Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rebelgecko | Hacker News Reader

Scramble fighters and ask them to leave, like we do when they regularly approach the coast of Alaska

Alaska is right next to Russian airspace. Ukraine is not right next to American airspace.

It is right next to NATO airspace as well as an active war instigated by Russia.

Also, do you really think the Russians scramble their strategic bombers to Alaska because it is next to their borders? They don't do the same to China or North Korea.

PRC and DPRK don't have nuclear first-strike policies/histories nor have publicly advocated for the overthrow of the Russian government. Again, apples and oranges.

> PRC and DPRK don't have nuclear first-strike policies/histories

DPRK does in fact have an overtly stated nuclear first strike policy.

Can you provide an official source for that claim?

Article 6 of the 핵무력 법제화

Not if the US was at war with Mexico and Russia was doing reconnaissance for them.

Is there any reason to think that the US would be going to war with Mexico, that Russia would support Mexico, or that Russia would even have the capabilities to do reconnaissance so far away from Russia and close to the US?

Is there a point to this hypothetical besides trying to garner sympathy for Russia and their war?

The point of this hypothetical is to illustrate the reality of the situation: Russia is at war with Ukraine and the US has been doing extensive reconnaissance for them, for over a year. The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation.

According to Russia it is not a war. If it was a war then it would mean that Russia invaded Ukraine, and that would be illegal.

> The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation.

"Patience" isn't an accurate characterization of what's happening here. Of course Russia would be delighted to shoot down those drones, or any manned reconnaissance aircraft in the area as well. They refrain from doing this because there would be unwelcome consequences, not because they're carefully observing some law or principle.

You can certainly tweak your strained hypothetical in such a way that the US would be bound by similar constraints. (that's not even difficult, it's just a matter of examining the hypothetical a little more closely - imagine how much would have gone wrong for the United States military in order for it to even be in a real war with Mexico) It's just a matter of hypotheticals like this not being very useful.

“Patience” is a good characterization because (as you have observed correctly) they’ve refrained from doing so in the past to avoid the consequences of such actions, but now, crucially, the are taking them down.

imagine how much would have gone wrong

That’s funny because just days ago some US congressmen have demanded (CW: euphemisms) the “authorization” of “military force” against “the cartels”: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/9/mexicos-president-sl...

Now, invading Mexico is still a remote prospect at this point, but if you think the US wouldn’t “defend their interests” there, you’d better read up on the Monroe Doctrine and 19th and 20th century history of the Americas.

> The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation.

Why do you think so?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com