Recent comments in /f/worldnews

BigBeerBellyMan t1_ja8xng4 wrote

Reply to comment by nybbleth in France, Germany, and the UK offer a plan for Ukraine that doesn’t include NATO membership by Core2score

>Yes. First; you're quoting a study regarding enlargement guidelines. These aren't hard rules. They don't show up in the Treaty text.

Yea but weren't the proposals in the 1995 Study of NATO Enlargement eventually adopted as official policy during the 1999 Washington Summit?

−1

xaveria t1_ja8x999 wrote

Reply to Russias Medvedev says arms supplies to Kyiv threaten global nuclear catastrophe by R1ckCrypto

Another installment in “I don’t get that they don’t get this” from me:

My problem is not that these threats are empty. My problem is that they are fundamentally self-defeating.

Russia has always had a nuclear doctrine that they will use nukes if they are directly attacked. We know it, they know we know it. That’s why they know as well as we do that ain’t nobody attacking Russia.

The US and NATO have a nuclear containment doctrine that more or less goes, “do not negotiate with anyone who threatened nuclear strikes, because if you do, everyone will try it on.” The Russians KNOW this. We have the Kim family to thank for that policy.

This kind of pronouncement is guaranteeing that NATO will stay in the war until the end. Why do they keep doing it? They cannot possibly be this stupid. I swear to God, every time they mention nuclear weapons, there’s a “six months before we can sit down and talk to the Kremlin” calendar that in Brussels that reset to zero.

2

DeeDee_Z t1_ja8x71h wrote

Reply to Anti-war partisans in Belarus claim to have damaged Russian plane | Belarus by Caratteraccio

Should we be able to see that in the attached photo? I don't see anything I recognise as a former airplane, or a radar dome. (I see one plane towards the upper right, but no clear damage and no dome...)

What I -can- see is two (semi?-)trailers with red tops, a dark shadow above them, and a light line below them. Sure look like German flags at first glance!

Was this just a poorly chosen photo, or am I going blind in my old age?

1

Monkfich t1_ja8x0av wrote

Reply to comment by drogoran in Anti-war partisans in Belarus claim to have damaged Russian plane | Belarus by Caratteraccio

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that europe and the west is doing the wrong thing by only using it’s “bark”. If it were to bite, it would create a huge escalation not just in Russia, but across cities and towns (non-strategic too, Putin like to pick them and blow them up to make a “point”) which would create a wartime population. On the event of decisions to send massive forces to Ukraine, Putin may decide to use heavier weapons , heavier shells, heavier missiles, and we know he likes to throw bodies at a problem.

Arguably Putin wouldn’t surrender/cancel his special operation even if pushed back to the borders by a larger and stronger force. He is an evil fucker but he knows how to play an enemy and wait them out. Or maybe the new Allies push forward to Moscow to topple Putin there? Extra escalation and as an attack has now been made on Russian soil, all Allied countries can expect an attack on their soil too.

And Belarus? Their army will likely support perceived attacks on their own soil, to get them into the wider war. We had that attack today, and Putin can orchestrate more.

We “all” want Ukraine to win, but it won’t win by creating nuke targets inside and outside of Ukraine. The Allied countries maybe aren’t biting directly, but they are sending an awful lot of equipment, weapons, and ammunition to Ukraine.

−1

Coolegespam t1_ja8ws3q wrote

Reply to comment by anti-DHMO-activist in As Tokyo Electric Power Co. moves closer to discharging tons of stored water from its stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, local opposition has intensified and cries of betrayal are being heard by DoremusJessup

>Tritium occurs naturally, just saying.

At 10^-18 per H. That's effectively non-existent, and this is more concentrated.

>There's always a tiny amount in your drinking water. It's such a weak beta-emitter, that there's almost no danger from it.

There's no danger from it because there's effectively none there naturally. Being a 'weak' beta emitter is meaningless once it's already in your body.

>Because of the short half life, there's also no reason to expect long-term accumulation.

Holy shit, that's not how it works. Super heavy water in your body can under go chemical changes. Swapping bonds with other atoms, and taking the place of hydrogen in various metabolic reactions that take place. Some of them will form bonds and become sugars, proteins and amino acids.

When that tritium decays, you be left with an ionizing electron inside your body, an He3+ and a damaged base pair, amino acid, protein, etc.

It is NOT safe, and it's terrifying that you think it is.

−1

MassiveStallion t1_ja8wiac wrote

Reply to comment by The69BodyProblem in Anti-war partisans in Belarus claim to have damaged Russian plane | Belarus by Caratteraccio

Drones have limited payloads and are usually one use.

The obvious counter is super all around heavy armor. Not to mention human wave tactics.

"Next guy picks up the rifle" is surprisingly valid with drone attacks. Frankly it's easier to swarm with lightly armed and poorly trained infantry than to build a done.

3

TheDJZ t1_ja8wh8w wrote

Reply to comment by guspaz in Anti-war partisans in Belarus claim to have damaged Russian plane | Belarus by Caratteraccio

Ah that’s my mistake I thought they meant a drone swarm as in the switchblades kamikaze drones. I’m not too familiar with naval drones but from my understanding it’s a bit like a waterborne VBIED almost right?

Maybe I’m ignorant of their capabilities but I feel like CIWS should be able to engage it in addition to other weapons systems such as missiles and energy weapons. Would love to read more about these kind of drones either way.

3

drogoran t1_ja8v1hl wrote

Reply to comment by Wildercard in China approves biggest expansion in new coal power plants since 2015, report finds | China by cosmic_fetus

when a nation does it intentionally and not as a side effect of industrialization

we want to reduce pollution the fastest?

innovate, build and help these nations skip the polluting fuels

no one is gonna volunteer to keep living in mudhuts because upgrading to a modern infrastructure is polluting the air

8