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

1454648505165

Posts

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, @Harry Dresden. US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Smrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • cckerberoscckerberos 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.

    Landmines are dirt cheap and last forever. There's not much money to be made there.

    Lord_Asmodeusrahkeesh2000Smrtnik
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    No, don't be ridiculous. Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about landmines.

    I'm saying don't give China a free pass as they claim exclusive rights over what was once international territory.

    zagdrob
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No, don't be ridiculous. Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about landmines.

    I'm saying don't give China a free pass as they claim exclusive rights over what was once international territory.

    You quoted a conversation about land mines

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Did I say anything about them? Show me where I implied their use.

    I'm taking issue with the part of the sentence where you downplayed China's behavior in the South China Sea.

  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    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.

    Very blatant message considering there is likely a submarine already shadowing the Liaoning.

    Black lives matter.
    Law and Order ≠ Justice
    ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
    Still waiting on Dan "Man of his Word" Ryckert to eat a hat
    xu257gunns6e.png
    Elvenshae
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    @Styrofoam Sammich can you not do the passive aggressive Awesome thing? This isn't the first time you've done it to me and if you have something to say, I'd prefer you just say it.

    shrykekime
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 12
    "Styrofoam Sammich" can you not do the passive aggressive Awesome thing? This isn't the first time you've done it to me and if you have something to say, I'd prefer you just say it.

    Fine. Its still an extremely silly bit to get upset over what I wrote. Anit personel mines are not relevant to South China Sea expansion. No one is downplaying anything.

    Jumping into a converaation about landmines and then getting snippy when people respond to you about landmines is goosey.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Ursus
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, @Harry Dresden. US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    When the arms change hands, the arms makers still get paid. The biggest customer of the US military industrial complex is the US government.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    TicaldfjamRingoGiantGeek2020DarkPrimusFencingsaxKetBra
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia,. US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    When the arms change hands, the arms makers still get paid. The biggest customer of the US military industrial complex is the US government.

    Fair enough, you are absolutely correct on this.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited April 12
    nothing to see here

    LoserForHireX on
    "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
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 12
    .

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 12
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    Nukes changed the equation. How the US conduct wars wasn't the same after World War 2. Thats moving the goal posts, the original contension was that US arms manufacturers wanted a ground war in China. Today.
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, @Harry Dresden. US Arms backed that shit.

    That was a proxy war between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. They weren't doing that on Russian soil.

    Harry Dresden on
    rahkeesh2000
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    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.

    Very blatant message considering there is likely a submarine already shadowing the Liaoning.

    I wonder if we're pinging them like we were USSR ships in the 70's.

    Elvenshae
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    I almost wish this were true. We seem to very much care what people do with what we sell them. Honestly, I think it would almost be better if we were just an amoral arms dealer nation. Instead we sell people arms, train their people, and then go back to blow them up if they suddenly stop agreeing with us. See fucking everything in the middle east we are involved in at this point.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    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.

    Nukes changed the equation. How the US conduct wars wasn't the same after World War 2. Thats moving the goal posts, the original contension was that US arms manufacturers wanted a ground war in China. Today.
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, @Harry Dresden. US Arms backed that shit.

    That was a proxy war between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. They weren't doing that on Russian soil.

    This was not the claim

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    The point is that landmines are bad weapons developed and use by countries which do bad things, and which maim and kill civilians (and lots of children) for decades after their original purpose has expired. If you would like to contest that the killing and maiming is a worthwhile or net positive endeavour go ahead.

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichIncenjucarMagellShortykimeAistanButtersRingoDee Kae
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    This was not the claim

    We were talking about America going to war with China.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    This was not the claim

    We were talking about America going to war with China.

    Harry the "original contention" as you put it was my post. I claimed that US arms manufacturers want the US to buy and allow them to sell landmines. This is not the same as wanting WW3.

    Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Can't quote because paywalled but headline says Biden plans to pullout of Afghanistan by Sep 11 2021:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-us-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan/2021/04/13/918c3cae-9beb-11eb-8a83-3bc1fa69c2e8_story.html

    No-QuarterMarathonGnome-Interruptus
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Kind of incredible if that happens tbh

    20 years of war in Afghanistan

    And in the end I would say that the US will probably... lose? I feel like the Taliban (that is to say, local relatively hardline Pashtun militias under an umbrella) will go back to controlling their territories, as they already do in many places

    I wonder what will happen post? Reprisals almost certainly, but then what? Will we see another Afghan Civil War? And then maybe a period of relative peace?

    Commander Zoom
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    It's going to be ugly, and the people that complained that we should have left will transition to complaining that we dishonored sacrifice or some shit.

    In reality we are pulling off a bandaid.

    TicaldfjamKayne Red RobeFencingsaxJragghenMazzyxButtersknitdanBullheadGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Yeah, it feels like in some sense staying has just been delaying the inevitable negative consequences. We were just waiting around till a President got tired of the whole thing and felt like they had the political cover to pull out.

    FencingsaxCelestialBadgerLord_Asmodeus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Typhoid Manny
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    This seems like a very strange place to draw the line. Is Australia up for grabs in this scenario?

    kime
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    jmcdonaldshrykeFencingsaxkimeHappylilElfElvenshae
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Chinese expansionism/revanchism is a problem but that all feels a little overheated, especially given the context of the comment

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
    Styrofoam SammichMagell
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, it feels like in some sense staying has just been delaying the inevitable negative consequences. We were just waiting around till a President got tired of the whole thing and felt like they had the political cover to pull out.

    What was always gonna be required was a republican president willing to commit to a withdrawal, which for all his many faults at least trump was

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Serious question, how reliable are the safety features on modern landmines? Because needing to mine the beaches of Taiwan and Japan, or getting into a land war with China may seem ludicrous, but even just the capability of doing those things may be necessary as part of the balance of power. And it's one of those things where being unable to contest a conventional war against China narrows the options to fire the nukes or do nothing, which is arguably more dangerous.

    I would like to see actual expert opinions on whether this is a reasonable capability that we need or if this is just an excuse to prop up the military industrial complex.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    fedaykin666
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyRedTideDavid WalgasUrsusKraint
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Serious question, how reliable are the safety features on modern landmines? Because needing to mine the beaches of Taiwan and Japan, or getting into a land war with China may seem ludicrous, but even just the capability of doing those things may be necessary as part of the balance of power. And it's one of those things where being unable to contest a conventional war against China narrows the options to fire the nukes or do nothing, which is arguably more dangerous.

    I would like to see actual expert opinions on whether this is a reasonable capability that we need or if this is just an excuse to prop up the military industrial complex.

    Of the 3,000,000 anti-personnel mines remaining in US inventory, all are reported to have self-destruct capability with a maximum of a 30 day lifespan once armed. Reported reliability of the self-destruct mechanisms are 99.999% according to one report, another report cites a failure rate of 6 per million.

    Which...is doubtful and probably at least an order of magnitude lower (edit, lower as in less likely to self-destruct the way they should) than reported.

    If Biden does follow through and rejoin the Ottawa Convention, the US stockpile will have expired (battery shelf life, no maintenance permitted) by about 2030.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/27/questions-and-answers-new-us-landmine-policy#

    zagdrob on
    HamHamJfedaykin666
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    ShortyDarkPrimusTefKetBraThe Cow KingUrsus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited April 13
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Ed-snipped out part of a draft

    No-Quarter on
    MeeqeElvenshae
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    Is it a serious problem? Because from all your responses so far it seems you aren’t all that bothered by it.

    You seem more upset about the possibility that land mines might be used to push back against that expansion than the expansion itself.

    No-Quarter
  • R-demR-dem Registered User regular
    I was a combat engineer when I was in the army.

    Breaching enemy minefields is a giant pile of bullshit. All that old school stuff about dudes with metal detectors and headsets? Yeah, we don't do that anymore. We fire a rocket with a giant tube full of C4 behind it and detonate the whole shebang to clear a lane. It's called a MICLIC: mine clearing line charge. We also use mine/booby trap sniffing remote controlled robots. China uses them too. China also uses mine clearing robots as well. China ALSO uses robots with MICLICs, according to Pop Sci, so my point here is that any theoretical invasion of Taiwan is going to feature heavily mined beaches and Chinese combat engineers breaching them. It's part and parcel with warfare.

    As far as "safety features", things may have changed since my time 20 years ago in Korea, but "friendly" mines are supposed to be known location, so theoretically you can recover them, but there are also anti-handling devices, so quite frankly "friendly" mines are usually just bipped: Blown In Place.

    Also land mines are total bullshit.

    IncenjucarjmcdonaldForarGONG-00shrykeCommander ZoomDavid WalgasButtersGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusMvrckElvenshaeGnome-Interruptusfedaykin666
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited April 13
    You think China's threat to Taiwan is similar to the Domino theory?

    Fencingsax on
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    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?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    Crimea and Ukraine would seem to disagree with you.

    Whether landmines are the only response to Chinese territorial aggression seems to be a position that only you have taken.

    ElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.