←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | 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 #
ocatzzz ◴[] No.42177106[source]
You are evidently unaware of UNCLOS and the adoption of many of its provisions into customary international law
replies(3): >>42177154 #>>42177192 #>>42182828 #
stackskipton ◴[] No.42177192[source]
I'm completely aware, used to be involved in this stuff. In international waters, these are UNCLOS requirements to board a ship not of your Navy Flag.

(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

Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships?

replies(2): >>42177507 #>>42179029 #
Wytwwww ◴[] No.42179029[source]
> Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships?

High seas (which is what that list applies to) is not the EEZ. I don't think anybody could legally argue thar a country wouldn't have the right to board (or fire at, if it didn't comply) a foreign ship from it's coast 24 nautical miles if it suspected it was doing something illegal. Whether that right extends to the entire EEZ isn't exactly clear.

However there are no "high seas" areas in the Baltic so all of the listed items are irrelevant.

replies(2): >>42179782 #>>42186651 #
Aloisius ◴[] No.42179782[source]
Probably don't want to fire at the nuclear powered cargo ship that is suspected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput

replies(1): >>42184365 #
1. Wytwwww ◴[] No.42184365[source]
Unless the reactor is directly hit there shouldn't be any significant problems? It's not a warship so there wouldn't be any need for heavy munitions to force it to surrender.

Of course the Baltic is very shallow so if the reactor started leaking it might be a bit more problematic than if a nuclear ship/sub was sunk in the middle of the ocean.