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

1545557596065

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    No, they phased it out because the public had lived through three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), two of which have left swaths of land that will be uninhabitable for decades at best - and that in turn shook faith in the safety of nuclear power in general.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    KaputatynicShortyElendilSleepKetBra
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Much better than modern gas and coal which is killing our whole planet.

    Still dumb.

    GiantGeek2020kimerahkeesh2000ElvenshaeelectricitylikesmeGnome-InterruptusKarozAimOrcaDamnItCohaagen
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Instead of dredging up the cabinet thread this actually fits here as ambassador picks are a way of showing goals/thoughts behind foreign policy.

    Biden to nominate Tom Nides as ambassador to Israel; Ken Salazar, ‘Sully’ Sullenberger also get posts
    Biden will nominate Thomas R. Nides, a former State Department official, to serve as the ambassador to Israel, Julie Smith, a former Biden national security adviser, as the ambassador to North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Ken Salazar, the former secretary of the interior and senator from Colorado, as the ambassador to Mexico.

    The Washington Post previously reported the three were expected in those spots.

    Biden will also nominate C. B. “Sully” Sullenberger, III, who safely landed a plane on the Hudson River in 2009, as the representative to the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, and Dr. Cynthia Ann Telles, a UCLA professor of psychiatry, to serve as ambassador to Costa Rica.

    ...

    Along with the five political appointees, Biden announced four career members of the Foreign Service to serve as ambassadors. They include Julie Chung for Sri Lanka, Sharon Cromer for Gambia, Troy Damian Fitrell for Guinea and Marc Ostfield for Paraguay.

    Looking at the list it is mostly old hands and career professionals. A few more political ones but not bad choices for again professionalization of the diplomacy which feels like a goal of Biden.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited June 15
    This probably won't surprise anyone, but the Afghan government's forces (ANDSF) have been rapidly losing ground against the Taliban in the midst of the US withdrawal.
    In the six weeks since the May 1 deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban has seized control of 32 additional districts, their reach spanning half of the country’s 34 provinces. The Afghan government has been unable to regain control in any of the 32 districts.
    A June 14 report by TOLONews confirmed LWJ‘s independent assessments of 30 of the 32 fallen districts over the past six weeks (two additional districts went under Taliban control since the article was published).

    According to data tracked by LWJ, the Taliban has actually overrun overrun 37 district centers since May 1, however the Afghan military claims to have regained control of three of them (Khanabad and Aliabad in Kunduz, and Khash Rod in Nimruz) over the past several days. Bala Murghab, which fell in may, was retaken days later.

    How many districts Afghanistan is said to have seems to change every time the government releases a list, but the number hovers around 400 (not including the provincial capitals). So, about 8% of Afghan districts have reportedly been overrun since the beginning of May. That's a pretty massive amount of territory to lose in less than two months. Some government officials are trying to spin it as no big deal - withdrawals or defeats are referred to as "tactical retreats", and promises are made to regain the territory soon. To some extent, this might be true - the Afghan military, particularly its elite units, is thinly stretched, and consolidating forces around population centers or in more defensible positions until a counterattack is possible might be tactically sound in some cases, especially as the absence of US air power makes itself felt and forces a reassessment of strategy. But overall I think this is more a sign of the ANDSF collapsing than reorienting itself. Many of these districts have been handed over to the Taliban via surrender. The Taliban sends local tribal leaders and village elders to the pro-government outposts and military bases, who then mediate surrender conditions, allowing the former troops to return home unharmed or guaranteeing safe passage to the nearest city. Sometimes, the surrendering soldiers/police are made to swear not to rejoin the ANDSF afterwards, and most of the time they have to leave their weaponry and equipment behind. This process is apparently seen as a major problem by the government, as they have begun arresting elders/tribal leaders who mediate these surrenders, and have issued statements warning against "cooperating with terrorists." In other cases, however, the fall of these districts has indeed been through pitched battle. Neither scenario speaks well of the current state of the ANDSF, and despite government promises, I haven't seen many reports of the army retaking districts so far - just the few mentioned in the above quote and one other in Takhar province. The US is staying out of the fighting entirely, at least from what I can tell.

    On the subject of US air power, there has been a lot of speculation as to what form that will take post-withdrawal. Currently, the stated policy is that, after withdrawal is complete, the US will not bomb the Taliban in support of the government, even in the case of provincial capitals falling. The Pentagon apparently wants the authority to bomb the Taliban in the event that Kabul itself looks to be in danger of falling. However, the head of CENTCOM seemed to say otherwise, stating that the US would only launch airstrikes in order to prevent direct attacks on the US being planned or launched from Afghan soil. However, the US is still planning on retaining an embassy in Kabul, so that phrasing could possibly still leave room for airstrikes in defense of the Afghan capital. Worth noting here is the implication that the Pentagon seems to regard the fall of Kabul as a realistic near or mid-term outcome.

    Despite the aforementioned ANDSF defeats/surrenders/retreats in/from towns and villages, the Taliban have yet to capture any of Afghanistan's provincial capitals. Their last reported attempt, on Helmand's city of Lashkar Gah (I think around the beginning of May) was defeated in part due to heavy US bombing. I suspect that that experience taught them a lesson in patience, and that they will wait until the US has fully withdrawn before attempting another such assault, so as not to risk US air strikes. Currently the Pentagon estimates that the withdrawal will be completed sometime in July; if so, I expect to see battles for Afghan cities later this summer and through the fall, especially if the ANDSF doesn't start regaining rural ground soon, or at least manage to stop the Taliban from overrunning more districts in the coming weeks. My personal prediction is that at least one (but probably more than one) city/provincial capital, several of which are already nearly surrounded, will fall by the end of the year. But that's speculation on my part.

    While somewhat predictable based on what's happened over the last several years, these failures by the government and its allied forces are at the same time sort of mindboggling. They have a massive numerical advantage over the Taliban; probably at least 3 times the number of fighters. They receive $4 billion in military aid/year from the US - far more foreign aid than whatever support Pakistan still gives the Taliban. Which side enjoys more popular support varies from region to region, but overall I'm pretty sure that the government is still preferred over the Taliban by most Afghans - although the most common opinion seems to be "I don't care, I just want the fighting to end." They've had the direct support of the US military for 20 years. And yet the government appears to be losing. Despite reading about the conflict for so many years, I still have trouble understanding it. I guess the long and short of it is that a dysfunctional and absurdly corrupt state is not the best apparatus with which to wage war, and the Afghan government is nothing if not corrupt and dysfunctional.

    Kaputa on
    ElkiOrca
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    The statements about NATO seem to be pretty similar to previous statements about Ukraine joining NATO since 2008.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    FencingsaxIncenjucarCaptain InertiaSolarGiantGeek2020
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    Would be the best or worst Oktoberfest ever

    TicaldfjamElvenshae
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    This probably won't surprise anyone, but the Afghan government's forces (ANDSF) have been rapidly losing ground against the Taliban in the midst of the US withdrawal.
    In the six weeks since the May 1 deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban has seized control of 32 additional districts, their reach spanning half of the country’s 34 provinces. The Afghan government has been unable to regain control in any of the 32 districts.
    A June 14 report by TOLONews confirmed LWJ‘s independent assessments of 30 of the 32 fallen districts over the past six weeks (two additional districts went under Taliban control since the article was published).

    According to data tracked by LWJ, the Taliban has actually overrun overrun 37 district centers since May 1, however the Afghan military claims to have regained control of three of them (Khanabad and Aliabad in Kunduz, and Khash Rod in Nimruz) over the past several days. Bala Murghab, which fell in may, was retaken days later.

    How many districts Afghanistan is said to have seems to change every time the government releases a list, but the number hovers around 400 (not including the provincial capitals). So, about 8% of Afghan districts have reportedly been overrun since the beginning of May. That's a pretty massive amount of territory to lose in less than two months. Some government officials are trying to spin it as no big deal - withdrawals or defeats are referred to as "tactical retreats", and promises are made to regain the territory soon. To some extent, this might be true - the Afghan military, particularly its elite units, is thinly stretched, and consolidating forces around population centers or in more defensible positions until a counterattack is possible might be tactically sound in some cases, especially as the absence of US air power makes itself felt and forces a reassessment of strategy. But overall I think this is more a sign of the ANDSF collapsing than reorienting itself. Many of these districts have been handed over to the Taliban via surrender. The Taliban sends local tribal leaders and village elders to the pro-government outposts and military bases, who then mediate surrender conditions, allowing the former troops to return home unharmed or guaranteeing safe passage to the nearest city. Sometimes, the surrendering soldiers/police are made to swear not to rejoin the ANDSF afterwards, and most of the time they have to leave their weaponry and equipment behind. This process is apparently seen as a major problem by the government, as they have begun arresting elders/tribal leaders who mediate these surrenders, and have issued statements warning against "cooperating with terrorists." In other cases, however, the fall of these districts has indeed been through pitched battle. Neither scenario speaks well of the current state of the ANDSF, and despite government promises, I haven't seen many reports of the army retaking districts so far - just the few mentioned in the above quote and one other in Takhar province. The US is staying out of the fighting entirely, at least from what I can tell.

    On the subject of US air power, there has been a lot of speculation as to what form that will take post-withdrawal. Currently, the stated policy is that, after withdrawal is complete, the US will not bomb the Taliban in support of the government, even in the case of provincial capitals falling. The Pentagon apparently wants the authority to bomb the Taliban in the event that Kabul itself looks to be in danger of falling. However, the head of CENTCOM seemed to say otherwise, stating that the US would only launch airstrikes in order to prevent direct attacks on the US being planned or launched from Afghan soil. However, the US is still planning on retaining an embassy in Kabul, so that phrasing could possibly still leave room for airstrikes in defense of the Afghan capital. Worth noting here is the implication that the Pentagon seems to regard the fall of Kabul as a realistic near or mid-term outcome.

    Despite the aforementioned ANDSF defeats/surrenders/retreats in/from towns and villages, the Taliban have yet to capture any of Afghanistan's provincial capitals. Their last reported attempt, on Helmand's city of Lashkar Gah (I think around the beginning of May) was defeated in part due to heavy US bombing. I suspect that that experience taught them a lesson in patience, and that they will wait until the US has fully withdrawn before attempting another such assault, so as not to risk US air strikes. Currently the Pentagon estimates that the withdrawal will be completed sometime in July; if so, I expect to see battles for Afghan cities later this summer and through the fall, especially if the ANDSF doesn't start regaining rural ground soon, or at least manage to stop the Taliban from overrunning more districts in the coming weeks. My personal prediction is that at least one (but probably more than one) city/provincial capital, several of which are already nearly surrounded, will fall by the end of the year. But that's speculation on my part.

    While somewhat predictable based on what's happened over the last several years, these failures by the government and its allied forces are at the same time sort of mindboggling. They have a massive numerical advantage over the Taliban; probably at least 3 times the number of fighters. They receive $4 billion in military aid/year from the US - far more foreign aid than whatever support Pakistan still gives the Taliban. Which side enjoys more popular support varies from region to region, but overall I'm pretty sure that the government is still preferred over the Taliban by most Afghans - although the most common opinion seems to be "I don't care, I just want the fighting to end." They've had the direct support of the US military for 20 years. And yet the government appears to be losing. Despite reading about the conflict for so many years, I still have trouble understanding it. I guess the long and short of it is that a dysfunctional and absurdly corrupt state is not the best apparatus with which to wage war, and the Afghan government is nothing if not corrupt and dysfunctional.

    Sad but as you said not surprising. Invading Afghanistan was a mistake repeated many time throughout history and the US operation there is a lost cause. The ugly events to come are inevitable and don't justify our perpetual presence there. Take the L and bring the fucking troops home.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    GaddezBullheadTicaldfjamzagdrobFencingsaxNetscapeDarlanMagellOrcaStarZapper
  • KelorKelor Registered User regular
    edited June 15
    Butters wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    This probably won't surprise anyone, but the Afghan government's forces (ANDSF) have been rapidly losing ground against the Taliban in the midst of the US withdrawal.
    In the six weeks since the May 1 deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban has seized control of 32 additional districts, their reach spanning half of the country’s 34 provinces. The Afghan government has been unable to regain control in any of the 32 districts.
    A June 14 report by TOLONews confirmed LWJ‘s independent assessments of 30 of the 32 fallen districts over the past six weeks (two additional districts went under Taliban control since the article was published).

    According to data tracked by LWJ, the Taliban has actually overrun overrun 37 district centers since May 1, however the Afghan military claims to have regained control of three of them (Khanabad and Aliabad in Kunduz, and Khash Rod in Nimruz) over the past several days. Bala Murghab, which fell in may, was retaken days later.

    How many districts Afghanistan is said to have seems to change every time the government releases a list, but the number hovers around 400 (not including the provincial capitals). So, about 8% of Afghan districts have reportedly been overrun since the beginning of May. That's a pretty massive amount of territory to lose in less than two months. Some government officials are trying to spin it as no big deal - withdrawals or defeats are referred to as "tactical retreats", and promises are made to regain the territory soon. To some extent, this might be true - the Afghan military, particularly its elite units, is thinly stretched, and consolidating forces around population centers or in more defensible positions until a counterattack is possible might be tactically sound in some cases, especially as the absence of US air power makes itself felt and forces a reassessment of strategy. But overall I think this is more a sign of the ANDSF collapsing than reorienting itself. Many of these districts have been handed over to the Taliban via surrender. The Taliban sends local tribal leaders and village elders to the pro-government outposts and military bases, who then mediate surrender conditions, allowing the former troops to return home unharmed or guaranteeing safe passage to the nearest city. Sometimes, the surrendering soldiers/police are made to swear not to rejoin the ANDSF afterwards, and most of the time they have to leave their weaponry and equipment behind. This process is apparently seen as a major problem by the government, as they have begun arresting elders/tribal leaders who mediate these surrenders, and have issued statements warning against "cooperating with terrorists." In other cases, however, the fall of these districts has indeed been through pitched battle. Neither scenario speaks well of the current state of the ANDSF, and despite government promises, I haven't seen many reports of the army retaking districts so far - just the few mentioned in the above quote and one other in Takhar province. The US is staying out of the fighting entirely, at least from what I can tell.

    On the subject of US air power, there has been a lot of speculation as to what form that will take post-withdrawal. Currently, the stated policy is that, after withdrawal is complete, the US will not bomb the Taliban in support of the government, even in the case of provincial capitals falling. The Pentagon apparently wants the authority to bomb the Taliban in the event that Kabul itself looks to be in danger of falling. However, the head of CENTCOM seemed to say otherwise, stating that the US would only launch airstrikes in order to prevent direct attacks on the US being planned or launched from Afghan soil. However, the US is still planning on retaining an embassy in Kabul, so that phrasing could possibly still leave room for airstrikes in defense of the Afghan capital. Worth noting here is the implication that the Pentagon seems to regard the fall of Kabul as a realistic near or mid-term outcome.

    Despite the aforementioned ANDSF defeats/surrenders/retreats in/from towns and villages, the Taliban have yet to capture any of Afghanistan's provincial capitals. Their last reported attempt, on Helmand's city of Lashkar Gah (I think around the beginning of May) was defeated in part due to heavy US bombing. I suspect that that experience taught them a lesson in patience, and that they will wait until the US has fully withdrawn before attempting another such assault, so as not to risk US air strikes. Currently the Pentagon estimates that the withdrawal will be completed sometime in July; if so, I expect to see battles for Afghan cities later this summer and through the fall, especially if the ANDSF doesn't start regaining rural ground soon, or at least manage to stop the Taliban from overrunning more districts in the coming weeks. My personal prediction is that at least one (but probably more than one) city/provincial capital, several of which are already nearly surrounded, will fall by the end of the year. But that's speculation on my part.

    While somewhat predictable based on what's happened over the last several years, these failures by the government and its allied forces are at the same time sort of mindboggling. They have a massive numerical advantage over the Taliban; probably at least 3 times the number of fighters. They receive $4 billion in military aid/year from the US - far more foreign aid than whatever support Pakistan still gives the Taliban. Which side enjoys more popular support varies from region to region, but overall I'm pretty sure that the government is still preferred over the Taliban by most Afghans - although the most common opinion seems to be "I don't care, I just want the fighting to end." They've had the direct support of the US military for 20 years. And yet the government appears to be losing. Despite reading about the conflict for so many years, I still have trouble understanding it. I guess the long and short of it is that a dysfunctional and absurdly corrupt state is not the best apparatus with which to wage war, and the Afghan government is nothing if not corrupt and dysfunctional.

    Sad but as you said not surprising. Invading Afghanistan was a mistake repeated many time throughout history and the US operation there is a lost cause. The ugly events to come are inevitable and don't justify our perpetual presence there. Take the L and bring the fucking people whose lives the US has devastated back with an offer of citizenship or residency and a stream of income until they can get their feet under them troops home.

    Kelor on
    GaddezBullheadGiantGeek2020ButtersElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusKarozHefflingOrcaDamnItCohaagen
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Saying to the Afghan people "sorry we fucked up your country, you can come and live in the US though" seems like it would come across as very offensive, tbh

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 15
    Solar wrote: »
    Saying to the Afghan people "sorry we fucked up your country, you can come and live in the US though" seems like it would come across as very offensive, tbh

    True, but on the other hand, many of them are probably going to be murdered and we have this Wyoming thing no one has found a use for.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
    zekebeauBullheadKayne Red RobeDoodmannkimeGiantGeek2020KanaElvenshaeelectricitylikesmeMagellSmrtnikKarozMrVyngaardAimboogedybooOrcaDoctorArchStarZapperSkeith
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Right but also its a typically American thing to assume that people want to live in the US or have lives like American people. And indeed its a consistent feature in US foreign policy.

    Caedwyr
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Saying to the Afghan people "sorry we fucked up your country, you can come and live in the US though" seems like it would come across as very offensive, tbh

    Would be nice if they actually extended the offer to those who assisted US forces as interpreters and their families, though

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    IncenjucarBullheadLord_AsmodeuszagdrobHappylilElfShortyDarlanPolaritieElvenshaeMagellSmrtnikMrVyngaardHefflingOrcaDoctorArchSkeithDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • KelorKelor Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Right but also its a typically American thing to assume that people want to live in the US or have lives like American people. And indeed its a consistent feature in US foreign policy.

    Which is why I said resident as well as citizenship, be cause it's entirely possible they wouldn't want to become a citizen of a nation that quite likely killed their friends or family.

    I'd also be open to the US paying for them to join family or negotiating for citizenship/residency in a country of their choice, along, again, with a long term stipend to pay for accomodation, food, education, etc.

    But as the US withdraws they should serve some sort of recompense to the utter destruction and upheaval their invasion caused. Money is easy, but actually putting in the work to helping restore these people's lives is much harder and should be done. For all of those who want it, not just interpreters and their families.

    Also, I'm not American.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    There isn't an option with a good outcome. You can at least give people a choice about which way they prefer to suffer.

    FencingsaxNetscapeElvenshaeSleepGnome-InterruptusMagellHefflingSageinaRageOrca
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    The Taliban recently promised that they won't seek revenge on those who worked with the US, though of course it is debatable how much faith one should have in such statements.

    BullheadTicaldfjamGiantGeek2020Smrtnik
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    The Taliban recently promised that they won't seek revenge on those who worked with the US, though of course it is debatable how much faith one should have in such statements.

    Even if I had complete faith in the statement being the true intentions of the Taliban's leadership, there would still be those who would go against those intentions to seek violent retribution against those who they see as having aided in perpetrating harm against their country and kin.

    You know, like how US soldiers commit war crimes despite their leadership (presumably) truthfully telling them not to do war crimes.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    IncenjucarDoodmanntynicFencingsaxElvenshaeSolarGnome-InterruptusBullheadMrVyngaardOrcaSkeithHappy Little Machine
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    No, they phased it out because the public had lived through three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), two of which have left swaths of land that will be uninhabitable for decades at best - and that in turn shook faith in the safety of nuclear power in general.

    Three Mile Island caused no significant damage outside the plant other than a large bill to the operator, and neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima can happen anywhere else in the world. The decision was emotional and irrational and the government should have quashed it in the best interests of both their citizens and the world at large.

    uH3IcEi.png
    Lord_AsmodeusmrondeauDoodmannkimeGiantGeek2020FencingsaxHappylilElfshrykeDarkPrimusRedTideElvenshaeelectricitylikesmeSolarGnome-InterruptusMagellOghulkSmrtnikBigJoeMBullheadHefflingQanamilDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    No, they phased it out because the public had lived through three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), two of which have left swaths of land that will be uninhabitable for decades at best - and that in turn shook faith in the safety of nuclear power in general.

    Three Mile Island caused no significant damage outside the plant other than a large bill to the operator, and neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima can happen anywhere else in the world. The decision was emotional and irrational and the government should have quashed it in the best interests of both their citizens and the world at large.

    Again, kinda hard to do that when people voted out pro-nuclear politicians for anti-nuclear politicians.

    Orca
  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    No, they phased it out because the public had lived through three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), two of which have left swaths of land that will be uninhabitable for decades at best - and that in turn shook faith in the safety of nuclear power in general.

    Three Mile Island caused no significant damage outside the plant other than a large bill to the operator, and neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima can happen anywhere else in the world. The decision was emotional and irrational and the government should have quashed it in the best interests of both their citizens and the world at large.

    Again, kinda hard to do that when people voted out pro-nuclear politicians for anti-nuclear politicians.

    Are you arguing against condemning specific German politicians or something? Fine, then the German voters made the wrong decision, is that better?

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    No, they phased it out because the public had lived through three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), two of which have left swaths of land that will be uninhabitable for decades at best - and that in turn shook faith in the safety of nuclear power in general.

    Three Mile Island caused no significant damage outside the plant other than a large bill to the operator, and neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima can happen anywhere else in the world. The decision was emotional and irrational and the government should have quashed it in the best interests of both their citizens and the world at large.

    Again, kinda hard to do that when people voted out pro-nuclear politicians for anti-nuclear politicians.

    Are you arguing against condemning specific German politicians or something? Fine, then the German voters made the wrong decision, is that better?

    They did, I'm just pointing out that they are within their full rights to do so.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria

    No, they phased it out because the public had lived through three major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima), two of which have left swaths of land that will be uninhabitable for decades at best - and that in turn shook faith in the safety of nuclear power in general.

    Three Mile Island caused no significant damage outside the plant other than a large bill to the operator, and neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima can happen anywhere else in the world. The decision was emotional and irrational and the government should have quashed it in the best interests of both their citizens and the world at large.

    Yes, it's "irrational" that a populace that after seeing three major nuclear power fuckups involving a good deal of failure on the part of the operators would have a good deal of skepticism over nuclear power. The problem wasn't the specifics, it was that the industry was caught out taking shortcuts and in two of those occasions the end result was catastrophic. Yes, in the specific sense of how it happened neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima can happen in Germany - but in the general sense of arrogance and inadequate planning and foresight, they could happen anywhere, which is why nuclear power has a massive trust deficit currently. And you don't fix trust deficits by telling people to go fuck themselves.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    TicaldfjamCaedwyr
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 16
    eh nuclear power has a 'massive trust deficit' because people don't understand how it works, or that modern reactors work very differently than the ones built in the 70s

    pandering to nimbyism is easier than swimming against it which makes blaming the population at large easy, but I for one would like to see actual leadership from political leaders

    ed: like, this is basically the anti-vax argument, only for some reason anti nuclear power arguments are given public credence while anti vax arguments are openly mocked

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    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
    kimerahkeesh2000Lord_AsmodeusMonwynMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxTryCatcherElvenshaeelectricitylikesmeForarHappylilElfGnome-InterruptusMagellOghulkDoodmannGiantGeek2020SmrtnikBigJoeMBullheadMrVyngaardStarZapperSkeithDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)

    Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.

    I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.

    What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?

    I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.

    At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.

    Why wouldn’t they address that ahead of time? Joining NATO requires meeting certain benchmarks. Why would they let Ukraine join without covering this? Like I said, I don’t believe NATO is fishing for an excuse to declare war on Russia.

    I hope so, but I'm not sure it's worth the risk.

    adding ukraine to NATO isn't inviting a war, it's stopping one before it gets started

    russian revanchism isn't going to just stop with the ukraine; if they are allowed to win a conquest war there it'll be the space of a few years before they're threatening their new neighbors.

    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
    Netscape
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Yes, it is irrational, absolutely

    Bringing up TMI is basically just scaremongering, no evidence has shown that the TMI incident had any significant impact on anyone. Plus it happened in the US and 40 years ago, what relevance does that have to Germans today? At least Chernobyl was next door and the worst ever and Fukushima was recent.

    "The Industry" does not exist as a unified whole like you seem to think it does. Chernobyl's designers and operators weren't even talking to anyone else, this was the height of the cold war after all, I seriously doubt they were swapping safety notes with the west, so we're left with only Fukushima to actually be scared of, as a modern nation having an actual disaster

    Also, all 3 of these incidents happened with old plants. TMI & Chernobyl of course happened a long time ago, and even Fukushima was a plant built in the late 60s. There are newer designs with better safety margins and so on

    Nuclear power produces 10% of the world's electricity, despite many countries not even having it at all. Coal produces a third and undoubtedly causes disproportionately more deaths and more cancer and more climate impacts

    Irrational fear is being afraid of something in an incredibly disproportionate amount and given how much power is generated worldwide and how few people actually die from nuclear incidents... yeah irrational

    Kayne Red RobekimeshrykeMonwynLord_AsmodeusFencingsaxTryCatcherElvenshaeJusticeforPlutoForarSolarHappylilElfGnome-InterruptusMagellOghulkGiantGeek2020SmrtnikBigJoeMBandableStarZapperMrMisterSkeithDamnItCohaagenHappy Little Machine
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Yes, it is irrational, absolutely

    Bringing up TMI is basically just scaremongering, no evidence has shown that the TMI incident had any significant impact on anyone. Plus it happened in the US and 40 years ago, what relevance does that have to Germans today? At least Chernobyl was next door and the worst ever and Fukushima was recent.

    "The Industry" does not exist as a unified whole like you seem to think it does. Chernobyl's designers and operators weren't even talking to anyone else, this was the height of the cold war after all, I seriously doubt they were swapping safety notes with the west, so we're left with only Fukushima to actually be scared of, as a modern nation having an actual disaster

    Also, all 3 of these incidents happened with old plants. TMI & Chernobyl of course happened a long time ago, and even Fukushima was a plant built in the late 60s. There are newer designs with better safety margins and so on

    Nuclear power produces 10% of the world's electricity, despite many countries not even having it at all. Coal produces a third and undoubtedly causes disproportionately more deaths and more cancer and more climate impacts

    Irrational fear is being afraid of something in an incredibly disproportionate amount and given how much power is generated worldwide and how few people actually die from nuclear incidents... yeah irrational

    That fact that Chernobyl's designers and operators were so completely disconnected from the rest of the nuclear industry was actually a huge problem with trying to deal with the problem because nobody in the rest of the industry knew wtf they were doing or how to deal with the crazy bullshit plant they'd built. It had so little to do with the rest of the industry the rest of the industry didn't even know how it worked.

    Fencingsax
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    A Russia that successfully turns Ukraine into a Belarus puppet gov is gonna look at Lithuania next.

    And then we get the hard problem when it comes to NATO and article 5.

    TicaldfjamIncenjucarFencingsaxElvenshaeNetscapeGiantGeek2020BigJoeMboogedyboo
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    edited June 16
    Edit: This is not the nuclear power thread. Whoops.

    Gnizmo on
  • Kayne Red RobeKayne Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    edited June 16
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    Edit: This is not the nuclear power thread. Whoops.

    Edit: I thought for sure this was the climate change thread.

    Kayne Red Robe on
    Karoz
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    A decade? Good news then, Fukushima was 10 years and 3 months ago and the only incidents since then were one fatality in a (non-nuclear) explosion in late 2011, one spill at a uranium mine (unknown impact), a leak in a waste isolation site (no fatalities) and a military-related incident which I'm ignoring because we're talking about power generation

    It is actually possible to make a plant that cannot go boom

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited June 16
    Strictly speaking, Putin's position has been that russia isn't involved militarily in eastern ukraine (which is bullshit, but bare with me), so strictly speaking Putin would have one of 3 choices for dealing with NATO showing up:
    1. Withdraw support for the dissidents; arguably the best move on his part in terms of least ammount of material loss and/or escalation but doing so would be devestating to his public image.
    2. keep going in the current direction, in which "pro-russian seperatists" get mercilessly stomped since NATO > Russia and there'd be a few dozen spy sattelites watching the area to call putin out on his shit.
    3. Go full on hot. Ideally for putin he does this before they can join NATO and he sends everything he has to seize the whole of the ukraine which would be fantastically expensive, probably have him dealing with partisan resistance fighters for years and get Poland really pissed off that russia is right on their doorstep and potentially kicking off WW3.

    For my money, I don't see going full on hot; he's smart enough to know that that isn't going to end well for him and theres decent odds that parts of NATO get involved anyways and drag the rest of the organization in, and beyond that getting involved in a giant unwinnable war might get him some support from the base in the short term, but theres no way russia can handle that kind of expenditure without their economy crashing (particularly since there would be no gas money coming in due to being at war with basically everyone).

    More likely it's some combination of 1 and 2, wherein he begins drawing down external support and switches to "thoughts and prayers" for the people of donetsk while engaging in cyber warfare, sabotage and assassinations.

    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.
    Ticaldfjam
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Portico and AP reporters.




    Multiple sources tell us that no decision was made today to admit Ukraine to NATO. Rather, allies reiterated decisions made at previous summits regarding Georgia and Ukraine *eventually* becoming members at an unspecified time.
    I just leaned over and asked Secretary of State Blinken -- also waiting for Biden -- if there was an update today on Ukraine joining NATO. He says no, "nothing has changed."

    We continue to wait.

    Status quo in Brussels.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Ticaldfjam
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 16
    shryke wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Yes, it is irrational, absolutely

    Bringing up TMI is basically just scaremongering, no evidence has shown that the TMI incident had any significant impact on anyone. Plus it happened in the US and 40 years ago, what relevance does that have to Germans today? At least Chernobyl was next door and the worst ever and Fukushima was recent.

    "The Industry" does not exist as a unified whole like you seem to think it does. Chernobyl's designers and operators weren't even talking to anyone else, this was the height of the cold war after all, I seriously doubt they were swapping safety notes with the west, so we're left with only Fukushima to actually be scared of, as a modern nation having an actual disaster

    Also, all 3 of these incidents happened with old plants. TMI & Chernobyl of course happened a long time ago, and even Fukushima was a plant built in the late 60s. There are newer designs with better safety margins and so on

    Nuclear power produces 10% of the world's electricity, despite many countries not even having it at all. Coal produces a third and undoubtedly causes disproportionately more deaths and more cancer and more climate impacts

    Irrational fear is being afraid of something in an incredibly disproportionate amount and given how much power is generated worldwide and how few people actually die from nuclear incidents... yeah irrational

    That fact that Chernobyl's designers and operators were so completely disconnected from the rest of the nuclear industry was actually a huge problem with trying to deal with the problem because nobody in the rest of the industry knew wtf they were doing or how to deal with the crazy bullshit plant they'd built. It had so little to do with the rest of the industry the rest of the industry didn't even know how it worked.

    Also what Germany does with it's own plants has no impact on what Russia (cause of Chernobyl) does with it's plants (which it will forever have because nuclear weapons), or what France does, which Germany buys a ton of cheap electricity from because....France has a ton of nuclear plants (ironically built pretty close to the German border).

    The policy was the most idiotic response possible to an event which also can't happen in a tectonically stable land-locked country. And has resulted in the current ongoing "Germany does whatever Russia wants" foreign policy outcome.

    electricitylikesme on
    ElvenshaeHappylilElfFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusmrondeauGnome-InterruptusButtersshrykeGiantGeek2020SmrtnikBigJoeMBullheadAimSkeith
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Can't imagine there's too many NATO members really interested in going to war for Ukraine.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • KelorKelor Registered User regular
    Can't imagine there's too many NATO members really interested in going to war for Ukraine.

    I recall when the initial invasion of Ukraine happened there was a lot of "Wellllll, the Budapest Memorandum wasn't technically a promise of intervention to the Ukraine's defense" after they gave up their nuclear weapons.

    Meanwhile, the fucking over of Ukraine in broad daylight and Gadhafi's end made a hell of a set of bookends for the international case on why you should never ever ever give up nuclear weapons.

    Commander ZoomElvenshaeIncenjucarKaputaMorganVButtersGiantGeek2020SmrtnikBigJoeMTicaldfjamNobodyDarkPrimusBullheadAimboogedybooHefflingOrcaSkeith
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    Kelor wrote: »
    Can't imagine there's too many NATO members really interested in going to war for Ukraine.

    I recall when the initial invasion of Ukraine happened there was a lot of "Wellllll, the Budapest Memorandum wasn't technically a promise of intervention to the Ukraine's defense" after they gave up their nuclear weapons.

    Meanwhile, the fucking over of Ukraine in broad daylight and Gadhafi's end made a hell of a set of bookends for the international case on why you should never ever ever give up nuclear weapons.
    Thinking back to the thread’s earlier debates about sanctions on Iran

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    KelorTicaldfjamDarkPrimusOrca
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Can't imagine there's too many NATO members really interested in going to war for Ukraine.

    Ukraine borders Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. I'm not sure those countries will be very interested in having Russia right up on their doorstop.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    FencingsaxGnome-InterruptusElvenshaeButtersshrykeMosati
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Tef wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Can't imagine there's too many NATO members really interested in going to war for Ukraine.

    I recall when the initial invasion of Ukraine happened there was a lot of "Wellllll, the Budapest Memorandum wasn't technically a promise of intervention to the Ukraine's defense" after they gave up their nuclear weapons.

    Meanwhile, the fucking over of Ukraine in broad daylight and Gadhafi's end made a hell of a set of bookends for the international case on why you should never ever ever give up nuclear weapons.
    Thinking back to the thread’s earlier debates about sanctions on Iran

    They were a good idea because we got an actual deal out of it?

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Tef wrote: »
    Kelor wrote: »
    Can't imagine there's too many NATO members really interested in going to war for Ukraine.

    I recall when the initial invasion of Ukraine happened there was a lot of "Wellllll, the Budapest Memorandum wasn't technically a promise of intervention to the Ukraine's defense" after they gave up their nuclear weapons.

    Meanwhile, the fucking over of Ukraine in broad daylight and Gadhafi's end made a hell of a set of bookends for the international case on why you should never ever ever give up nuclear weapons.
    Thinking back to the thread’s earlier debates about sanctions on Iran

    They were a good idea because we got an actual deal out of it?

    Except that by breaking the deal and re-implementing them, the USA has made sanctions less useful as a tool to change behavior since there's no guarantee that a change of behavior will lead to an easing of sanctions. Throw in Ukraine, Gadhafi, and Iraq getting the sharp end of the stick while North Korea remains untouched and good luck convincing countries that no-nukes will work out well for them.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    SmrtnikDarkPrimusOrca
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Well yes, when you let a lackwit dumbass run your foreign policy, you're going to get shitty foreign policy, and that has consequences later. But that happens in every policy realm when you let fascist dipshits run things.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Well yes, when you let a lackwit dumbass run your foreign policy, you're going to get shitty foreign policy, and that has consequences later. But that happens in every policy realm when you let fascist dipshits run things.

    Tad worse for foreign policy than say taxes or the like, unfortunately.

    And in more fun news Iran has presidential elections in two days, which the wanker candidate is likely to win. It would have been nice if the Biden administration had been able to move faster on getting the JCPOA up and running again since that would have given a boost to whatever more reformery candidates are running.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    Gnome-InterruptusElvenshaeGiantGeek2020
Sign In or Register to comment.