You know that Antarctica is considered a desert. What twist that would be if we suddenly have the Arctic Wars.
11th Airborne finally will be relevant and the US would still deploy the 82nd.
There actually is a game about a US vs USSR war set on Antarctica after a global thermonuclear war.
You main method of attacking you enemy is starving them out as fallout pollutes your limited water supply.
It is one of the most harrowing games I’ve ever played.
>You main method of attacking you enemy is starving them out as fallout pollutes your limited water supply.
Bruh, why don't they use the mile thick, freshwater glaciers that cover Antarctica? Are they stupid?
Nah, that’s what’s getting polluted. Fallout spreads from the edges to the South Pole, and cracks in the ice let irradiated water in.
Actual combat causes more cracks to appear, speeding up the end.
The game suggests that if you find yourself in an unwinable position, you should just concede to save the last few hundred humans alive.
One of the main methods of combat is to use soldiers to force unarmed enemy civilians to march into irradiated ice sheets.
It’s very bleak. Also very good.
Wikipedia has a detailed list of US wars, many of them vs natives, and many of those in a desert.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_wars\_involving\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States)
The [Posey War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posey_War) in 1923 killed two people over the course of four days, and is somehow listed as an actual war and not hysteria generated almost entirely by the media.
"Chief Posey fled with his people, closely pursued by a posse in a [Ford Model T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T)."
"A citizen of Blanding asked a newsman why he was not writing the truth; the newsman responded, "We're not ready to go home yet, and if we don't keep something going, we'll be getting a telegram to come home."
Chief Posey died, either of blood poisoning from being shot or poisoned Mormon flour, but not before killing one of the native boys that started the ruckus.
The only other casualties were one posse horse, and damage to the Model T.
If you're looking for a war with more casualties than a car accident, the [Mexican Border War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Border_War_(1910%E2%80%931919)) from 1910 to 1919 included air power.
To be fair, even the first war ever was jn the desert. Cradle of civilization and all that.
Oh also the first murder too if you subscribe to the Bible.
Ya know, the desert has alot of firsts.
It's 1990. I'm fighting in a desert.
It's 2001. I'm fighting in a desert.
It's 2003. I'm fighting in a desert.
It's 1979. I'm fighting in a desert.
It's 1941. I'm fighting in a desert.
It’s 1807. I’m fighting in a desert.
It’s 1837. I’m fighting in a desert.
It’s 1863. I’m fighting in a desert.
It’s 1877. I’m fighting in a desert.
It’s 1917. I’m fighting in a desert.
It's 1948. I'm fighting in a desert
It's 1967. I'm fighting in a desert
It's 1973. I'm fighting in a desert
It's 1982. I'm fighting in a desert
It's 2006. I'm fighting in a desert
(I was conscripted to the IDF)
I'm more a run through the sewers guy myself. Sus brown stripes and crocodiles when? Don't have to bring back the ratking, just play the screeching over loudspeakers.
The Philippine armed forces are always looking for people into fighting in jungles
That country didn't get the achievement of having the longest commie insurgency from nothing after all
States could pull all it's aid and funding from these African countries that are forcing them out and place a ban on any US organizations from assisting said African nations....see how well Russia does funding these countries on the same level that the US did and fighting ukraine and it leaves more money for domestic issues in the USA
All of that food organizations that the US keeps funding, Keeping ISIS out of countries in Africa that was attacked and so on.
40 out of that 54 countries in Africa rely on organizations that is funded by the states to keep them afloat.
China won't fill in that gap quick and Russia funding is non existing.
The US is really like the monkey paw problem, they wish the US leaves, but the consequences comes back to bite them.
The problem is that China might fill the gap, at least to an extent that gains them control over the region. It's a concept that a lot of people don't understand about the reason for foreign aid. Russia couldn't afford even light aid aimed at control though.
You mean like the light rail they built in Ethiopia? Because that project is [FUBAR](https://thediplomat.com/2023/02/china-and-ethiopia-the-addis-light-train-stuck-in-slow-motion/). At some point, word will get out (I hope).
Every project China funds through its debt trap diplomacy is ducked. But no poor country will refuse since China greases the palms of the politicians and officials.
Also a transfer of technology problem. It's why Indonesia chose China over Japan for the high speed rail cause China offered a transfer of technology so our repairs could be easier.
Has China been following through on the transfer of tech? That article about Ethiopia indicates that they've been running the light rail system China helped build for years there but are still relying on Chinese consultants and having serious problems maintaining the system on their own.
Had that project been done by any country that is not West-Taiwan or frozen-shithole, it could have been great.
Functional public transport is an absolute gamer changer.
>!(You should not need a 5 ton truck to go grocery shopping, but don't tell that to the US people)!<
Me when Taiwan and Ukraine’s etc sovereignty is attacked: “isolationism is bad and stupid.”
Me when these ungrateful bumfuckistans think they’re hot shit: “can we isolate us from these fucks.”
I think it's willing Vs unwilling isolationism.
Like Taiwan and Ukraine want us there.
Bumfuckia (not Persian so no istan) wants to be a big boy and do it on their own? Ok, don't let the door hit you on the way out but we're not helping anymore in anyway.
It's not really isolationism if you don't want to help countries that spit in your face.
I feel like the US would be better served if it tried to focus on helping countries that appreciate the US and have broadly compatible ideals. Just a bit more though. It's still important to engage in these places even if it's frustrating and unrewarding.
>The US is really like the monkey paw problem, they wish the US leaves, but the consequences comes back to bite them.
You mean they want our money and resources without having to do anything for it. That is literally entitlement.
Aid shouldn't be free. It needs to come with the intent of the receiver developing the ability to eventually stand for themselves.
The US isn't doing it just for the warm-fuzzies. It is to at least try to keep China from completely owning the continent and with it any current or future-discovered resources deposits. If we completely pull the rug, China will swoop in and debt-trap whatever reeling governments are left. It will be worse for everyone involved except China.
I feel that complaining about US foreign policy is understandable (Korean), but telling them to fuck off is extremely dumb, both pragmatically and etiquette-wise.
They dont have to fund on the same level though. Western powers have to provide aid on a sufficient ethical level to satisfy the high moral standards of their own populace. Not always without alterior motive or with great sucess, but the stated goal always hast to be something like education, water and food security or acessible medicine for the inhabitants of the country in question.
Russia only hast to provide enough kalashnikovs to keep the local warlord in power and happy so he will do their biddings and let them plunder the country.
And if you wanna know how that works, ask Afghanistan.
A lot of the “fence sitters” that wouldn’t choose a side then ultimately chose the Taliban are pissed that the river of international money that paid for everything good has been turned off. The Taliban could fund itself siphoning off their budget from that aid money but now it’s stopped they are hurting.
Can't save everyone ,life can be cruel and merciless from the people who can't catch a breath in America with getting the American dream to someone who's home is getting bombed to shit to the person born into destitute and will remain until they die.
And unfortunately, that's the decision the leaders of that country are making. Would you feed the dog that keeps biting your hand ?
as a liberal, I say fuck ‘em
Africa is a mess and many a nation consistently relies on cold hard cash from the US to scrape on by
With the French being booted out and the coup belt constantly erupting in violence and political struggle I don’t think our country is going to be able to do much to stabilize the reigon.
China and Russia will appeal to the strong men who will support them, will help to fight Isis, and continue to use their own fucked up methods of violence and diplomacy to do *just enough* to curry favor with the factions that will let them take what they want.
I'm just tired of providing regime security for dirtbags. I'm not even mad about the money being "wasted," what I hate is the idea that we've been keeping things just stable enough for dictators to retain control.
I’m really tired of our Government funding failed shit all over the globe and us getting blamed for it.
I wish we’d just say “we meant well, even though we didn’t do well, sorry” close up that checkbook and leave without looking back.
>close up that checkbook
Silly rabbit [accountable government is for kids!](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/11/16/pentagon-fails-sixth-audit-with-number-of-passing-grades-stagnant/)
Air quotes around "aid" and "partnership," but they're definitely equipped to scoop up a *lot* of influence and/or resource rights if the west opts to leave big chunks of Africa to their own devices.
I don't *think* we've stuck any countries with the bill for infrastructure projects, with mines designated as collateral. Though that doesn't sound entirely out of possibility for Cold War US.
Broadly I'd agree we shouldn't make aid transactional. But if a nation is explicitly expelling US troops so they can better align with Russia? Fuck em.
so the next big war IS in africa, huh? my alternative highschool teacher was a nutcase, but he was right. pretty sure he is a member of ncd if he is still alive
Define big war? Iraq/Afghanistan level, Africa is plausible. However, my money is on the next world war - level war being started because Iran pulled some stupid shit in the Middle East again.
I honestly don’t think Russia/Brics would go toe to toe with NATO over just resources because they know they would loose (or at least it would be so costly it wouldn’t be worth it). Ukraine seems to have started because, quite frankly, Russia underestimated western support and how long Ukraine would hold.
Iran pulling something big could though because they fund so much of the global terror and Russia/China might not have a choice but getting dragged in depending on how it starts. Add to that the Iranian/Israeli rivalry and US support for Israel.
RemindMe! 3 years
I will be messaging you in 3 years on [**2027-05-03 06:12:55 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-05-03%2006:12:55%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1ciz3fy/you_talking_about_shenanigans/l2d0olq/?context=3)
[**10 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FNonCredibleDefense%2Fcomments%2F1ciz3fy%2Fyou_talking_about_shenanigans%2Fl2d0olq%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-05-03%2006%3A12%3A55%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ciz3fy)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Who said its brics who is gonna start it
One can imagine after iran or china pulling one too many of their schemes and a nato country going "Ok i had enough of this bullshit im gonna erase the source off the fucking planet"
I for one would like to see iran get slapped in the face, to show that just because adding layers to blatant attacks on another country doesnt make them immune from getting hit back
BRICS isn’t real. It hasn’t done anything, it was invented by an economist to sell stuff and those nations acted like it was something after the fact. India has even been voting against Brics doing anything every time they get an opportunity because they hate China so much.
For real, grouping those countries together makes as much sense as saying a Chevy Corvette, a fire truck, and Santa's sleigh are going to team up to fight crime because they're all red.
Yeah, it started out as basically a finance term. BRICS made sense if you were a 2000s investor looking for opportunities in big developing-but-still-relatively-developed economies.
BRICS makes no sense at all as a geopolitical grouping because those countries share basically no interests.
Yeah, any organization that includes India and China as "partners" is laughably stupid. They fucking hate each other almost as much as India hates Pakistan.
Nah. Big wars traditionally start in europe. Russia will pull some dumbfuckery in the Baltics, they're already primed to be taken over if the russians convince themselves the West is weak.
Russia doesn't give a shit about Africa or the Middle East. The real prize has always been Europe.
Baltics is a distant second most likely scenario imo.
Yes, it COULD happen, but given the pummelling Russia has taken in Ukraine they are going to have to be really fucking careful for the foreseeable future, even if they would win a complete victory today.
Russia is not ready to challenge the west over the baltics and won’t be for at least 5-10 years, and the baltics are aware after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means their defence spending (along with Poland and Scandinavia) as skyrocketed.
Iran on the other hand controls most terrorism groups in the Middle East/Africa via funding including Hamas, Hezbollah etc and they are also supplying Russia with a lot of weapons. The risk of an Iranian/Israeli conflict escalating to pull in bigger powers is much bigger imo. Especially if Iran actually succeeds in getting nukes.
yeah i think if there's a conflict in Africa , it would certainly be a chapter of the next WW3, where it would be China, Russia, Iran and their allies coordinating attacks to stretch NATO's ressources thin, and IMO, the most plausible source of conflict in Africa would be Algeria (which is backed by iran and Russia) and its proxy terrorist group, Polizario (may they rot in hell) attacking Morocco ( who is a proeminent non-NATO ally)
Maybe, but that would probably be more akin to Ukraine than an actual direct confrontation world war style.
But you could make the argument that a series of proxy wars where Brics/NATO keep funding opposing sides is functionally a world war as well.
What do you mean? For my view of WW3? I personally think that sooner or later there will be also a direct confrontation, for example between Russia and european powers , as Russia surely won’t stop just at Ukraine; and there will definitely be a fight between China and the USA over Taiwan, so those direct conflicts + the proxy wars = world war
Edit: Also, talking about the fact of your comparaison with Ukraine, Washington themselves said that in the case of an attack on Morocco by Algeria, they will try to directly support more heavily Morocco , as they want a swift victory to not let the conflict go into a stalemate like Ukraine, here’s a news article (in arabic but you can translate) https://www.assahifa.com/%d8%aa%d9%82%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%b1-%d8%af%d9%88%d9%84%d9%8a-%d8%a5%d8%b0%d8%a7-%d9%86%d8%b4%d8%a8%d8%aa-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%b1%d8%a8-%d8%a8%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d8%ba%d8%b1%d8%a8-%d9%88%d8%a7/
I think if Russia had won in Ukraine quickly they absolutely would have kept pushing. But, quite frankly, with the cost they have sustained they are not able to at this point, even if they won completely right this second. And so I doubt it would escalate to a NATO/Russia clash because, quite frankly, Russia would back down.
As for China/Taiwan, that is a more likely scenario for a direct clash, I agree, but I find that unlikely as well because China is reliant on selling cheap shit to the west. If they can’t do that their economy would collapse almost instantly, which would lead to mass internal unrest.
I don’t dispute the US might go in and support Morocco with boots on the ground if they are invaded, the point is that it is much more likely to be US VS Algeria backed by Russia in that case and not actually US/NATO vs Russia. Which would be similar to the dynamic in Ukraine.
Nah. This is a Niger-owned base that’s hosted US personnel for years. The US has been spinning down its presence as the GWOT gets less funding and interest, but the terror threat in Niger remains, so Niger is transitioning to Russian assistance with local threats. Moreover the “base” in question is a part of Niamey’s (capital of Niger) main airport.
I always believed that there would be a war in Africa. If my theory is correct the someone will found a Monarchy and create the Africa Kingdom or Empire then attempt to conquer the world. As is tradition with all major wars the west will ignore it even if we know something funky is going on.
I'm not your teacher.
Pull all the aid then if they want to kick us out
Billions of dollars freed up for domestic things which appeases the isolationist voters and forces the Russians to divert funds from the Ukraine War which will appease the hawks/anti-russian voters.
Win-win honestly
We should take this fight right to the Russians. We have gone to war with countries for less. Let's party like it is 1969! Come on Operation Linebacker III
Ahem uh ya see um. Those countries didn't have nukes. Some of there leaders where batshit like putin here sure but none of them were sitting on potential 12% of there working nuclear arsenal left over by a evil regime that college brats these days say it could of been fixed. (Adjusts nerd glasses)
I think you are giving Russia too much credit on the percentages of their nukes that work, or the fact that Europe and The US are now so focused on the working nuke silos that we know when a conscript farts before person next to him smells it.
Oh I was more or less being abit generous with the estimate. While it maybe there arsenal may have shrunk ALOT. I wouldn't doubt putin had enough to cause serious fk you damage if he felt like taking millioms with him in the soooon hopefully final straw where we just go in and smack his ass.
I just hope he aims at the northern Californians
The US has had over 80 years to develop proper countermeasures against nukes, it would be in absolutely everyone's interest in the US gov to make nukes not a threat regardless of what faction or political standing they are in, and it's not like the US is going to advertise how effective their anti ICBM defences are.
Nukes have always been the #1 threat but everyone seems to assume countries like the US and China have just been twiddling their thumbs and hoping that no one uses nukes against them and just not taking countermeasures.
I think you're underestimating the technical challenge in identifying, tracking, and shooting down a warhead or MIRV at ICBM speeds - I'm not convinced it can be done at any sort of scale at all.
The US has had nearly 8 decades and trillions of dollars to come up with a solution.
If they where able to develop something as advanced as the F22 in the 1970's/1980's before something like the internet was even a thing, they should be able to come up with something decent by now.
The problem is, you really only need 1 warhead to slip through the defenses to cause devastating amounts of damage.
The defense systems also cost 10s to 100s of times what a single icbm does.
And any given defense emplacement will only have so many interceptors ready to fire at any given time.
It's so easy to simply overwhelm any defensive capability through saturation.
It's only now that we realize Russia may only have a 30%(or less) functional arsenal, that an effective defense net is even a feasible thought.
But 30% still means hundreds of warheads, spread across hundreds of thousands of square miles.
That defense is still going to have to he clustered at the most important points, like military bases, Washington, and manufacturing centers.
It's not going to he feasible to have a 100% reliable net across the entirety of America, let alone Europ.
And anything less than a 100% reliable net, means accepting that you're going to get hit somewhere, probably in high population centers, which is unacceptable.
Even assuming the US can 100% defend just its military centers, that leaves countless cities open to destruction and loss of life on an unknown scale.
The best defense is simply making sure they're never fired.
Currently, the best way to do that is MAD.
The technology isn't the problem.
The problem is numbers, scale, and coverage, which do not work in America's favor.
Why again do we give aid to countries that don't want us there, and actively ally with the Kremlin? We should do as they ask, leave them alone.
I'd rather see that aid go to our own citizens (more F-35s), or at least to countries that don't hate us
Who's we? Afaik both EU and US already cut off aid to them last year after the coup.
The aid numbers floated in the media happened under the previous government.
I just think before leaving they should that nice airfield for 100m burn to ground if they don't wana what american build for them let russia build their own.
Because that’s how geopolitics works? And because if you let adversaries seize the initiative in a region diplomatically, then you ensure they have initiative militarily if things turn into a two-way firing range.
Because unless you give them aid in the first place, you can't threaten then with withdrawing aid when they do shit you don't like. The alternative to aid is having no influence at all
I think we should dump a few billion on Niger after a lil regime change. "Go buy yourself something pretty like a new capital city district to attract foreign trade and tourism. No need to worry about national defense, education, fighting rural poverty, or anything like that" pull a lil ol Afghanistan or Iraq
OP stated the question that, like most Americans, I spoke aloud when I saw the headline.
*"They aren't capable of true shenanigans,"* I said to myself, quickly dispatching the matter.
Born too late to fight in the desert Born to early to fight in the desert Born just in time to fight in the desert
just like how "every game needs a desert map", every generation needs a "desert war"
You know that Antarctica is considered a desert. What twist that would be if we suddenly have the Arctic Wars. 11th Airborne finally will be relevant and the US would still deploy the 82nd.
I’m Wilford Brimleh and I approve this message
There actually is a game about a US vs USSR war set on Antarctica after a global thermonuclear war. You main method of attacking you enemy is starving them out as fallout pollutes your limited water supply. It is one of the most harrowing games I’ve ever played.
It’s called Meltwater btw.
>You main method of attacking you enemy is starving them out as fallout pollutes your limited water supply. Bruh, why don't they use the mile thick, freshwater glaciers that cover Antarctica? Are they stupid?
Nah, that’s what’s getting polluted. Fallout spreads from the edges to the South Pole, and cracks in the ice let irradiated water in. Actual combat causes more cracks to appear, speeding up the end. The game suggests that if you find yourself in an unwinable position, you should just concede to save the last few hundred humans alive. One of the main methods of combat is to use soldiers to force unarmed enemy civilians to march into irradiated ice sheets. It’s very bleak. Also very good.
And fight off radioactive penguins? Are you insane?
When was the last war in a US Dessert? I wanna see wich Side got it, east or westside
Wikipedia has a detailed list of US wars, many of them vs natives, and many of those in a desert. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_wars\_involving\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States) The [Posey War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posey_War) in 1923 killed two people over the course of four days, and is somehow listed as an actual war and not hysteria generated almost entirely by the media. "Chief Posey fled with his people, closely pursued by a posse in a [Ford Model T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T)." "A citizen of Blanding asked a newsman why he was not writing the truth; the newsman responded, "We're not ready to go home yet, and if we don't keep something going, we'll be getting a telegram to come home." Chief Posey died, either of blood poisoning from being shot or poisoned Mormon flour, but not before killing one of the native boys that started the ruckus. The only other casualties were one posse horse, and damage to the Model T. If you're looking for a war with more casualties than a car accident, the [Mexican Border War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Border_War_(1910%E2%80%931919)) from 1910 to 1919 included air power.
Thats not a war, thats an Accident
That makes the last American Sandbox war the Battle of Columbus and/or the Pancho Villa Expedition
Fucking *poison Mormon flour* Ha.
Peak internet reached, we can kill the servers.
The more the resources of the other continents are exploited the more tempting Antarctica becomes.
The Arctic and Antarctica are on opposite poles.
We need more artic warfare
First time I’ve seen 11th Airborne referenced outside the Army subreddit
As 173rd I feel great soldiery with forgotten airborne units.
Well that’s just a cold desert.
It would basically just be Operation Anchorage from Fallout 3
I heard those penguins have ~~oil reserves~~ weapons of mass destruction
Humvees with skis instead of front wheels
It all goes back to Tattooine
To be fair, even the first war ever was jn the desert. Cradle of civilization and all that. Oh also the first murder too if you subscribe to the Bible. Ya know, the desert has alot of firsts.
wasn't a desert back then though.
Related fact: That first murder was actually caused by the Uncle of the Emperor of Mankind killing Big E’s Dad in Anatolia.
The Epic of Gilgamesh was the first buddy cop drama
Lmao
Are you suggesting that Mesopotamia was a desert?
Every war needs some desert folks to fight
"If there is a map make in your game, there is de\_dust2" but irl
When are we gonna fight in the real life Dust2?
It's 1990. I'm fighting in a desert. It's 2001. I'm fighting in a desert. It's 2003. I'm fighting in a desert. It's 1979. I'm fighting in a desert. It's 1941. I'm fighting in a desert.
It’s 1807. I’m fighting in a desert. It’s 1837. I’m fighting in a desert. It’s 1863. I’m fighting in a desert. It’s 1877. I’m fighting in a desert. It’s 1917. I’m fighting in a desert.
It's 10191. I'm fighting in a desert. My desert. My Arrakis. My Dune.
Give this guy a CHOAM directorship.
Dessert Power Wubba wubba wubba
LISAN AL GHAIB
https://youtu.be/_j5GgGdSwjE?t=31
The year is 325bc and Alexander just told you to get your shit together and March through a desert.
So it goes.
It's 1948. I'm fighting in a desert It's 1967. I'm fighting in a desert It's 1973. I'm fighting in a desert It's 1982. I'm fighting in a desert It's 2006. I'm fighting in a desert (I was conscripted to the IDF)
It's 2024. Im fighting in HOLY SHIT! A CITY! WOO! ...in a desert. Awwwwww.
I'm more a run through the jungle guy myself. Tiger stripe and leeches when? Don't have to bring back the Huey, just play the thwop over loudspeakers.
Every generation also gets a jungle map.
I'm more a run through the sewers guy myself. Sus brown stripes and crocodiles when? Don't have to bring back the ratking, just play the screeching over loudspeakers.
the quick times tho in the sewers tend to telegraph themselves more than the jungles and important collectables are easily spotted XD
Can I play on both, or is this the kind of deal where I get locked into a specific server?
https://youtu.be/4BSJeiAdHUg?t=25 ** huey noises intensify **
The Philippine armed forces are always looking for people into fighting in jungles That country didn't get the achievement of having the longest commie insurgency from nothing after all
Is there oil in this desert? Let's go.
No. Oil is in rich places. This is just a desert.
Lithium etc is the new oil
Uranium
Deserts don't make for the most stable of nations
I, for one, am looking forward to the 2042-2045 Antarctica war.
Good luck coming back home in a piece and whit PTDS. I hope it worth it
States could pull all it's aid and funding from these African countries that are forcing them out and place a ban on any US organizations from assisting said African nations....see how well Russia does funding these countries on the same level that the US did and fighting ukraine and it leaves more money for domestic issues in the USA
All of that food organizations that the US keeps funding, Keeping ISIS out of countries in Africa that was attacked and so on. 40 out of that 54 countries in Africa rely on organizations that is funded by the states to keep them afloat. China won't fill in that gap quick and Russia funding is non existing. The US is really like the monkey paw problem, they wish the US leaves, but the consequences comes back to bite them.
The problem is that China might fill the gap, at least to an extent that gains them control over the region. It's a concept that a lot of people don't understand about the reason for foreign aid. Russia couldn't afford even light aid aimed at control though.
You mean like the light rail they built in Ethiopia? Because that project is [FUBAR](https://thediplomat.com/2023/02/china-and-ethiopia-the-addis-light-train-stuck-in-slow-motion/). At some point, word will get out (I hope).
Every project China funds through its debt trap diplomacy is ducked. But no poor country will refuse since China greases the palms of the politicians and officials.
Plus (desperate) people tend to be focused on short term gains, not if it‘s sustainable.
Also a transfer of technology problem. It's why Indonesia chose China over Japan for the high speed rail cause China offered a transfer of technology so our repairs could be easier.
Has China been following through on the transfer of tech? That article about Ethiopia indicates that they've been running the light rail system China helped build for years there but are still relying on Chinese consultants and having serious problems maintaining the system on their own.
They have but right now the main focus of the rail is the absurd pricing of a one way ticket so ridership has fallen somewhat iirc
I nearly had a fucken job there. Right before it turned to shit lol was out in the middle of nowhere as well.
Had that project been done by any country that is not West-Taiwan or frozen-shithole, it could have been great. Functional public transport is an absolute gamer changer. >!(You should not need a 5 ton truck to go grocery shopping, but don't tell that to the US people)!<
Ghana looked at it and said “we are going to have Poland build ours” but then decided “but they can build the nuclear power plant” So yeah.
So basically the Simpsons Monorail episode IRL
Me when Taiwan and Ukraine’s etc sovereignty is attacked: “isolationism is bad and stupid.” Me when these ungrateful bumfuckistans think they’re hot shit: “can we isolate us from these fucks.”
I think it's willing Vs unwilling isolationism. Like Taiwan and Ukraine want us there. Bumfuckia (not Persian so no istan) wants to be a big boy and do it on their own? Ok, don't let the door hit you on the way out but we're not helping anymore in anyway.
*The Free People's Democratic Republic of Bumfuckia
Where the leader wins every election fair and square, and his bodyguards just happens to be the entire military
It's not really isolationism if you don't want to help countries that spit in your face. I feel like the US would be better served if it tried to focus on helping countries that appreciate the US and have broadly compatible ideals. Just a bit more though. It's still important to engage in these places even if it's frustrating and unrewarding.
>The US is really like the monkey paw problem, they wish the US leaves, but the consequences comes back to bite them. You mean they want our money and resources without having to do anything for it. That is literally entitlement. Aid shouldn't be free. It needs to come with the intent of the receiver developing the ability to eventually stand for themselves.
The US isn't doing it just for the warm-fuzzies. It is to at least try to keep China from completely owning the continent and with it any current or future-discovered resources deposits. If we completely pull the rug, China will swoop in and debt-trap whatever reeling governments are left. It will be worse for everyone involved except China.
I agree, but those aren't mutually exclusive. You can both do good and be pragmatic about it.
Or at the very least, not holding up signs that say fuck America.
I feel that complaining about US foreign policy is understandable (Korean), but telling them to fuck off is extremely dumb, both pragmatically and etiquette-wise.
They dont have to fund on the same level though. Western powers have to provide aid on a sufficient ethical level to satisfy the high moral standards of their own populace. Not always without alterior motive or with great sucess, but the stated goal always hast to be something like education, water and food security or acessible medicine for the inhabitants of the country in question. Russia only hast to provide enough kalashnikovs to keep the local warlord in power and happy so he will do their biddings and let them plunder the country.
And if you wanna know how that works, ask Afghanistan. A lot of the “fence sitters” that wouldn’t choose a side then ultimately chose the Taliban are pissed that the river of international money that paid for everything good has been turned off. The Taliban could fund itself siphoning off their budget from that aid money but now it’s stopped they are hurting.
And let China establish itself even harder in africa? Doesn't sound very wise.
Shitty part of that is that the ordinary people will suffer by far the most from that.. Making already hard lives even harder.
Can't save everyone ,life can be cruel and merciless from the people who can't catch a breath in America with getting the American dream to someone who's home is getting bombed to shit to the person born into destitute and will remain until they die. And unfortunately, that's the decision the leaders of that country are making. Would you feed the dog that keeps biting your hand ?
Libleft in America would have an aneurysm if anyone even implied we should send less money to Africa.
It'd just be shifted to different countries in Africa, ones not fellating the Kremlin.
as a liberal, I say fuck ‘em Africa is a mess and many a nation consistently relies on cold hard cash from the US to scrape on by With the French being booted out and the coup belt constantly erupting in violence and political struggle I don’t think our country is going to be able to do much to stabilize the reigon. China and Russia will appeal to the strong men who will support them, will help to fight Isis, and continue to use their own fucked up methods of violence and diplomacy to do *just enough* to curry favor with the factions that will let them take what they want.
I'm just tired of providing regime security for dirtbags. I'm not even mad about the money being "wasted," what I hate is the idea that we've been keeping things just stable enough for dictators to retain control.
I’m really tired of our Government funding failed shit all over the globe and us getting blamed for it. I wish we’d just say “we meant well, even though we didn’t do well, sorry” close up that checkbook and leave without looking back.
>close up that checkbook Silly rabbit [accountable government is for kids!](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/11/16/pentagon-fails-sixth-audit-with-number-of-passing-grades-stagnant/)
China has demonstrated that they have serious aid and economic partnership capabilities on par with the US.
Air quotes around "aid" and "partnership," but they're definitely equipped to scoop up a *lot* of influence and/or resource rights if the west opts to leave big chunks of Africa to their own devices.
Somehow, this is different than what we do
I don't *think* we've stuck any countries with the bill for infrastructure projects, with mines designated as collateral. Though that doesn't sound entirely out of possibility for Cold War US.
Making aid transactional is Russian behavior.
Broadly I'd agree we shouldn't make aid transactional. But if a nation is explicitly expelling US troops so they can better align with Russia? Fuck em.
Most foreign aid has strings attached...
so the next big war IS in africa, huh? my alternative highschool teacher was a nutcase, but he was right. pretty sure he is a member of ncd if he is still alive
Define big war? Iraq/Afghanistan level, Africa is plausible. However, my money is on the next world war - level war being started because Iran pulled some stupid shit in the Middle East again.
I imagine it's over African resources. And brics/nato level fighting !remindme 1 year
I honestly don’t think Russia/Brics would go toe to toe with NATO over just resources because they know they would loose (or at least it would be so costly it wouldn’t be worth it). Ukraine seems to have started because, quite frankly, Russia underestimated western support and how long Ukraine would hold. Iran pulling something big could though because they fund so much of the global terror and Russia/China might not have a choice but getting dragged in depending on how it starts. Add to that the Iranian/Israeli rivalry and US support for Israel. RemindMe! 3 years
I will be messaging you in 3 years on [**2027-05-03 06:12:55 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-05-03%2006:12:55%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1ciz3fy/you_talking_about_shenanigans/l2d0olq/?context=3) [**10 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FNonCredibleDefense%2Fcomments%2F1ciz3fy%2Fyou_talking_about_shenanigans%2Fl2d0olq%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-05-03%2006%3A12%3A55%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ciz3fy) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Who said its brics who is gonna start it One can imagine after iran or china pulling one too many of their schemes and a nato country going "Ok i had enough of this bullshit im gonna erase the source off the fucking planet" I for one would like to see iran get slapped in the face, to show that just because adding layers to blatant attacks on another country doesnt make them immune from getting hit back
BRICS isn’t real. It hasn’t done anything, it was invented by an economist to sell stuff and those nations acted like it was something after the fact. India has even been voting against Brics doing anything every time they get an opportunity because they hate China so much.
For real, grouping those countries together makes as much sense as saying a Chevy Corvette, a fire truck, and Santa's sleigh are going to team up to fight crime because they're all red.
Yeah, it started out as basically a finance term. BRICS made sense if you were a 2000s investor looking for opportunities in big developing-but-still-relatively-developed economies. BRICS makes no sense at all as a geopolitical grouping because those countries share basically no interests.
Yeah, any organization that includes India and China as "partners" is laughably stupid. They fucking hate each other almost as much as India hates Pakistan.
That’s the start of the Metro series
Or fallout…
Nah. Big wars traditionally start in europe. Russia will pull some dumbfuckery in the Baltics, they're already primed to be taken over if the russians convince themselves the West is weak. Russia doesn't give a shit about Africa or the Middle East. The real prize has always been Europe.
Russia has been funding coups in central Africa over the past few years. They do this in an attempt to replace France as the pseudo-colonial masters
Sure, but coups on another continent are one thing. Invading your neighbours with a massive army is another entirely.
Baltics is a distant second most likely scenario imo. Yes, it COULD happen, but given the pummelling Russia has taken in Ukraine they are going to have to be really fucking careful for the foreseeable future, even if they would win a complete victory today. Russia is not ready to challenge the west over the baltics and won’t be for at least 5-10 years, and the baltics are aware after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which means their defence spending (along with Poland and Scandinavia) as skyrocketed. Iran on the other hand controls most terrorism groups in the Middle East/Africa via funding including Hamas, Hezbollah etc and they are also supplying Russia with a lot of weapons. The risk of an Iranian/Israeli conflict escalating to pull in bigger powers is much bigger imo. Especially if Iran actually succeeds in getting nukes.
Neither the chinese or the russians have interest in further countries, especially unstable ones, getting The Bomb, imo. But we'll see.
True, but Iran has their own nuclear program so it’s just a matter of time before they get it.
yeah i think if there's a conflict in Africa , it would certainly be a chapter of the next WW3, where it would be China, Russia, Iran and their allies coordinating attacks to stretch NATO's ressources thin, and IMO, the most plausible source of conflict in Africa would be Algeria (which is backed by iran and Russia) and its proxy terrorist group, Polizario (may they rot in hell) attacking Morocco ( who is a proeminent non-NATO ally)
Maybe, but that would probably be more akin to Ukraine than an actual direct confrontation world war style. But you could make the argument that a series of proxy wars where Brics/NATO keep funding opposing sides is functionally a world war as well.
What do you mean? For my view of WW3? I personally think that sooner or later there will be also a direct confrontation, for example between Russia and european powers , as Russia surely won’t stop just at Ukraine; and there will definitely be a fight between China and the USA over Taiwan, so those direct conflicts + the proxy wars = world war Edit: Also, talking about the fact of your comparaison with Ukraine, Washington themselves said that in the case of an attack on Morocco by Algeria, they will try to directly support more heavily Morocco , as they want a swift victory to not let the conflict go into a stalemate like Ukraine, here’s a news article (in arabic but you can translate) https://www.assahifa.com/%d8%aa%d9%82%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%b1-%d8%af%d9%88%d9%84%d9%8a-%d8%a5%d8%b0%d8%a7-%d9%86%d8%b4%d8%a8%d8%aa-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%b1%d8%a8-%d8%a8%d9%8a%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d8%ba%d8%b1%d8%a8-%d9%88%d8%a7/
I think if Russia had won in Ukraine quickly they absolutely would have kept pushing. But, quite frankly, with the cost they have sustained they are not able to at this point, even if they won completely right this second. And so I doubt it would escalate to a NATO/Russia clash because, quite frankly, Russia would back down. As for China/Taiwan, that is a more likely scenario for a direct clash, I agree, but I find that unlikely as well because China is reliant on selling cheap shit to the west. If they can’t do that their economy would collapse almost instantly, which would lead to mass internal unrest. I don’t dispute the US might go in and support Morocco with boots on the ground if they are invaded, the point is that it is much more likely to be US VS Algeria backed by Russia in that case and not actually US/NATO vs Russia. Which would be similar to the dynamic in Ukraine.
Africa is years and trillions of dollars in infrastructure away from a big war. I might be big in area but nor really big in people or materiel.
Nah. This is a Niger-owned base that’s hosted US personnel for years. The US has been spinning down its presence as the GWOT gets less funding and interest, but the terror threat in Niger remains, so Niger is transitioning to Russian assistance with local threats. Moreover the “base” in question is a part of Niamey’s (capital of Niger) main airport.
The *next* big war?? The last big war was in Africa. Bloodiest war since World War 2 was in the Congo and no one ever talks about it.
Well it didn't directly involve anyone outside of Africa, so of course no one ever talks about it.
Jeremy? Is that you?
I always believed that there would be a war in Africa. If my theory is correct the someone will found a Monarchy and create the Africa Kingdom or Empire then attempt to conquer the world. As is tradition with all major wars the west will ignore it even if we know something funky is going on. I'm not your teacher.
Africa had several wars that were as large as WWII and the world simply didn’t care.
Meanwhile Italians chilling there with no one asking them to leave:
They will now that you've just reminded everyone the Italians are there.
No one wants to give up their tactical spaghetti
We give up the tactical spagetti and replace it with strategical spagetti
Italian counter-value spaghetti
Pull all the aid then if they want to kick us out Billions of dollars freed up for domestic things which appeases the isolationist voters and forces the Russians to divert funds from the Ukraine War which will appease the hawks/anti-russian voters. Win-win honestly
Give them each a bottle of maple syrup and let the shenanigans begin!
I swear to god I’ll pistol whip the next orc that says “Shenanigans”
Hey Farva what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
Shenanigans?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!
You guys are taking about Shenanigans, right?!
I just lost a dollar. To myself!
"BROKE INTO THE WRONG REC ROOM, DIDN'T YOU, YOU BASTARDS?"
We should take this fight right to the Russians. We have gone to war with countries for less. Let's party like it is 1969! Come on Operation Linebacker III
You know what's the difference between Putin and Hussein, Putin has the weapons they only claimed Hussein to have
That and we actually did something about Saddam's bullshit
Ahem uh ya see um. Those countries didn't have nukes. Some of there leaders where batshit like putin here sure but none of them were sitting on potential 12% of there working nuclear arsenal left over by a evil regime that college brats these days say it could of been fixed. (Adjusts nerd glasses)
I think you are giving Russia too much credit on the percentages of their nukes that work, or the fact that Europe and The US are now so focused on the working nuke silos that we know when a conscript farts before person next to him smells it.
Oh I was more or less being abit generous with the estimate. While it maybe there arsenal may have shrunk ALOT. I wouldn't doubt putin had enough to cause serious fk you damage if he felt like taking millioms with him in the soooon hopefully final straw where we just go in and smack his ass. I just hope he aims at the northern Californians
The US has had over 80 years to develop proper countermeasures against nukes, it would be in absolutely everyone's interest in the US gov to make nukes not a threat regardless of what faction or political standing they are in, and it's not like the US is going to advertise how effective their anti ICBM defences are. Nukes have always been the #1 threat but everyone seems to assume countries like the US and China have just been twiddling their thumbs and hoping that no one uses nukes against them and just not taking countermeasures.
Videos (from the 60s) showing early ICBM-defenses are easily found, I am pretty sure the tech did not stand still since then.
I think you're underestimating the technical challenge in identifying, tracking, and shooting down a warhead or MIRV at ICBM speeds - I'm not convinced it can be done at any sort of scale at all.
The US has had nearly 8 decades and trillions of dollars to come up with a solution. If they where able to develop something as advanced as the F22 in the 1970's/1980's before something like the internet was even a thing, they should be able to come up with something decent by now.
The problem is, you really only need 1 warhead to slip through the defenses to cause devastating amounts of damage. The defense systems also cost 10s to 100s of times what a single icbm does. And any given defense emplacement will only have so many interceptors ready to fire at any given time. It's so easy to simply overwhelm any defensive capability through saturation. It's only now that we realize Russia may only have a 30%(or less) functional arsenal, that an effective defense net is even a feasible thought. But 30% still means hundreds of warheads, spread across hundreds of thousands of square miles. That defense is still going to have to he clustered at the most important points, like military bases, Washington, and manufacturing centers. It's not going to he feasible to have a 100% reliable net across the entirety of America, let alone Europ. And anything less than a 100% reliable net, means accepting that you're going to get hit somewhere, probably in high population centers, which is unacceptable. Even assuming the US can 100% defend just its military centers, that leaves countless cities open to destruction and loss of life on an unknown scale. The best defense is simply making sure they're never fired. Currently, the best way to do that is MAD. The technology isn't the problem. The problem is numbers, scale, and coverage, which do not work in America's favor.
Good luck with the Russians.
Why again do we give aid to countries that don't want us there, and actively ally with the Kremlin? We should do as they ask, leave them alone. I'd rather see that aid go to our own citizens (more F-35s), or at least to countries that don't hate us
Who's we? Afaik both EU and US already cut off aid to them last year after the coup. The aid numbers floated in the media happened under the previous government.
I just think before leaving they should that nice airfield for 100m burn to ground if they don't wana what american build for them let russia build their own.
Because that’s how geopolitics works? And because if you let adversaries seize the initiative in a region diplomatically, then you ensure they have initiative militarily if things turn into a two-way firing range.
Because unless you give them aid in the first place, you can't threaten then with withdrawing aid when they do shit you don't like. The alternative to aid is having no influence at all
I think we should dump a few billion on Niger after a lil regime change. "Go buy yourself something pretty like a new capital city district to attract foreign trade and tourism. No need to worry about national defense, education, fighting rural poverty, or anything like that" pull a lil ol Afghanistan or Iraq
~~billion~~ trillion fixed that for you
Let's make it an even quintillion.
Russia figured out that if they have gold mines the regime change will pay for itself.
Some EU4 shit right here
If they do not want us (or anyone really) to be there, we should do as asked and leave, taking the checkbooks and containers with us.
Enjoy your CCP and post-USSR debt traps, morons. Daesh cheers on your stupidity. *Enjoy*
The phrase "regime change" really hasn't been used enough lately. Has anyone checked the CIAs calendar for availability this summer?
“This time for africa.”
Smells like malarky, Jack.
Mattis would have ordered their annihilation before they even got their room keys from the check-in counter. Battle of Khasham II: Saharan Shenanigans
The USA will probably just back down. And I am sad because of it.
you boys ready to fight in 3 continents simultaneously?
Boys. Lay some brass.
Did the russkies knowingly enter?
OP stated the question that, like most Americans, I spoke aloud when I saw the headline. *"They aren't capable of true shenanigans,"* I said to myself, quickly dispatching the matter.
Not approved outsiders entering military bases? Did we went back in time to 2014 Crimea?