As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] is still practicing drone diplomacy

1444547495066

Posts

  • The Cow KingThe Cow King a island Registered User regular
    Wonder how the CIA's gonna square away the opium trade with the Taliban they both love making money off it

    icGJy2C.png
    Ticaldfjam
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    maybe they can start a joint-venture

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Accurate reporting of After Action Reports has been a big problem throughout history. Most soldiers over report the number of enemies killed, the damage they did. The Germans in WW2 were famous for over reporting the number of tanks they knocked out, and that was for their internal numbers, not propaganda.

    I really, really doubt the Taliban have an accurate means of reporting these numbers. They also have a lot of reasons to lie, just like the US.

    I'm not really sure I buy this argument that they are a reliable source of info. I would trust an unaffiliated NGO the most.

    FencingsaxGiantGeek2020Harry DresdenLord_AsmodeusMarathonNobodyzagdrobSmrtnikshrykeForarkimejmcdonaldGaddezGnome-Interruptus
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Theoretically, internal numbers tracking enemy activities [i[should[/i] be fairly accurate. There's plenty of reasons to fake some of the numbers (perhaps to influence resource allocation, maybe make the local forces look bad-ass for holding up under intense enemy action, or the always popular 'blame the other guy for the mass grave that you filled'), but generally the pressure will be to produce accurate data in order to be able to effectively prosecute the war. Internal numbers for your own actions have even more likelihood of being garbage (why report that you killed some rando farmer when you could call him an enemy combatant instead) and the first question that should be asked when being shown any numbers by any of these groups is 'What do they hope to gain by showing me these numbers?'

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    FencingsaxLord_AsmodeusMarathon
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Looks like Biden is keeping the Trump era landmine policy



    Daily Beast reporter.

    This is a broken campaign promise.
    https://www.vox.com/2020/2/3/21120684/2020-presidential-election-foreign-policy-landmines

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    GiantGeek2020DoodmannkimeDarkPrimusJragghenCommander ZoomMagell
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    The US is fairly reliable at refusing to give up it's war crime weapons. It's honestly amazing you ever officially deactivated the chemical weapon stockpiles.

    FencingsaxKayne Red RobeTicaldfjamAridholToxNetscapeGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The US has never signed anti-landmine treaties in the first place.

    FencingsaxKayne Red RobeReaperSMSGaddezHappylilElfErlecGnome-Interruptus
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    DoodmannGiantGeek2020RingoTicaldfjamNo-QuarterCommander Zoom
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    FencingsaxNo-Quarter
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    If Trump had still been in charge, I would have assumed the plan was to mine the oceans – with land mines.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    TicaldfjamElvenshae
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    The US is fairly reliable at refusing to give up it's war crime weapons. It's honestly amazing you ever officially deactivated the chemical weapon stockpiles.

    It's only because the US has so many nukes. Any response to chemical/biological weapons will just be a nuke

    TicaldfjamStarZapper
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    The US is fairly reliable at refusing to give up it's war crime weapons. It's honestly amazing you ever officially deactivated the chemical weapon stockpiles.

    It's only because the US has so many nukes. Any response to chemical/biological weapons will just be a nuke

    Eh, Chem/Bio weapons are kind of ineffective in general - they don't tend to win tactical victories and invite strategic response. But the same is basically true of landmines - there's no real reason the US would ever want to use them, except I presume that it keeps deploying them into the DMZ maybe? But they're useless weapons if your tactical doctrine is manoeuver warfare since you deny yourself territory and space you already control.

    DoodmannIncenjucarGiantGeek2020Elvenshae
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 6
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The US has never signed anti-landmine treaties in the first place.

    Well, we should have, but we also do not have to sign those treaties in order to not keep using them.

    To quote from the Vox article linked:
    Roughly four hours later, Biden weighed in as well. “The Trump administration’s reversal of years of considered decisions by Democratic and Republican presidents to curtail the use of landmines is another reckless act by a president ill-suited to serve as commander-in-chief,” he said in an email from his campaign. “It will put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines, and is unnecessary from a military perspective. As president, I will promptly roll back this deeply misguided decision.”

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    The US is fairly reliable at refusing to give up it's war crime weapons. It's honestly amazing you ever officially deactivated the chemical weapon stockpiles.

    It's only because the US has so many nukes. Any response to chemical/biological weapons will just be a nuke

    Eh, Chem/Bio weapons are kind of ineffective in general - they don't tend to win tactical victories and invite strategic response. But the same is basically true of landmines - there's no real reason the US would ever want to use them, except I presume that it keeps deploying them into the DMZ maybe? But they're useless weapons if your tactical doctrine is manoeuver warfare since you deny yourself territory and space you already control.

    Landmines are a good fit for the DMZ, but the DMZ is a rather unique setting. Pretty much everywhere else they're bad and people using them should feel bad.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    MarathonGiantGeek2020GONG-00NetscapeGnome-Interruptus
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    The Taliban are not idiots but nor are they above lying

    I wouldn't trust any numbers they voluntarily share because who trusts casualty counts shared by anyone? I certainly don't. Not the Taliban, not the US gov and not the Afghan gov. Maybe independent observers. But in Afghanistan they are very limited in access.

    That said I don't doubt that they do actually have internal figures which they attempt to make as accurate as they can

    FencingsaxCommander ZoomHarry Dresden
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    The US had been making small, incremental steps towards acting more in-line with the 1997 treaty; the most recent being Obama's 2014 policy change that production and procurement of landmines would stop, and their continued use would be limited to the Korean penninsula. That Biden is opting to endorse Trump's policy change last year is concerning.

    The treaty should have definitely been signed by the US during its original ratification, and their justification for not doing so hinging on their use in the DMZ is worthy of criticism and derision

    JragghenDarkPrimusRingoTicaldfjamCentipede DamascusCommander ZoomGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    I'm guessing beach volleyball in this case actually.

    Although I suppose people do also sometimes play soccer on the beach too.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited April 6
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    If Trump had still been in charge, I would have assumed the plan was to mine the oceans – with land mines.

    I'm pretty sure his plan was to plant landmines on the southern border.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    GiantGeek2020DoodmannTicaldfjamElvenshaeCommander Zoomelectricitylikesme
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    If Trump had still been in charge, I would have assumed the plan was to mine the oceans – with land mines.

    I'm pretty sure his plan was to plant landmines on the southern border.

    Also a moat

    GiantGeek2020TicaldfjamElvenshaeSmrtnikHarry Dresden
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Also, landmines aren't an effective tool for the kind of warfare the US engages in; they're effectively long term traps meant to make an area too dangerous to traverse for enemy forces and that's completely counter intuitive to the way the US has conducted warfare for the past 30 years with it's focus on seeking out the enemy and eliminating them.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    GiantGeek2020RingoCelestialBadgerTicaldfjamKruitejmcdonaldCentipede DamascusElvenshaeCommander ZoomGnome-Interruptus
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    If Trump had still been in charge, I would have assumed the plan was to mine the oceans – with land mines.

    I'm pretty sure his plan was to plant landmines on the southern border.

    Also a moat

    Didn't that fucking moron 100% seriously ask about stocking it with alligators too?

    GiantGeek2020FencingsaxTicaldfjamRingoNo-QuarterjmcdonaldElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusCommander ZoomGnizmoSmrtnikHarry Dresdenkime
  • RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    Somebody in the Pentagon thinks that having the option to mine Taiwan is a good idea

    It's not

    If we don't have air superiority in that potential fight China will take what they want eventually. And if we do have air superiority then landmines have little utility on top of being civilian murdering war crimes.

    This is also some absolute bullshit from the Biden Administration, jfc

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
    electricitylikesmeKaputa
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Also, landmines aren't an effective tool for the kind of warfare the US engages in; they're effectively long term traps meant to make an area too dangerous to traverse for enemy forces and that's completely counter intuitive to the way the US has conducted warfare for the past 30 years with it's focus on seeking out the enemy and eliminating them.

    One major exception is forward operating bases.

    Minefields can provide a passive defensive barrier that acts as a force multiplier and reduces the number of troops needed for security and can deter / prevent suicide bombers and VBIEDs.

    They aren't useful in all contexts and their potential harm definitely offsets their benefit, but they aren't universally ineffective.

    shrykeElvenshaeStarZapperKayne Red RobeTox
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    "an era of strategic competition that requires our military to become more lethal" is a hell of a quote.

    Lots o people gearing up for a naval war with China right now. And I guess also repelling a land invasion now too.

    If Trump had still been in charge, I would have assumed the plan was to mine the oceans – with land mines.

    I'm pretty sure his plan was to plant landmines on the southern border.

    Also a moat

    Didn't that fucking moron 100% seriously ask about stocking it with alligators too?

    Sure did

    TicaldfjamRingoNo-QuarterElvenshaeLord_AsmodeusCommander ZoomNetscape
  • breton-brawlerbreton-brawler Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Also, landmines aren't an effective tool for the kind of warfare the US engages in; they're effectively long term traps meant to make an area too dangerous to traverse for enemy forces and that's completely counter intuitive to the way the US has conducted warfare for the past 30 years with it's focus on seeking out the enemy and eliminating them.

    One major exception is forward operating bases.

    Minefields can provide a passive defensive barrier that acts as a force multiplier and reduces the number of troops needed for security and can deter / prevent suicide bombers and VBIEDs.

    They aren't useful in all contexts and their potential harm definitely offsets their benefit, but they aren't universally ineffective.

    doesn't the US produce a huge amount of landmines and makes alot of money selling them off to other countries?
    I think this was a large reason why they never signed the older anti-landmine agreements.

    Styrofoam Sammich
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Also, landmines aren't an effective tool for the kind of warfare the US engages in; they're effectively long term traps meant to make an area too dangerous to traverse for enemy forces and that's completely counter intuitive to the way the US has conducted warfare for the past 30 years with it's focus on seeking out the enemy and eliminating them.

    One major exception is forward operating bases.

    Minefields can provide a passive defensive barrier that acts as a force multiplier and reduces the number of troops needed for security and can deter / prevent suicide bombers and VBIEDs.

    They aren't useful in all contexts and their potential harm definitely offsets their benefit, but they aren't universally ineffective.

    doesn't the US produce a huge amount of landmines and makes alot of money selling them off to other countries?
    I think this was a large reason why they never signed the older anti-landmine agreements.

    We did, until 2014 when Obama stopped it. We can do it again now though.

    CelestialBadgerDoodmannFencingsaxRingo
  • jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ...Barack "charisma isn't a dump stat, nerds" Obama...
    ElvenshaeMarathonCommander ZoomKayne Red RobeLord_AsmodeusNo-QuarterButtersGnome-Interruptus
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    It would make sense to keep and store them for like a total war scenario for a declared war. I guess? It wouldnt hurt anyone but landmine exporters to sign the treaty and just eat a violation of it if some very specific situation absolutely required it.

    Land mines are one of the most horrific weapons ever invented and I really am disappointed this did not go through.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3129122/us-navy-warns-china-were-watching-you-destroyer-shadows
    On Sunday, the US released a photo that showed one of its guided-missile destroyers, the USS Mustin, shadowing the Liaoning group - a move that analysts said was designed to send a clear message to the Chinese.

    The photo taken on Monday somewhere in the East China Sea showed the ship’s captain, Commander Robert J Briggs, and his deputy Commander Richard D Slye watching the Liaoning, which was just a few thousand metres away.

    Wow that's uh... really close.

    Elvenshae
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 12
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Harry Dresden on
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Harry DresdenGONG-00GaddezTicaldfjamDoodmannOrcaLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxzagdrobknitdanElvenshae
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Its so US arms manufacturers can make money Harry

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Typhoid MannyMagellYamiB.David WalgasTicaldfjamTefThe Cow KingDee KaeKetBraKaputa
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 12
    Its so US arms manufacturers can make money Harry

    Only with countries who won't break the world in a conflict, that's what proxy wars with those countries are for when things get too hot. The US arms manufacturers would be ok with a war in Venezuela, not a land war in China or Russia for those reasons.

    Edit: We know what the US would do against a country who is too strong on is own soil in wars, and its nukes. That's what the Cold War was about.

    Harry Dresden on
    Marathon
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Its so US arms manufacturers can make money Harry

    It is true that US arms manufacturers will make money but that does not mean that it is done for the sake of US arms manufacturers making money.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
    SageinaRageshrykeLord_AsmodeuszagdrobknitdanElvenshae
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Its so US arms manufacturers can make money Harry

    Only with countries who won't break the world in a conflict, that's what proxy wars with those countries are for when things get too hot. The US arms manufacturers would be ok with a war in Venezuela, not a land war in China or Russia for those reasons.

    Edit: We know what the US would do against a country who is too strong on is own soil in wars, and its nukes. That's what the Cold War was about.
    Did you skip the entirety of 1900's US history? Because uh, the US hasn't given a shit who it sells weapons to and the results of those organizations being armed and what they did with being armed.

    Styrofoam SammichYamiB.DarkPrimusKarozDee KaeKetBraMagell
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Was thinking about the latest US Navy movement, not the land mine stuff. My bad if that didn't came through.

    kime
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, @Harry Dresden. US Arms backed that shit.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Its so US arms manufacturers can make money Harry

    It is true that US arms manufacturers will make money but that does not mean that it is done for the sake of US arms manufacturers making money.

    I mean they're internationally condemned weapons of marginal utility that maim and murder civilians for decades after deployment. Given how much of our arms production is driven by profit motives I think Im being as charitable as possible.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ElendilGnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.