EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 154
| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11572 Posts
Obviously Russia is wrong invading. Saying that they are wrong in invading adds nothing as to whether you can drop dumb bombs in a war at all. I would point to Bucha as an obvious example of Russia committing war crimes. I just don't think it's a consistent standard to say if you use dumb bombs against military target and miss, it's akin to war crime. We haven't judged war in that way before, and I don't think it's very helpful to have that standard now simply because Russia is not justified in its invasion. That same UN tribunal brought up a similar point... actually I'm just going to quote it rather than trying to paraphrase from memory: 32. The precise linkage between jus ad bellum and jus in bello is not completely resolved. There were suggestions by the prosecution before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and in some other post World War II war crimes cases that all of the killing and destruction caused by German forces were war crimes because the Germans were conducting an aggressive war. The courts were unreceptive to these arguments. Similarly, in the 1950’s there was a debate concerning whether UN authorized forces were required to comply with the jus in bello as they represented the good side in a battle between good an evil. This debate died out as the participants realized that a certain crude reciprocity was essential if the law was to have any positive impact. An argument that the "bad" side had to comply with the law while the "good" side could violate it at will would be most unlikely to reduce human suffering in conflict. Why you started the war and how you conduct the war should not be immediately conflated. There's lots of blame to go around on how Russia has conducted the war. I just don't think one of them should be the use of dumb bombs at all. It's not a consistent standard that could be applied if laws in war are to have any meaning at all. Now if they start the equivalent of bombing of London or Dresden, we're talking a different thing altogether. But that (at this point) doesn't seem to be what we are looking at right now. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9317 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5835 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22441 Posts
On June 30 2022 06:47 maybenexttime wrote: You answered your own question, they didn't mean to strike the mall, so whether or not the mall was empty wasn't relevant to their time of launch.If it wasn't deliberate, why didn't they strike at night, when the mall would've been empty? "but it would have been safer: you say. As if they care about that, seriously we know Russia doesn't care about hitting civilian targets. They might not have been aiming for it in this case, but that doesn't change that they don't care what they hit. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5835 Posts
On June 30 2022 07:01 Gorsameth wrote: You answered your own question, they didn't mean to strike the mall, so whether or not the mall was empty wasn't relevant to their time of launch. "but it would have been safer: you say. As if they care about that, seriously we know Russia doesn't care about hitting civilian targets. They might not have been aiming for it in this case, but that doesn't change that they don't care what they hit. No, that doesn't answer my question, unless they are completely oblivious to how poor their targeting is. Their missile strikes seem to miss the targets more often then they hit them. I'm not sure whether they were trying to hit a legitimate target (their whole story sounds far-fetched - a machine shop that repaired a few military vehicles several years ago) or the goal was to kill civilians with plausible deniability. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22441 Posts
On June 30 2022 07:32 maybenexttime wrote: Again, Russia doesn't care about hitting civilian targets, we know that. They have levelled entire cities. So if hitting civilians is not a concern then there is no reason to care about what happens when your missile misses. Waiting for surrounding buildings to be empty doesn't matter, because they don't care.No, that doesn't answer my question, unless they are completely oblivious to how poor their targeting is. Their missile strikes seem to miss the targets more often then they hit them. I'm not sure whether they were trying to hit a legitimate target (their whole story sounds far-fetched - a machine shop that repaired a few military vehicles several years ago) or the goal was to kill civilians with plausible deniability. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11908 Posts
On June 30 2022 22:41 JimmiC wrote: Russia is claiming they did it as an "act of good will". Both different reasons but both confirming Russians have left. I know whos story I'm going to trust based on information provided so far. Russian fiction can involve pretty interesting stories. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44170 Posts
On June 30 2022 22:41 JimmiC wrote: Russia is claiming they did it as an "act of good will". Both different reasons but both confirming Russians have left. I know whos story I'm going to trust based on information provided so far. Lol It was getting leveled daily but sure, goodwill. They’re known for this being the goodwillingest invasion ever. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On June 30 2022 22:41 JimmiC wrote: Russia is claiming they did it as an "act of good will". Both different reasons but both confirming Russians have left. I know whos story I'm going to trust based on information provided so far. With the introduction of HIMARS systems into Western Ukraine keeping anything useful on the 500m wide rock is just not realistic without the Moskva. You can't build fortifications, you can't dig trenches. It can be hit in a wide arc with all kinds of conventional weapons and anyone stationed there can only wait for the shells and missiles to fall on them. I think the only reason the Russians stayed there so long is because of the whole PR storm around it during the first days of the operation. The Ukrainians lost quite a few men trying airborne assaults, the Russians lost significant equipment trying to hold the position. So it will now become no-mans land. Anyone that sends anything to the island will be rocketed immediately so its significance in this conflict is now null. In any case I think this puts a full stop on any Russian plans to assault Odessa by sea, though those chances were slim to none before these last few days. The whole goodwill thing is a meme, though who know what kind of behind the scenes dealings are going on with the grain exports. All eyes on Lisichansk. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 28 2022 17:28 Harris1st wrote: Cloaking doesn't exist, real life isn't Startrek. Or starcraft as the case may be. Strategic/ballistic missile submarines don't need to be near Britain to devastate UK as the nuclear missiles they carry have several thousand miles range as a minimum. Strategic submarines don't even need to be used, as the whole of Europe is well within the range of Russia's land based ICBM. Simply put, if Russia wants to hit London with a nuclear missile, there is nothing that can be done despite recent supposed successes in detecting and intercepting ballistic missiles tests.Would actually be possible to sneak a sub near Britain and launch a nuke from it without anyone noticing until said launch? I rather doubt it but I don't know anything about modern warfare technology, be it cloaking or detection As to detection and stealth, nobody who knows will ever actually tell you and if anybody on the internet tells you they know, they are either lying or revealing top secret information. Opinions vary, but the general open source evidence point towards that unless you already have a network of hydrophones or very powerful sonar system (powerful enough to kill marine life) in the area a submarine is very hard to detect in real time, even Russian ones. In complex littoral areas, it can be very hard to detect even if you know they are there. Anyways all this bizarre recent talk on this thread of hitting London with nuclear missiles, I'll die instantly with no chance of survival lol. At least hopefully so, rather than a slow awful death. On June 29 2022 20:13 Sermokala wrote: Battleships and Battlecruisers don't exist anymore and haven't been relevant in naval warfare in a near peer conflict since WW2. The entirety of thought when it came to a modern war between NATO and Russia was that the baltics would-be stormed and that the Russians would need to be held in poland long enough for a counterattack to turn them back. Now swamping the Baltic sea with battleships and battlecrusiers being covered by fighters from Swedish bases means they won't get that far. We don't need more troops in the east we will be much safer with Finland exploding the frontage russia needs to defend and to move existing aircraft bases to Sweden. Ignoring Russia and Denmark (whose navy seems to be geared towards international cooperation rather than concentrating on defending the ports of the Baltic Sea) the navies of the Baltic sea are basically coastal defence missile boats and mine warfare vessels. Naval power in the Baltic sea is honestly not that important anyways unless you are Finland and Sweden needing to protect their ports for trade, and the whole of the Baltic Sea is well within the "combat" range of aircraft. Also that stuff about holding Russia back in Poland is only for a theoretical cold war scenario of all out invasion of Russia into Europe; Russia as is, can hardly invade all the way to the "narrow" point that meets at the border of Germany. It's not a realistic scenario at all. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4426 Posts
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/german-gas-prices-could-triple-as-russia-reduces-supply-expert-says German consumers could face a tripling of gas prices in the coming months after Russia’s throttling of deliveries to Europe, a senior energy official has said. Moscow reduced the flow of gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline by 40% last week, citing technical reasons that Berlin dismisses as a pretext, prompting a four- to sixfold rise in market prices, said the head of Germany’s federal network agency, Klaus Müller. Such “enormous leaps in price” were unlikely to be passed down entirely to consumers, Müller said, but German citizens had to brace themselves for dramatically rising costs. “A doubling or tripling is possible,” he told the public broadcaster ARD. Could be a cold winter. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
And again ground fighters based in sweden that intercept what's left of the Russian air force. | ||
|
PoulsenB
Poland7744 Posts
On June 29 2022 16:17 PoulsenB wrote: 10 bucks says Turkey will soon start going after Kurds and we won't hear a peep of protest from NATO Well what do you know, Sweden and Finland changed their classification of Kurdish PKK to "terrorist organisation" and Ankara now wants them to extradite Kurdish disidents living there: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/06/29/nato-deal-with-sweden-and-finland-ankara-celebrates-national-victory-worries-mount-in-stockholm_5988325_4.html | ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation618 Posts
On July 01 2022 22:26 Sermokala wrote: Battleships and battle cruisers still exist in your own navy and the us navy. they can be used for fire support to eliminate any advance into danzig let alone destroy the Russian enclave before being able to reach it. And again ground fighters based in sweden that intercept what's left of the Russian air force. They are not. US battleships of Iowa-class were moved to active fleet from reserve in 1984 and had their last combat deployment during Desert Storm, after which they were decomissioned, and even struck down from the reserve records. Remaining ones now act as museums. UK scrapped its last battleship (Vanguard) in 1960. The only thing that sometimes called "battlecruiser" is actually in our fleet (Kirov-class missile cruisers), but the only reason to be called like that is their size (25k ton), since their composition and armament is similar to other existing missile cruisers. It's just missiles themselves that are much bigger than most of their counterparts, cause they were designed to punch through anti-missile defence of US carrier groups, hence the larger size of the ship to fit them in. Swedish and Finnish airbases and ability to travel through their airspace from bases in Norway, Denmark and Germany though would definetly help if Russia attacks the Baltic countries. Though in that case I believe out planes would try to keep near their air defence umbrella, so most of the action would happen over the eastern Baltic coast. | ||
| ||
