Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sergarr]

Most big Russian companies have already acquired offices in Hong Kong, and nobody is talking about banning China from SWIFT.

What is your field of work again?

Nuclear reactors

[Guardian G.I.]

Any talks about doing that therefore can be only made against the SWIFT company's will.

Companies don't like to be part of sanctions, that cost them money, and in this case goes against what make them valuable. They have to obey, though, and will do so more willingly if Putin keep sanding bombers in our airspace.

Seeing as USSR despite doing that and more for 30+ years wasn't excluded from UN, I highly doubt that.

It's a common practice, actually - American military aircraft have been violating the airspace of other countries to test their air defences for decades during the Cold War and continue to do that even now.
However, thanks to the power of Western democratic media, one may think that only Russia probes the airspace of its potential adversaries.

[smjjames]

Any talks about doing that therefore can be only made against the SWIFT company's will.

Companies don't like to be part of sanctions, that cost them money, and in this case goes against what make them valuable. They have to obey, though, and will do so more willingly if Putin keep sanding bombers in our airspace.

Seeing as USSR despite doing that and more for 30+ years wasn't excluded from UN, I highly doubt that.

It's a common practice, actually - American military aircraft have been violating the airspace of other countries to test their air defences for decades during the Cold War and continue to do that even now.
However, thanks to the power of Western democratic media, one may think that only Russia probes the airspace of its potential adversaries.

Probably because it's a routine thing for the US and we don't go out of our way to be provocative about it.

Russia also just has a bright spotlight on it right now.

[Sheb]

Nah, Guardian G.I. is right: that kind of stuff is pretty common.

[Sergarr]

Any talks about doing that therefore can be only made against the SWIFT company's will.

Companies don't like to be part of sanctions, that cost them money, and in this case goes against what make them valuable. They have to obey, though, and will do so more willingly if Putin keep sanding bombers in our airspace.

Seeing as USSR despite doing that and more for 30+ years wasn't excluded from UN, I highly doubt that.

It's a common practice, actually - American military aircraft have been violating the airspace of other countries to test their air defences for decades during the Cold War and continue to do that even now.
However, thanks to the power of Western democratic media, one may think that only Russia probes the airspace of its potential adversaries.

Probably because it's a routine thing for the US and we don't go out of our way to be provocative about it.

Russia also just has a bright spotlight on it right now.

Protip: something being "routine" doesn't make it any less bad.
Also "violating the airspace of other countries" is now apparently "not provocative".

[Darvi]

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if these countries all did that just in case that event would ever happen.

[10ebbor10]

They'll claim they were shot down over international airspace, obviously.

[Erkki]

2 bads dont make a right be it wars, spying or airspace violations. Russia/USSR has been the one doing most of the middle one and all of or nearly of the last in the Northern Europe for decades.

[Helgoland]

They'll claim they were shot down over international airspace, obviously.

As happened with Turkey/Syria a couple years ago.

[10ebbor10]

2 bads dont make a right be it wars, spying or airspace violations. Russia/USSR has been the one doing most of the middle one and all of or nearly of the last in the Northern Europe for decades.

The US did so as well. Hell, near airspace violations was the raison d'etre of the Blackbird program.

[smjjames]

Yes well, I'm pretty sure we don't routinely violate airspace with our nuclear bombers.

[Sergarr]

Yes well, I'm pretty sure we don't routinely violate airspace with our nuclear bombers.

What do you mean by "nuclear bombers"? I'm pretty sure that nuclear bombs are usually delivered through much faster and saver means - inter-continental ballistic missiles, not bombers.

Is this "nuclear bomber" idea another USA thing that I'm not aware of?

[LordSlowpoke]

nuclear bomber -> bomber with large enough payload to be able to drop nuclear bombs on its target

big deal before icbms came around, but they're still keeping them around for second strike capability

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There was Project Pluto, but that never got off the ground (heh) due to being a nightmare weapon on the scale of cobalt bombs.

[Il Palazzo]

Yes well, I'm pretty sure we don't routinely violate airspace with our nuclear bombers.

What do you mean by "nuclear bombers"? I'm pretty sure that nuclear bombs are usually delivered through much faster and saver means - inter-continental ballistic missiles, not bombers.

Is this "nuclear bomber" idea another USA thing that I'm not aware of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Present_and_future_status