathes of a country in ruins, the primary way to deliver rescue forces and aid is via Western militaries, particularly the US Navy / Air Force. Thousands and thousands of more people would have died from disease and starvation or from being trapped somewhere after the Boxing Day Tsunami for example if it wasn't for Western militaries shipping and flying in millions of tons of supplies and doing search and rescue. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Tanks were and are invaluable in both conventional and guerrilla warfare and in a reversal from basically all of tank history the modern MBTs of Western countries are pretty useful in urban warfare now, you have to make a really humongous IED to get through a Western tank's armor and other than that there's not much way to disable / destroy them. Tanks were used very extensively and successfully in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's untrue. Tanks are absolutely useless in guerilla warfare and and especially urban combat. I might let APCs slip, but since you specifically talked about MBTs, no. And yes, i fought in urban combat, even though it is almost a decade ago, certain things and drawbacks didn't change on MBTs. Remote-controlled turrets as upgrades didn't change anything. That might be the reason why they didn't use MBTs in afghanistan. And that's after the introduction of TUSK. In iraq, MBTs were the worst thing to sit in in urban combat. Gun elevation, top/back armor, field of view for gunner with closed hatch etc etc - no. It's not true. About IEDs, there's not as much needed as you might think. Yes, obviously more than a pound or two, but talibans proved to use bigger ones. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://malaysiaflyingherald.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/82638031.jpg) German APC Marder 1A5 (small anecdote, it's a tank of my company, although i left service a couple of years before that happened) after driving on a helluva IED. "Just" one dead out of 6, but we can agree that this tank (42+ tons) is not able to drive anymore. I'll answer later to the rest, dinner. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On April 04 2014 01:07 DeepElemBlues wrote: -snip- Was gonna reply to the above in depth, but your response was beautiful. Well said. The military being "useless" apart from its need is particularly facile. Yes, doctors are useless without illness, firefighters are useless without fires, and police are useless without criminals. You can't just wish away a problem in the world, unfortunately. War is pointless and stupid (why the fuck is Russia invading Crimea anyway? No rational economic motive. Just pissing-contest pride). But war is a fact of life and all this "we don't need armies/tanks/artillery" that we've been hearing for the last 20 years has been bullshit. Just because you go a few decades without a major war doesn't mean all wars from now on will be small. Nuclear weapons act as a bit of a deterrent, but as long as your opponent is semi-rational, they won't use them. The U.S.'s military has likewise protected places like Europe, but, as Putin has shown, it has limits too. We couldn't threaten the Georgian invasion because we were tied up in two wars, and we can't threaten the Ukrainian one because Obama has made it repeatedly clear that the U.S won't stomach another war. If Europe had a real military, commensurate with its economic stature, the world would be a safer place. As a side bonus, Europe would be able to act far more independently of the U.S. if it was independently capable of defending itself. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
That's bullshit. No it isn't. Tanks were used extensively in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq, the footage of Abrams scooting through Iraqi cities is all over the internet, thousands and thousands of hours of footage. Tanks are absolutely useless in guerilla warfare and and especially urban combat. That's bullshit. The US usually had over 1,000 MBTs in Iraq and they were used extensively. I might let APCs slip, but since you specifically talked about MBTs, no. You're wrong. The evidence is overwhelming. And yes, i fought in urban combat, even though it is almost a decade ago, certain things and drawbacks didn't change on MBTs. Pretty sad how wrong you are then when you say you fought in urban combat. Remote-controlled turrets as upgrades didn't change anything. That might be the reason why they didn't use MBTs in afghanistan. Actually they started using Abrams in Afghanistan 4 years ago. And Afghanistan is mostly mountainous terrain no wonder they didn't use tanks. Highlands and mountains with the ravines and all that is a lot different environment from a city. nd that's after the introduction of TUSK. In iraq, MBTs were the worst thing to sit in in urban combat. Gun elevation, top/back armor, field of view for gunner with closed hatch etc etc - no. It's not true. That must be why they were using them literally all the time in Iraq including heavily built-up areas (with extensive infantry support of course just because modern MBTs can and do perform well in urban combat doesn't mean they can go gallivanting out all alone into the middle of town and be okay). About IEDs, there's not as much needed as you might think. Yes, obviously more than a pound or two, but talibans proved to use bigger ones. This: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQEt7To9EqWxDbl1Zh_vwMVXWF8jpTHr6yIPC_eoMU9r36UQQV And this: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A1-Abrams-USMC-01.jpg Are two different vehicles. One is much heavier and stronger than the other. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any increase in NATO's permanent presence in eastern Europe would violate a 1997 treaty on NATO-Russian cooperation. "We have addressed questions to the north Atlantic military alliance. We are not only expecting answers, but answers that will be based fully on respect for the rules we agreed on," Lavrov told reporters at a briefing with his Kazakh counterpart. So if I am a NATO diplomat, it must be so exciting. I can go with: What NATO troops? There are no NATO troops, they are local self defense forces, as I am sure you know in the post-Soviet sphere there are many F-18s that can be bought by anyone. or alternatively. What treat? We signed the treaty with the Yeltsin regime overthrown by a fascist nazi junta, we dont recognize treaties signed by such regimes. or alternatively. What expansion? These are just long planned, long term strategic war games and the troops will return to their bases once the war games are over in 50 or so years. | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On April 03 2014 18:34 RvB wrote: So what happens when we have no military and a group of 100 Belgians come across the Dutch border and start raiding a village? A military defense force will always be necessary as a deterrent. There's even a fair argument to be made for an interventionist military in certain cases like when there's persecution of a minority group going on in a certain state. actually for 100 belgians you can call the police but overall i agree with your statement | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
Modern man-portable anti-tank weapons - the Javelin, Kornet, HJ-9 - have backblast reduction systems (enabling them to fire from interior rooms), non-line-of-sight guidance systems (meaning the shooter doesn't have to see the tank), and over 800mm RHAe penetration. These tools are highly effective at inflicting disproportionate casualties on armor in an urban setting. In an externally supported, 'real' insurgency, you would rarely see tanks in urban combat. One other issue with tanks is the lack of area coverage per dollar cost that they provide in an urban setting. A company of 6-7 tanks might be able to cover 4km of lateral frontage in city combat at a cost of 40-50m upfront and 2m a year in maintenance. An attack helicopter costing 20m could cover 10km of frontage and also provide observational support with its overhead IR and MMW radar sensors. What's more, helos or lighter vehicles exhibit much better company-level mobility in a city than tanks do. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On April 03 2014 19:57 m4ini wrote: How much you wanna bet, that this is the last thing the US government wants to see? I mean it would be fun to see Obamas face if putin marries merkel tomorrow (poor dude), hollande throws the wedding party, cameron sends some tea and happy wishes but can't make it because he's on an island, etc. I'd be willing to bet the entire national debt. 17.59 trillion Washingtons, my friend. On April 04 2014 03:37 Shady Sands wrote: DeepElemBlues, in most of the anecdotes you've posted, tanks were effective in urban combat because opfor didn't have the proper equipment to deal with them - not because said equipment wasn't man-portable or handy in urban combat, but because the equipment is expensive and requires trained operators, which means support from an external nation-state. Modern man-portable anti-tank weapons - the Javelin, Kornet, HJ-9 - have backblast reduction systems (enabling them to fire from interior rooms), non-line-of-sight guidance systems (meaning the shooter doesn't have to see the tank), and over 800mm RHAe penetration. These tools are highly effective at inflicting disproportionate casualties on armor in an urban setting. In an externally supported, 'real' insurgency, you would rarely see tanks in urban combat. One other issue with tanks is the lack of area coverage per dollar cost that they provide in an urban setting. A company of 6-7 tanks might be able to cover 4km of lateral frontage in city combat at a cost of 40-50m upfront and 2m a year in maintenance. An attack helicopter costing 20m could cover 10km of frontage and also provide observational support with its overhead IR and MMW radar sensors. What's more, helos or lighter vehicles exhibit much better company-level mobility in a city than tanks do. Yeah but Ahmad and Friends don't have those things nor are they good with them. If you want to see an infantry force with any effectiveness in terms of tactics and technology to do some serious damage on an armored corps, you'd have to go to the Russian or US army. But forget ATGMs. Even a cheap thing like the RPG-29 is going to do serious damage. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On April 04 2014 01:07 DeepElemBlues wrote: This would be at the same time that life expectancy, literacy, and vaccination in "most of the rest of the world" rose spectacularly, and poverty was halved globally, correct? West is so good at exploiting global resources at the cost of most of the rest of the world that most of the rest of the world is better off now than it was before this dastardly exploitation started... Nice fantasy about most of the rest of the world really just wanting to tell the West "fuck you" and not play ball anymore. Must be why most of the rest of the world keeps trying to immigrate to the US / Europe and not the other way around. You just keep telling yourself that. That is same kind of logic super rich people use to justify their abuse of the system. The poor countries are better yes, but that is only because a really small amount of riches taken from them did spill into their society. But if someone helped them to use their riches themselves, they would be in a much better state today. But of course, in a modern West society where everyone is just looking out for #1 that is how it is done. And that part about immigration is funny, and it just proves my case when you think about it for more then 1 second. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
New Evidence: Russian Spies Backed Kiev's Killers Dont get pumped, there is not much evidence to be found. In short Ukraine’s new authorities have arrested a dozen members of the country’s disbanded “Berkut” riot police. The men are suspected of participation in the February slayings of dozens of protesters in Kiev, gunned down while agitating for the ouster of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. The authorities say more arrests are to follow and they are turning their attention to other security units, including a crack Ukrainian anti-terrorist team first identified by the Daily Beast last weekend. | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
| ||
