If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Crimea river   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 266
    More: News, Crimean, Russians, Ukraine, combat readiness, territorial integrity, Russian Navy, President Vladimir Putin, Secretary of State John Kerry  
•       •       •

15585 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:48 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



266 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 10:12:55 AM  

brimed03: AngryDragon: brimed03: way south: Launch Code: President Putin better watch his step. barry isn't afraid to draw a red line and if that line is crossed there'll be another red line right behind it.

Just you watch, he's going to keep crossing lines till that countries cut in half.
Then we get serious and start sending memos.

/angry, angry, memos!

That's right, gorram it! If Good Ole Dubya (GOD-R) was still in charge, our boys would already be in there calling surgical strike packaGGGEEZZZZZ-- sorry, I allus orgasm at that phrase-- just like those other countries he liberated before the people living there even asked for it. It'd all be over before it started. Mission Accomplished Baby!

You may want to consider upping your dosage.  Just a suggestion.

Why? Because I mirrored back the same politiderp that Obama haters regularly spew? Where's your indignation when that stuff gets posted?


Actually I was addressing both of you.
 
2014-02-28 10:36:12 AM  
A defense advisor the Telegraph talked to says these guys are wearing Spetsnaz equipment
 
2014-02-28 10:39:22 AM  
I knew the Obama administration was hot under the collar after the Russians denied the military-industrial complex's next profit source, but I had no idea just how far the Fedcoats would go for payback.

There was the Olympics, in which terrorists would run amok that didn't pan out (remember the big scene of moving Navy ships in to evacuate Americans? LOL), no one cared that the hotels asked you to place paper in a basket rather than flush it, and instead of Russian failures we got Americans acting like assholes again. Insinuating that everyone else was cheating (ice skating), that failures on the slopes was course design (downhill events), and the creme de la creme, blame-the-tech-you-didn't-win-we-just-lost (speed skating). Then the Russians took the medal count, and the Russian-bashing hit a fever pitch.

NBC's oh-so-clever use of 'former Soviet Union' as if that is analogous to Russia is misleading and just plain wrong. Fox News has picked up on this propaganda device, as well.

Then there's the Ukraine. If this seems to popped up out of nowhere, that's because it has. Suddenly, after last summer's denial of a Syrian War, the issue of joining the EU was suddenly pushed even after the Georgia fiasco. It's payback.
 
2014-02-28 10:42:13 AM  

airish: You know it is only the Army being reduced to pre-ww2 levels?  And pre-ww2 the Army included the Air Force?  And if you combine the Army and the Air Force proposed troop strengths they would still far exceed pre-ww2 Army troop strength?  And the Navy and USMC are both far larger than their pre-ww2 sizes?  Right?


... and a lot of jobs the Army used to do internally are now handled by civilian contractors so you should include them too. I too am annoyed by the way these cuts are portrayed as "the smallest army since pre-WWII". The fighting ability, and especially the deployability/logistics, of the 1939 army versus the 2014 army are not even comparable.

If we have to fight the Russians or the Chinese we'll need a hell of a lot bigger army either way. Having 450,000 troops instead of 520,000 isn't exactly going to be the deciding factor. On the other hand, being able to keep the Navy at full strength might actually BE worth it.
 
2014-02-28 10:45:55 AM  

Medic Zero: mikaloyd: jchuffyman: Boojum2k: Boojum2k: If the Ukraine can get its shiat together fast enough, they can petition for EU or even NATO membership. Russia would get noisy about it, but they'd be in a bind then

Ukraine, I mean, not "the" Ukraine.

That has always bugged me. The extra "the" that always used to be used with Ukraine is a way to denote that it is a region and not a country, like is done in Russian. When using prepositions of place in Russian, "v" translates to in, and "na" translates to on. So for every country in the world, you use v...except for Ukraine. Since the origins of the word Ukraine come from the slavic word for "edge", you are essentially saying that you are on the edge (of Russia). So the continued use of "the" with Ukraine in English just plays into the Russian mentality that it is part of Russia.

Sounds better as the Ukraine though. The Yukon does too.

+1

Also, almost no one is aware of the above nuance either.


Well, we say "the Universe" not "Universe", and we say "the Urals" not "Urals", so it would seem that prefixing "the" to the beginning of proper place names that start with a "you" sound is standard in English, but then we don't do it for "Uganda" or "Uruguay", so perhaps not.

Maybe we can just say that English is inconsistent on the matter, and leave it at that.
 
2014-02-28 10:47:03 AM  

ransack.: Someone said the other day they tried to use this headline. I hope it was this submitter and somebody else didn't just steal their joke.


That would be the real tragedy here.
 
2014-02-28 10:48:34 AM  

dittybopper: Maybe we can just say that English is inconsistent on the matter, and leave it at that.


IIRC, the English use the "the" in "The Sudan" as well.
 
2014-02-28 10:52:08 AM  

gmoney101: Anyone else notice none of the guns are loaded?


I'm sure that they have a few clips in their pockets, just in case.  The main goal here is to present a show of force, not ignite a full on kerfuffle.
 
2014-02-28 11:06:34 AM  

dukeblue219: airish: You know it is only the Army being reduced to pre-ww2 levels?  And pre-ww2 the Army included the Air Force?  And if you combine the Army and the Air Force proposed troop strengths they would still far exceed pre-ww2 Army troop strength?  And the Navy and USMC are both far larger than their pre-ww2 sizes?  Right?

... and a lot of jobs the Army used to do internally are now handled by civilian contractors so you should include them too. I too am annoyed by the way these cuts are portrayed as "the smallest army since pre-WWII". The fighting ability, and especially the deployability/logistics, of the 1939 army versus the 2014 army are not even comparable.

If we have to fight the Russians or the Chinese we'll need a hell of a lot bigger army either way. Having 450,000 troops instead of 520,000 isn't exactly going to be the deciding factor. On the other hand, being able to keep the Navy at full strength might actually BE worth it.


Excellent point, by the way.

The 'troop strength' argument rests on the number of active-duty, uniformed members. The USG realized long ago that the easiest way to expand the Armed Forces - conversely, make 'cuts' without actually reducing overall strength - is to shift more responsibility to other agencies not in the respective military budgets. How to 'cut' the Air Force? Move the Military Police functions to private contractors, which 'cuts' the Air Force but is balanced by an increase somewhere else. Preferably somewhere completely off the 'defense' budget like the Authorizations for the various and sundry wars.

Similarly, moving military functions to so-called 'black' budgets is helpful. No one knows the true size of these budgets. That's why the Drone War is operated by the CIA and not the military.

In no way, shape, or form, has the Offense Budget been cut since World War 2.
 
2014-02-28 11:07:28 AM  

gmoney101: Anyone else notice none of the guns are loaded?

[pixel.nymag.com image 850x575]
Why are the police not rounding them up.  No national insignia,  no reason they cannot be armed terrorists and the police are acting in public interest.

Smells fishy to me....


Yes, and in the end of their barrels there is a special plug which makes the guns capable to fire only blanks.

Their uniform pattern is common in the Russian Army, maybe it is also adopted in the Ukrainian forces, but not commonly used. You can buy this kind of uniform in many shops on the Internet.

The men do not wear any insignia, their truck had no license plates.

If you ask me, they are civilians on a trolling roll.
 
2014-02-28 11:12:59 AM  
Nice touch not having any patches or anything to identify who these "militas" are.
 
2014-02-28 11:21:08 AM  
This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)
 
2014-02-28 11:23:27 AM  

traylor: You can buy this kind of uniform in many shops on the Internet.


An internet shop, eh, comrade?
 
2014-02-28 11:25:39 AM  

dukeblue219: This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)


Oh ffs.
 
2014-02-28 11:34:07 AM  

dukeblue219: This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)


I don't automatically believe this. News outfits have enormous pressure to report rumors and be first.
 
2014-02-28 11:38:49 AM  

vygramul: dukeblue219: This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)

I don't automatically believe this. News outfits have enormous pressure to report rumors and be first.


I can believe it, but just because I don't see anything extraordinary in Russian planes landing at international airports and APC's moving around military camps. I bet they did that every day in the last ten years.
 
2014-02-28 11:39:24 AM  

vygramul: dukeblue219: This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)

I don't automatically believe this. News outfits have enormous pressure to report rumors and be first.


There is many confusing reports out there right now.
 
2014-02-28 11:44:33 AM  

traylor: vygramul: dukeblue219: This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)

I don't automatically believe this. News outfits have enormous pressure to report rumors and be first.

I can believe it, but just because I don't see anything extraordinary in Russian planes landing at international airports and APC's moving around military camps. I bet they did that every day in the last ten years.


16:39: A convoy of nine Russian armoured personnel carriers and a truck have been seen by AP journalists on a road between the Crimean port city of Sevastopol and the regional capital, Sinferopol, the news agency says.

That's a bit different.  Especially since:

16:19: Mr Lavrov [Russian Foreign Minister] says Russia has no intention of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, Reuters quotes him a saying.

I understand that The Russians have permission from Ukraine to have russian troops in and around the  navy base in Sevastopol, but armed convoys going to the state capital sounds likes they're pushing it...
 
2014-02-28 11:52:47 AM  

traylor: gmoney101: Anyone else notice none of the guns are loaded?

[pixel.nymag.com image 850x575]
Why are the police not rounding them up.  No national insignia,  no reason they cannot be armed terrorists and the police are acting in public interest.

Smells fishy to me....

Yes, and in the end of their barrels there is a special plug which makes the guns capable to fire only blanks.

Their uniform pattern is common in the Russian Army, maybe it is also adopted in the Ukrainian forces, but not commonly used. You can buy this kind of uniform in many shops on the Internet.

The men do not wear any insignia, their truck had no license plates.

If you ask me, they are civilians on a trolling roll.


No that is just the regular muzzle device/brake.
 
2014-02-28 11:57:35 AM  

Esn: danzak: Jeezus, you pulling that out of your ass? Did you follow events starting in November? And, there's a real obsession with neo nazis on fark, what's with that? Turn off Interfax and watch some real news, or go to YouTube and experience it without commentary.

Here's a source.
Here's a recent video.
Here's a Western Ukrainian priest calling for a campaign of assassination and terror. (yes, this was a while ago - but many of the armed people on the streets are directly inspired by this ideology)

And I was mistaken, the house (belonging to the Communist Party leader) was not blown up; it was destroyed by fire.


RT? Really? Ahaha ahahaha!... oh my that's adorable.

That's like Fox reporting something done by someone who's not a Republican: "non-Republican does something somewhere... it's an outrage!!!!111"

You're a dumb ass.
 
2014-02-28 12:07:46 PM  

nullptr: No that is just the regular muzzle device/brake.


img.fark.net


Here's a closer pic.

I don't know if it is real, but an expert on my local news site commented that the plug is well visible in the barrel.
 
2014-02-28 12:12:34 PM  
I'm still amazed at how the internet has changed coverage of a developing conflict. To read up-to-the-minute updates is, in a perverse way, fascinating.

17:05:
All aircraft movements at Sevastopol's Belbek airfield are stopped after unidentified individuals seized the runway, a military source tells the Interfax-Ukraine news agency (BBC Monitoring).


The British are also evacuating their citizens from Crimea...
 
2014-02-28 12:13:17 PM  
"Blank Firing Adapter" is the proper name I think.
 
2014-02-28 12:15:51 PM  

vygramul: dukeblue219: This is from the BBC's live updates feed (time in GMT, so 11:03 EST):

16:03:
Russian planes are landing in Crimea and a column of armoured personnel carriers is approaching Simferopol, Ukrainska Pravda website is reporting (BBC Monitoring)

I don't automatically believe this. News outfits have enormous pressure to report rumors and be first.



Russia admits that it has moved troops in Ukraine
 
2014-02-28 12:16:36 PM  

dukeblue219: I'm still amazed at how the internet has changed coverage of a developing conflict. To read up-to-the-minute updates is, in a perverse way, fascinating.


To elaborate, I grew up with cable news coverage like we saw in Desert Storm -- the reporter perched on a hotel roof showing live video of AAA fire and explosions in the distance. It was a step up from news feel footage of WWII and Vietnam, but still distanced from the events actually happening and described by a third party. It's a whole different ballgame to see the live twitter updates and pictures from Iran, Syria, Ukraine, etc, especially those from ordinary people on the ground.
 
2014-02-28 12:20:56 PM  

traylor: I don't know if it is real, but an expert on my local news site commented that the plug is well visible in the barrel.


Because magic barrel plugs that prevent rifles from firing anything but blanks just have to be real.

/I'm an expert in UFOs, and that is no streetlight
 
2014-02-28 12:21:46 PM  

traylor: nullptr: No that is just the regular muzzle device/brake.


[img.fark.net image 755x794]

Here's a closer pic.

I don't know if it is real, but an expert on my local news site commented that the plug is well visible in the barrel.


Hmm... doesn't look quite right. Here is the AK-74m blank adapter:

img.fark.net

The thing on the muzzle that you pointed out is a non-blued (in the white) Muzzle Brake like this:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Example on muzzle:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com


Example in the white:

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-28 12:25:09 PM  

Tatterdemalian: traylor: I don't know if it is real, but an expert on my local news site commented that the plug is well visible in the barrel.

Because magic barrel plugs that prevent rifles from firing anything but blanks just have to be real.

/I'm an expert in UFOs, and that is no streetlight


Most of Russia's army are virtually useless 1-year conscripts, and most of their good troops aren't normally anywhere near Ukraine. It wouldn't surprise me if they deployed exercising conscripts to provide presence.
 
2014-02-28 12:29:31 PM  
Found a good up-to-date live feed about all the news coming out:  http://www.reddit.com/live/3rgnbke2rai6hen7ciytwcxadi
 
2014-02-28 12:51:24 PM  

washington-babylon: Hmm... doesn't look quite right. Here is the AK-74m blank adapter:


Indeed, it looks like a standard in-the-white muzzle break was mistaken for a blank adapter. Thank you for the images.

And sorry for the confusion, I just repeated what I read elsewhere.
 
2014-02-28 01:05:14 PM  

traylor: washington-babylon: Hmm... doesn't look quite right. Here is the AK-74m blank adapter:

Indeed, it looks like a standard in-the-white muzzle break was mistaken for a blank adapter. Thank you for the images.

And sorry for the confusion, I just repeated what I read elsewhere.


No confusion, just figured I would post to avoid the ensuing debate. I was a bit surprised that anyone besides dittybopper was familiar with the term "In the white", but I guess since this is fark... Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event. A major destabilization of Asia is something we can't afford, so we will continue to throw strongly worded letters at Putin and sit on our thumbs.
 
2014-02-28 01:47:02 PM  

lumiere: From Twitter:
Moscow Interfax admits forces occupying Sebastopol airport are Russian military deployed "to prevent the arrival of some militants."

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/439312010845495296


Putin.  No. Not f*cking yours. Stop interfering. Holy shiat, I don't know why the internet is so obsessed with this guy, but he needs to get the f*ck out.
 
2014-02-28 02:07:54 PM  

dittybopper: Medic Zero: mikaloyd: jchuffyman: Boojum2k: Boojum2k: If the Ukraine can get its shiat together fast enough, they can petition for EU or even NATO membership. Russia would get noisy about it, but they'd be in a bind then

Ukraine, I mean, not "the" Ukraine.

That has always bugged me. The extra "the" that always used to be used with Ukraine is a way to denote that it is a region and not a country, like is done in Russian. When using prepositions of place in Russian, "v" translates to in, and "na" translates to on. So for every country in the world, you use v...except for Ukraine. Since the origins of the word Ukraine come from the slavic word for "edge", you are essentially saying that you are on the edge (of Russia). So the continued use of "the" with Ukraine in English just plays into the Russian mentality that it is part of Russia.

Sounds better as the Ukraine though. The Yukon does too.

+1

Also, almost no one is aware of the above nuance either.

Well, we say "the Universe" not "Universe", and we say "the Urals" not "Urals", so it would seem that prefixing "the" to the beginning of proper place names that start with a "you" sound is standard in English, but then we don't do it for "Uganda" or "Uruguay", so perhaps not.

Maybe we can just say that English is inconsistent on the matter, and leave it at that.


English is inconsistent on the matter somewhat, but mountain ranges in English have "the" as a standard rule, hence The Urals. Rivers, also. "The Ukraine" in English is simply a translated Russian practice. Do I care that much? No, I was just explaining why to the original guy who said the Ukraine and then corrected it to simple Ukraine.
 
2014-02-28 02:52:31 PM  
Supposedly 2000 Russian troops armed have invaded Crimea
 
2014-02-28 03:37:51 PM  
F*CK.

I hate it when my job gets interesting like this.

Where's the guy from the thread yesterday telling me that Ukraine was united and this would never happen?

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-02-28 03:54:10 PM  

washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.


No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?
 
2014-02-28 03:57:26 PM  

T-Servo: F*CK.

I hate it when my job gets interesting like this.

Where's the guy from the thread yesterday telling me that Ukraine was united and this would never happen?

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]


He was either talking out of his ass, or he's a Russia expert and thinks that makes him a Ukraine expert. In my experience, either could be true.

/Few people have the capacity to be condescending pricks and profoundly wrong like Russia experts talking about what non-Russians think.
 
2014-02-28 04:04:05 PM  
The Russian population within Crimea is expressing itself quite effectively and with a clearer and more unified voice within this Interregnum than the fractionalized parties forming in the Ukraine in general.  Add to that mix the strategical importance of the region, the presence of Russian troops and tacit approval ingrained within what was once an integral economic region of Russia it is hardly surprising to see flags on the streets.  It is positive to hear overtures from all the major regional interests to stay out of the internal politics, though I do fear there are some hurtles ahead I am cautiously optimistic that the Ukraine will find their way forward unified.   For the moment, this appears to be the pivot point this whole region's future will turn upon.
 
2014-02-28 04:11:34 PM  

vygramul: Few people have the capacity to be condescending pricks and profoundly wrong like Russia experts talking about what non-Russians think.


Yeah, pretty much.
 
2014-02-28 04:32:45 PM  

cynicalminion: ransack.: Rev.Killjoy: Russian missle boat now reportedly blocking entrance to balaclava bay

[www.bestmastersprograms.org image 500x340]

[img.fark.net image 500x318]

i just wanted to be the one with the plan for once...
[img.fark.net image 500x241]


Thanks for the pictures of the cupcakes.  Cool idea.  Just made a batch of them for my niece's birthday.  They look really good.
 
2014-02-28 04:52:15 PM  
Just wondering... Isn't there an international treaty that says that all troops must wear identifiable insignia at all times?
 
2014-02-28 05:00:25 PM  
Where's a Ukrainian John McClane when you need one?

Ип Ги ура, Россия-матушка
 
2014-02-28 05:23:34 PM  

vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?


Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.
 
2014-02-28 05:36:55 PM  

washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.


Ooh. 8000 troops. 600 armored units. Well, lord knows how the US could POSSIBLY deal with that just with in-theater assets. I mean, how on EARTH would the Japanese survive if there are only 50,000 US military personnel in Japan?

And the South Koreans don't need our help to stop the North.
 
2014-02-28 05:38:48 PM  

washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.


And it's a million-man swim because they need way way way more than they can transport. They would need a quarter million, but million-man is alliterative and a call back to the million-man march, which didn't have a million men either.
 
2014-02-28 06:28:44 PM  

traylor: Just wondering... Isn't there an international treaty that says that all troops must wear identifiable insignia at all times?


Yes, the Hague Conventions. But they've only been around for 100 years or so.

Remember in the first Red Dawn, the Russkies invaded using airborne troops on board commercial airliners. We KNOW they don't play by the rules.

/wolverines
 
2014-02-28 06:31:32 PM  

vygramul: washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.

Ooh. 8000 troops. 600 armored units. Well, lord knows how the US could POSSIBLY deal with that just with in-theater assets. I mean, how on EARTH would the Japanese survive if there are only 50,000 US military personnel in Japan?

And the South Koreans don't need our help to stop the North.


Don't forget the carrier units we have in place in the area, and the LRB's that be called in force.

/suggesting Russia, China, and NK would move in unison in this day and age is simply silly.
 
2014-02-28 06:33:03 PM  

T-Servo: traylor: Just wondering... Isn't there an international treaty that says that all troops must wear identifiable insignia at all times?

Yes, the Hague Conventions. But they've only been around for 100 years or so.

Remember in the first Red Dawn, the Russkies invaded using airborne troops on board commercial airliners. We KNOW they don't play by the rules.

/wolverines


If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.
 
2014-02-28 06:43:00 PM  

chuggernaught: vygramul: washington-babylon: vygramul: washington-babylon: Anyway, I don't believe the U.S. will get involved, as China will probably take that to mean that they can move on Japan relatively unhindered, and Best Korea would also take the chance to push south in that event.

No.

First of all, China would be engaging in the million-man swim. It's not clear they could do anything against Taiwan, much less Japan.

Second, North Korea is lucky the South doesn't roll North. Ain't no way they're rolling South.

Third, if the US can't handle two MTWs on the budget we have, why the fark bother?

Hmm, let's see here... China's PLAN has 3 amphibious transport docks  (each capable of carrying between 500-800 troops), 26 LST's (each can carry about 217 troops and twenty-two 25 ton tanks), Add to this the plethora of other vessels (including auxiliary troop transports) and I would say they could land a decent force (Around 8000 troops to start with including 600+ armored units)  long enough to secure an airfield to use for their invasion, so your assertion that they would be engaging in a million man swim is absurd to the nth degree. As for the Norks, they won't move on their own (nobody suggested that) but you can damn well be sure that they would move if China attacked Japan.

Ooh. 8000 troops. 600 armored units. Well, lord knows how the US could POSSIBLY deal with that just with in-theater assets. I mean, how on EARTH would the Japanese survive if there are only 50,000 US military personnel in Japan?

And the South Koreans don't need our help to stop the North.

Don't forget the carrier units we have in place in the area, and the LRB's that be called in force.

/suggesting Russia, China, and NK would move in unison in this day and age is simply silly.


I wasn't playing all my aces.

/Subsurface guys tend to make life on an LST nasty, brutish, and oh so short.
 
2014-02-28 06:46:04 PM  

dukeblue219: The British are also evacuating their citizens from Crimea...


Too bad Top Gear's segment there was done last fall, otherwise they'd have a great challenge on their hands: which mid-engine $500,000 sports car is best for fleeing the Russian hordes?
 
Displayed 50 of 266 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report