Was just watching Jack Ryan Season 3 and seeing the display of force and their movements causes some interesting dissonance given what we know now.

  • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Could be worse OP, could be a movie about the North Koreans successfully invading America, you know, North Korea, a country that barely has a navy and who’s Air Force is mostly old Migs from several decades ago, a country who starts threatening their neighbors whenever their food supply runs low because their chubby leader eats too much while the rest of the country is at famine levels of hunger.

    At least the original version of the movie was against the Russians while they were a super power.

    • Sylver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The remake was originally going to feature a Chinese invasion, but they wanted it to still release and sell in China, so they made North Korea the bad guy instead.

      It never did release in China.

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Same sort of reasoning for NK being the baddie in the game Homefront. North Korea just isn’t a credible threat when it comes to invasion. Helped if you imagined it was the Chinese

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      a country that barely has a navy

      North Korea has the largest submarine fleet of any nation. Of course most of those are old diesel subs, but the point still stands.

      • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        We’ve seen what the Russian military has been like in Ukraine, if you think most of those subs aren’t rusting piles of garbage then you’re probably drinking that tankie Kool aid. They’ve probably had to cannibalize the majority of them just to keep what few they have running, because it’s not like they just idly make parts for 1950’s era subs, especially not for a country that barely has enough money to feed themselves and spends most of that on their nuclear program.

        Also they’re loud ass diesel subs, every modern navy will know exactly where they are and how many they have easily, and it’s not like 1950’s weaponry is going to make up the difference.

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          This being said, Russia also isn’t as weak as we like to think. Given how the war has ground to a standstill, it’s not unlikely it’ll become yet another frozen conflict. And that’s after arming the Ukrainians with large amounts of advanced weaponry.

          We’ve become so used to the idea we’d have air supremacy in any potential war, we thought the Ukrainians would be able to push their way through the front, forgetting that the Ukrainians aren’t able to take out artillery or mines beforehand.

          The Russians have also adapted quite quickly. At the beginning of the war, the Ukrainians were having huge successes with drones. Now the Russians are downing 10,000 drones a month:

          https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-losing-10000-drones-month-russia-electronic-warfare-rusi-report-2023-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T

          To be clear, Russia is an existential threat to Europe. If they turn this conflict into a stalemate, they will have won territory that doesn’t belong to them and it’s almost certain they’ll rebuild, rearm and do it again. Just like happened with Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine in 2014.

          But underestimating the Russians is not in NATO members’ interests. No one ever won a war underestimating the enemy, better to give Ukraine more than they need, than just barely enough to make incremental advances under the assumption Russia won’t do a second wave of conscription and/or doesn’t have (or isn’t building up) reserves for a (counter) counter-offensive.

          And given how Ukraine has struggled, even with advanced weaponry, it’s clearly high time for Europe to re-arm so that Russia doesn’t mistakenly think we’re weak.

          • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Russia is in a standstill, after losing major ground constantly for a year, against a country 1/3 Ruzzia’s population, Ukraine also had next to no standing army prior to the invasion, meaning they had next to no professional soldiers prior to their being invaded by Ruzzia, and Ruzzia is invading them in conjunction with two of their allied powers, Belarus and Chechnya, all while the west slow rolls the supply and training of Ukraine, think about that for a sec.

            Also this enemy that they’re in a standstill with has been so effective that one of Ruzzia’s key armies, Wagner, chose to rebel over continuing to get fed to the meat grinder. Ruzzia is literally down to recruiting 16 and 60 yr olds right now.

            All of the propaganda by both Ruzzia and the West all made it seem like Ruzzia should have easily rolled over Ukraine prior to the realities of this war. However this war exposed Ruzzia as a broken down, corrupt paper tiger with a delusional dictator at the helm.

            • Hyperreality@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              they had next to no professional soldiers prior to their being invaded by Ruzzia

              Incorrect.

              After Russia invaded in 2014, Ukraine heavily invested in its military. NATO has also been helping them train for years now. Wall Street Journal

              This is also why Russia faced far stiffer resistance in 2022 than they did in 2014.

              two of their allied powers, Belarus and Chechnya

              Belarus’s involvement is very limited. They’re mainly allowing the Russians to fire missiles from their territory. Wikipedia

              Chechnya isn’t a country or ‘power’. It’s the Russian equivalent of Alabama.

              Wagner, chose to rebel over continuing to get fed to the meat grinder

              It would be a mistake to think people like Prigozhin want to end the war. Russian ultra-nationalists want to intensify and escalate the war, not stop it.

              Ruzzia is literally down to recruiting 16 and 60 yr olds right now.

              18-30. The Guardian

          • Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The really advanced US tanks and jets haven’t entered the fight yet, and we’ve seen big gains in the last week with Russia losing 3 towns in the south, all the gains they made in the north over the last month taken back, and more groups crossing the Dnipro river. It’s been a slow acceleration wearing through Russian reserves, but there’s still a way to go before winter slows things down.

            The real advanced weapons enter the fight next spring.

          • _wintermute@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            Hey there!

            Looks like you had a moderate, down to earth take on the Russia-Ukraine war.

            That’s a down vote.

            But seriously thanks for not attending to the feedback loop of propaganda and childish dick stroking.

      • SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Few old diesel shitters that will be suppressed immediately. Quality over quantity, especially after a military superpower like the US

      • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        According to the documentary Down Periscope, a nuclear sub is no match for a diesel sub with a misfit crew.

        The US Navy wouldn’t last a week

      • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Diesel subs have some advantages over others, some distinct disadvantages too, but a few advantages

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 years ago

          What advantages? If memory serves correctly, they’d need a captain with a penis tattoo that says “welcome aboard” and a radar guy who can imitate whales. I’m not sure that’s so common.

          • Skua@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            At least as recently as 2005, diesel subs were the quieter option. There was that somewhat notorious story of the Swedish one that beat an American carrier group in a wargame because the Americans just couldn’t find it. I’m sure there have been developments in the equipment and methods since then - it was 18 years ago, after all - but it’s still notable enough that the Americans leased the sub from Sweden for a couple of years to practice against it.

            That said, the Swedish sub in question was packed with cutting-edge (at the time) stealth features. I suspect North Korea’s fleet is not.

            • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Lol people hold on to that wargame so tightly as some Pinnacle of triumph over western armed forces, but the reality of the situation was that the sub commander in question went rogue and did something they weren’t supposed to do in order to win. Also at the end of the day it’s a fucking wargame, it’s practice, and nobody really cares how well you do in practice because it’s all about how you perform in the big game.

              Also as you noted the Americans did what we always do when situations like this happen, we game planned for never letting it happen again, this was an embarrassment for the US Navy, and you can bet it’s something they’re constantly working on never letting happen again, these are serious professionals who’s lives revolve around continuously planning ways to win against any situation while losing as few of their people as possible.

            • ramble81@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              as recently as 2005

              You do realize that’s almost 20 years ago. That’s like saying “well you realize in 1985…” Back in 2005.

              (The 2000s have been a blur for me time wise too)

        • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Name one advantage that diesel subs have over modern nuclear subs? Lol

          Diesel subs are loud AF from my understanding, and loud subs are dead subs according to my understanding of modern day submersible warfare.

          • Cranky_Otter@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            2 years ago

            They are loud when they recharge, they are slow compared to nuclear subs and they carry much less armaments.

            On the other hand, when they are on battery power modern diesels can be much quieter than nuclear subs, they are much cheaper and smaller so ideal for operations in coastal waters. Which is why many (also western countries) rely on them for coastal defense.

            Economics wise: You can trade 3 diesel subs against a nuclear subs or a large warship and still come out ahead cost/effort wise.

            • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              How long do you think 1950’s era batteries last? Like in what world do you think “a 1950’s diesel on battery power surely outclasses a modem nuclear sub”? GTFO with that bullshit, lol.

              A sub on battery power is essentially in free fall depending on their ballast situation, they’re not going anywhere because they would have to turn their loud ass engines on to go somewhere, which would then alert the entire modern navy they would be up against.

              Which is why many (also western countries) rely on them for coastal defense.

              No the countries that still use those just don’t have enough money to maintain a nuclear sub fleet for what’s essentially their coast guard, it’s cost efficiency not “better”.

              All of your points are just deep stretches in vain attempts to be the “well ackschully!” Guy, or to be the contrarian throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

              • Hyperreality@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                the countries that still use those just don’t have enough money to maintain a nuclear sub fleet

                IRC the French have at least one diesel sub, the SMX-Ocean Range 30,000km.

                They also have modern battery tech, the money and the tech to maintain/build nuclear subs. They have existing nuclear subs. The SMX-Ocean is actually quite modern. 2017 I think. Certainly more modern than most existing nuclear subs.

                it’s cost efficiency not “better”.

                Here’s an article which explains why modern diesel subs can be quieter than nuclear subs:

                https://navalpost.com/nuclear-submarines-diesel-electric-submarines-noise-level/

                they are slow compared to nuclear subs

                I googled. 20 knots for the SMX-Ocean. 25 for France’s nuclear subs. Not a huge difference.

                • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  IRC the French have at least one diesel sub, the SMX-Ocean Range 30,000km.

                  Wait so you honestly think they’re going 30,000 km on battery power?

                  Do you not get that submarine combustion engines are just like car combustion engines? You generate power through the engines and that power is stored on battery to power the electrical systems and serve as a backup, battery power is not going to power the whole entire sub and magically move the sub quietly through the water, that’s not how these things work, that’s how nuclear subs work.

                  My point is, you’re not going to be able to move your sub at all on battery power, at some point you will have to turn on those loud ass engines in order to move your sub, which will absolutely alert every modern sub to your location.

    • LennethAegis@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s also the video game series, Homefront, where a unified Korea under northern rule invaded the US and occupies it.

      • Sai Somsphet@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I get your point, I really do, but Homefront was also about the economic collapse of the American system caused by its own corruption.

        I always got the idea that Korea wasn’t incredibly overpowered united, but America was already broken and a step away from being conquered already and the first army to invade happened to be Korea. The rest of the world just wanted to see what would happen.

        Kind of like having Russia invade Ukraine only to have it’s nose beaten in and globally embarrassed. Doesn’t mean Ukraine is going to invade and conquer, just that a global super power can be defeated by a smaller united nation after decades of corruption.

        At least that’s the idea that got me through the game. It was honestly just a COD reskin of a game and wasn’t actually that good in retrospect

          • Sai Somsphet@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            You didn’t miss anything that most other triple A games covered. If they focused more on story instead of shoehorning a terrible multiplayer pvp it could have been decent

    • Every time this movie comes up, I feel obligated to point out that despite being under occupation by China North Korea - Subway is somehow still open with uniformed staff and a well stocked sandwich bar, all while having dine-in customers for convenient ad placement..

      Ad placement that, get this: goes as far to even have the characters use the official ‘Sandwich Artist’ job title while robbing them ಠ_ಠ

  • freamon@endlesstalk.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s also surreal (for a different reason), to hear lines like

    Why attack Russia? Aren’t they our friends now?

    from Terminator 2.

  • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Modern Warfare 2/3 where Russia not only manages to successfully invade the US, but brings it to it’s knees.

    Even if you set aside the fact that the US has the world’s most powerful military and a heavily armed civilian population, geographically it would be virtually impossible to invade from another continent.

    But fiction is fiction. And the Modern warfare trilogy was outstanding.

  • Dadifer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s important to have a powerful enemy, otherwise why would the US pay for an $800 billion per year military?

  • oyenyaaow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Rewatching Stargate and international cooperation feels so strange and bereft somehow. A kinder path.

    • ramble81@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      I often times wonder if an extraterrestrial threat would be a unifying factor or if people would still be selfish unless it affected them. The pandemic was the closest we’ve seen to a world level threat recently and it just increased selfishness IMO (at least in the US)

      • shastaxc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I thought Marvel’s Secret Invasion had an interesting quote on this that I’ll paraphrase: nothing makes humans stronger than uniting against a common enemy, but as soon as that enemy is gone, they always devolve into tribal bickering again. It’ll be a miracle if we ever reach Star Trek levels of global unification and peace.

        • sheogorath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Don’t forget that Star Trek universe went through an apocalyptic phase before reaching their post scarcity society. I’m quite optimistic that we’ll reach Star Trek levels of peace, but reaching that state without having 90% of the population annihilated in some kind of a World War or some other catastrophe? That’s what I’m kinda pessimistic about.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        IMO I don’t think humanity would unite. Some people would force their families to surrender to the aliens because they fear for their own lives, others would try to bargain with them for technology. Others would help the aliens simply because they hate humanity. We really can’t count on anything to unite us, and I don’t even think uniting the species should be our common goal. People are too individualistic and diverse for that, and unity would take away what it means to be human.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        If aliens can reach us, they aren’t a threat. They either kill us without any issue or they don’t want to. There is no fighting back against it.

        I do think it’d be interesting to see what happens if we do discovery alien life, particularly of the intelligent variety. So many religions are based on the assumption humans are the only intelligent life, and that earth is that place that can support it. Do they mostly all collapse, or do they evolve? Do people finally recognize the stupidity? It’d be fun to see.

        • AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s not necessarily true. If aliens do visit us, they might not be able to wipe us out at all. There’s really no way to say that other races would be capable of wiping us out, because they might not understand the concept of war in the first place.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Well how else do you justify maintaining defense spending at 5x the next biggest military? You need a boogeyman to keep the nation spending like WW2 never ended.

    Now I’m hearing there isn’t enough money for Medicare or social security…

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes. Yes it was. The USSR has very little in common with kleptocracy Russia. My wife was raised under their educational system and she was studying organic chemistry in the eight grade. Today she is one of the top people in her field (easily top ten) and she says that most of her career she’s mostly leaned on her early education. Especially math and science.

    • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It is wild to see this. It’s amazing how quickly things change.

      Yeah, Russia was incredibly powerful in its heyday, both in global influence and military power. Think about how people are worried about climate change now, then double it. That was the threat of nuclear war that kept people awake at night for decades.

      After the time of the collapse we found out how empty a lot of their power was. How much of their achievements were less an unstoppable train and more of a rocket that couldn’t be refueled. They had power but they never figured out how to make it sustainable.

      • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        How much of their achievements were less an unstoppable train and more of a rocket that couldn’t be refueled.

        Love the analogy. I’m aware they were and still are a threat from a nuclear perspective. I was just more curious about their ability to successfully mount a tactical battle strategy, logistics to supply said strategy, etc.

        • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          To a degree that was shown in the hot parts of the Cold War like the Vietnam War or the Congo Crisis where they provided logistical support. Like the US, or more accurately as a counter to them, they fiddled with countries for years to get outcomes that benefited the USSR ideology.

          You could argue that it’s easier to shake up someone else than lead a full invasion force, but the US has learned that lesson too and followed that same play book. Invasion is harder than giving someone the tools to destroy themselves.

        • paper_clip@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          IIRC, the Soviets placed their primary artillery school and tank factories in Ukraine. As a percentage of the USSR’s military base, the Ukrainians were well above average.

    • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      The “they want to invade us” aspect feels more real than ever. The “they credibly threatened our independence” aspect feels less real than ever.

      Russia under Putin is somehow both a worse neighbor and a less credible threat on the world stage.

  • Sims@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don’t think you have any clue what the military power of the Russians are. I bet you’ve watched your telly and just trust whatever you are told by western ‘analysts’. Currently, Russian military is the strongest military in the world, and are winning against the third Nato backed army. Deal with it. Watch ‘The Duran’ on YT, or follow some real news channels on Telegram…

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Currently, Russian military is the strongest military in the world

      I can’t stress this enough but I’ll try, ROTFLMAO.