World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Lets say Russia magically is able to land on US soil completely intact after passing through the US Navy infested waters of the Atlantic or the Pacific. Lets just assume they can so we can continue this crazy thought experiment.
To take territory you need boots on the ground, troops, tanks, APCs, etc. These are transported by troop transport aircraft and large ships that are naval landing craft. For Russia that would be the Ropucha-class. Each of these ships can carry about 10 tanks and about 310 troops (per ship).
So how many of these ship does Russia have? Hundreds, right? Nope: 11. Thats it. So assuming a full load of every ship thats about 110 tanks and about 3500ish troops. And all of that assumes all 11 ships will make it alive to US soil.
This is just how crazy this Russian claim of taking US States is.
It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to make actual Kremlin policy seem sane and moderate to the domestic audience.
They wouldn't need magic. They'd just need a hamburder puppet President in office.
*hamberder. You give him too much credit.
Not to mention every other citizen is armed
That doesn’t matter at all
Not even a little bit? Okay...
If civilian gun ownership was enough to stop a military then the US would never have gotten a standing military. Like what the 2nd amendment was intended for
Well, it did in the American Revolutionary War. But there hasn't been much by way of countries seriously looking into invading the US over the centuries.
We do have one instance, though.
In World War I, Germany tried to get Mexico to invade the US, and offered to provide support in annexing part of the US.
Mexico's leadership had the military examine the proposal. They advised against it. One of the cited rationales for not invading was the widespread gun ownership in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
But, again, I think that all this misses the point. There isn't going to be land warfare, much less militia warfare, against Russian land forces. Russia doesn't have the means to transport forces from Russia to the US. The US has a considerably larger air force and navy, and an invasion fleet is going to run into that in the Pacific before it gets to California.
You forget that Alaska is like 2 miles from Russia
Well, there's a remote island that belongs to Alaska that's about two miles away from a remote island that belongs to Russia. You can swim across that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diomede_Islands
I mean, I'm sure that Russia can get forces across that. They've got a military base on their little island, and we've got a small Native American village on our little island.
But then you've planted some number of forces on a strategically-irrelevant island in the Pacific. You've blown your largest advantage, surprise, and you've dumped however many people there, with a supply line that dictates that you need to support them by having ships sail up, while you just kicked off a war with a country with a much larger navy and air force.
And it's not much of a springboard to a beachhead that you can use for land-based logistics, because there's no infrastructure up there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing
I hate the US's budget for defense. It's insane. 1% of that could do so much better as social programs.
But every time someone starts talking about a foreign country invading the us it's just.... Unthinkable..
Not like "oh it will never happen, nobody would ever attack US soil again" because that's just naive. We've stuck our noses in other people's business to too long starting before any of us were alive.
But when people try to argue their point, they simply do not understand the scale of the problem.
You sum it up quite well.
Assuming you HAVE the element of surprise, which is unlikely given intelligence networks inside foreign borders, modern radar technology, observation posts scattered around antagonistic nations, sattelite surveillance... The list just goes on.
You are never getting an invasion force and supporting logistics to the united states (or any of the Americas) without the entire world knowing. You would have to build the largest hidden fleet of silent submarines the world has ever seen to get close.
Even if you magically defeated THE LARGEST navy and second largest air force, as well as the ACTUAL largest air force, you still have to deal with army, marines, coast guard, national guard, and honestly I think my local police department has equivalent equipment to what Russia runs in Ukraine. So add police to that.
And the number one problem when they somehow defeat all those will be the "more than one gun for every citizen" part. I myself have several mostly inherited ones, I know how to use them, and I'm confident in my ability to teach others how to use them effectively. And would happily do so in a foreign invasion. I won't work for the military again but I'd be happy to defend my friends and family.
The hurdles for an invasion are high in most developed countries.
The us saw those hurdles, and decided "we need them at least 5x larger and made of titanium." and went to work on the largest military in the world.
I may hate the budget, but ho boy does it make for some fun thought exercises when someone brings up foreign invasions.
Honestly, I kinda of disagree with people making the military budget their main argument. Iirc we also spend a fuck ton of money on healthcare and it's not like we have free healthcare or anything, it goes to paying off people. We should focus more on getting rid of that corrupt system and using that money on education, infrastructure development, and research.
He's talking about California. He understands taking Alaska and Hawaii, but cali?
Hmm, Pearl Harbor and the place where the 10th mountain train to fight in snow.
Ok Ivan, good luck. You’re gonna need it.
Bruh there's so many gun nuts in Alaska that jerk off to Red Dawn it'll be Winter War 2: Now With Air Support
I think you forget that we have 24 hour satellite surveillance all over the globe.
If you think Russia could send a large fraction of its blue water navy to one single point on the globe while also mustering all those troops and equipment on the ground in Russia beforehand without the US knowing about it weeks before hand, you don't have a good grasp on the level of technology employed in today's military.
Also its alaska. Russia would be operating out of what, vladivastok maybe to take similarly shitty US ports in alaska.
If russia wants shitty coastal wilderness at uninhabitable climates they already have them.
Yeah, but we have Sarah Palin there to take care of it for us.
Where is Russia 2 miles from Alaska? It's about 50ish miles. Last I checked, it's also not a great place to start a ground invasion. The US could blow the shit out of that area of Alaska and nothing much would be missed.
Is it that far? You can see Russia from alaska
The international border goes between the islands of little and big Diomede. Both of these islands are remote from land in either direction, and they are situated about midway in the narrowest part of the Bering Strait.
Since you asked where, here it is on a map
Yep, that's pretty close, but nope, that's not really tactically meaningful.
Well…once they consolidate their claim of Canada it will be easier
It's something about 4 kilometers from Russia to US. Or 86 km between mainlands.
Hmm.
I mean, it's not gonna happen for other reasons (including the "Russia doesn't have the naval and air forces to get control of the ocean required to have the ships cross it" point in the Vice article that I link to in another comment), but if we set that aside and assume a hypothetical world where Russia could get control of the sea and the air over the Pacific, I think that there'd be hypothetical ways to work around a limited number of landing ships.
The amphibious forces have to be able to seize and defend a port so that non-amphibious-assault ships get in.
So, the capacity is bounded by the time required to do a round trip to your staging point and the number of ships you have.
And there isn't really any land nearby to use as a staging point.
But...you don't actually have to reload at land. I mean, you could do ship-to-ship transfer, then have the landing ships do another run in from an offshore concentration of warships. If you really worked at it, you could probably get pretty good throughput.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment
They also have LCACs. Those can land forces on unimproved beaches as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aist-class_LCAC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebed-class_LCAC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsaplya-class_LCAC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubr-class_LCAC
I assume that they can launch them from Ivan Gren-class LSDs. Maybe it's possible to load them via crane or something to increase throughput, dunno what doctrine is.
They also have some ships that can carry helicopters, and can use that for insertion from offshore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Naval_Aviation
And they have some landing craft of other sorts than what you mentioned; see the "landing craft" section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Landing_craft
No. First you make the inhabitants ask russia for brotherly help. Invitation > invasion.
NAVY stands for Never Again Volunteer Yourself.
And after basic training and almost dying because of medical stuff unrelated to military service forced me out of the military, I took that to heart. Especially given who won the election in the years following my enlistment. No way was I going back. I'm still adamant to never reenlist, and I will always tell others NOT to enlist in the current US military unless major systemic changes are made so you don't have to think to yourself "are we the baddies?" when in your bunk. I will happily tell anyone a recruiter is talking to about my experience, my family's general military experience, and that with current volatility even if you agree with what they're doing today, your enlistment will last longer than one administration and tomorrow you could be bombing Gaza and Ukraine right alongside other fascists.
All that said, If a foreign country invaded the us, you bet your ass I would be joining up with my ex-military friends for some good old fashioned minutemen militia. I've seen their equipment and what Russia is using in Ukraine. Russians would fail against well armed civilians (the ones who also have training, not just money).
The biggest flaw with Red Dawn isn't that guerilla style combat tactics from teenagers and random adults could repel an enemy invasion coughvietnamcough, it's that the enemy forces would never have made it to the mainland in such force in the first place.