←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
leshokunin ◴[] No.42176328[source]
The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with.

We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.

replies(9): >>42176387 #>>42176516 #>>42176555 #>>42176659 #>>42176846 #>>42176978 #>>42177068 #>>42177307 #>>42178494 #
VyseofArcadia ◴[] No.42176387[source]
I have read reams of rhetoric regarding relations with Russia rehashed as "don't poke the bear".

No one ever seems to want to discuss what to do about the bear going around poking everyone else.

replies(3): >>42176497 #>>42177004 #>>42185043 #
stackskipton ◴[] No.42176497[source]
Those discussions are had all the time. One of downside of this bear is bear strapped with explosives that could kill us all if bear gets angry enough.

Also, once you are 12 miles offshore, technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions. If NATO Countries decided to violate that, it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade.

replies(4): >>42176613 #>>42176992 #>>42177106 #>>42177878 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42176992[source]
> technically you are in international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there is UN Sanctions

What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates?

> it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade

No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war. Practically, they'd just be arrested.

replies(1): >>42177175 #
2. stackskipton ◴[] No.42177175[source]
>What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates?

Because piracy is one of exceptions to "No stopping not your flag ships in international waters."

Here is list of exception: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109; (d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...

>No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war. Practically, they'd just be arrested.

So under which clause would you like to stop Russian ships cutting cables in international waters?

UNCLOS does have this provision around submarine cables: Every State shall adopt the laws and regulations necessary to provide that the breaking or injury by a ship flying its flag or by a person subject to its jurisdiction of a submarine cable beneath the high seas done wilfully or through culpable negligence, in such a manner as to be liable to interrupt or obstruct telegraphic or telephonic communications, and similarly the breaking or injury of a submarine pipeline or high-voltage power cable, shall be a punishable offence. This provision shall apply also to conduct calculated or likely to result in such breaking or injury. However, it shall not apply to any break or injury caused by persons who acted merely with the legitimate object of saving their lives or their ships, after having taken all necessary precautions to avoid such break or injury

But Russia is obviously ignoring the rules so now what?

replies(1): >>42177216 #
3. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42177216[source]
> So under which clause would you like to stop Russian ships cutting cables in international waters?

Piracy. Duh. That or you'd break the treaty. (Like China has been [1].)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Arbitration