Denmark doesn't have submarines, if that's what you mean. We had two, one which even served in connection with the US led invasion of Iraq, but they got retired in the early 2000s:
Not that it matters, regardless of whose subs you are referring to, since the US military already has free access to Greenland thanks to previous agreements with Denmark. See e.g.
It limits both sides involved in a conflict from using nuclear weapons first.
As history has clearly shown, it doesn't do much to prevent conventional wars, especially involving third parties.
I don't think anyone in power truly believes that France would actually use nuclear weapons to protect Italy during a conventional war against a nuclear power when France itself isn't in danger - let alone in a war Italy started. That's a no-win scenario for France.
Italy isn't a third party. They're both EU states. French nuclear doctrine is specifically the only one with nuclear first strikes as response to conventional threats.
If push comes to shove, I believe France is incredibly unlikely to actually attack the US with nuclear weapons regardless of what happens to Italy.
Doctrines and policies are meaningless under pressure. Would France risk global nuclear armageddon and the near-extinction of humanity for Italy? Almost certainly not, regardless of what their "doctrine" says.
They are a third party. The EU isn't a country, it's an association and it's clear that solitary between member countries only goes so far.
We saw what happened when France triggered the mutual defense clause in the EU charter after the terrorist attacked. Even when they all but begged other EU states to help them, they were rebuffed.
There's little reason to believe France would behave any differently if the roles had been reversed in the especially if there was any real risk to themselves if they got involved.
Alternative explanation: The election was stolen overnight by US barbarism, prepared by years of reactionary rhetoric by the election stealer in chief.
Why would it be illegal? Or disgusting? Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement.
> Presumably US actions are backed by the people they consider to be legitimately elected representatives of Venezuelan government, and if so amount to little more than assistance in local law enforcement.
So any country could just assign some people as the legitimate government and do anything in any other country.
I think it's not an unreasonable assumption to start from that the US government is working in collusion with the opposition it openly backs in Venezuela? It also feels silly to imagine that Venezuelan opposition was really hoping anything other than this while openly courting US support.
Also, to be fair, the comment I was responding to earlier referred to the Venezuelan opposition as a US puppet. I think that effectively concedes this point anyway.
What part of that do you think requires evidence? The US has been very public about who they consider to have won the previous elections, and the opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela.
The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela, this is basically what any kind of effective intervention would look like.
It seems more than reasonable to assume that they were in fact invited in.
Do you just come on HN to troll? It is impossible to engage in useful conversations on most topics without relying on assumptions. Especially on a topic like this where at best only a very small set of people will be privy to all the facts.
Even the whole idea of "evidence" is ridiculous in this light. I could link you a video of Trump and Edmundo González discussing this, but at best we could only assume it's real (or not). The interpretation of any evidence relies on assumptions, you can't have one without the other.
"The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence which you can look up and verify yourself.
> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence
... and is not the statement in question.
The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
And when I look for evidence of that, I find only counter-evidence e.g.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo
Trump also said he had not spoken to Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado, who he characterised as having neither the support nor the respect within Venezuela to become its leader.
>> "The opposition has been very public in their lobbying for foreign intervention in Venezuela" is not an assumption, it is a direct reference to evidence
>... and is not the statement in question.
>The statement in question is your "they were invited in".
I think "they were invited in" inherently follows from the "lobbying for foreign intervention".
Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours, "they were invited in" is the simplest and most reasonable hypothesis.
The alternative is that they were just lobbying for fun and didn't actually hope to achieve any change in Venezuela, but that seems kind of silly.
> Unless you have some alternative explanation as to what the Venezuelan opposition could possibly have been pursuing during their extensive international lobbying tours
>It doesn't matter what Americans consider to be the representatives of the legitimate government.
Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter.
>Maduro was the legitimate government, American wishful thinking is just another affront to Venezuelan sovereignty.
Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
The same way any reasonable person thinks Trump is the government of US of A, regardless of his affinity to scammers, pedophiles or Russia. Wishful thinking does not change facts.
No, I don't think anyone seriously doubts whether or not Trump actually won the elections after which he was appointed president.
The same however is not true of Maduro, where "Maduro did not actually get sufficient votes to win the latest election" is a pretty commonly held view backed by evidence. You might reasonably doubt the veracity of that evidence, but directly comparing Maduro's position with that of Trump is simply ridiculous.
That's what I said. Yes it's a fact and not merely a commonly held view that Trump's campaign had Russian actors, but reasonable people still consider him President, and not a puppet placed by Putin.
So factually proven Russian interference in the United States elections does not invalidate election. Maduro interference, the veracity of which can be reasonably doubted in your very own words, does invalidate the election.
Comically ridiculous reasonable people.
The puppet tows the line of the "elected" dictator, who is famous for killing his opponents. But comically ridiculous reasonable people still consider them both presidents of their respective nations.
You can't be serious, but the nature of the interference differs:
Russians allegedly posted things on twitter that may or may not have helped Trump.
Maduro allegedly just totally lied about the vote counts, did not actually win the election.
The first is at best "meh", the second is circumventing the electoral process completely.
> So factually proven Russian interference in the United States elections does not invalidate election
If you consider Russian interference in the US elections to be factually proven, then I suppose we can safely make that same assumption about the Venezuelan electoral fraud claims. I'd say the public evidence regarding those is even better than the evidence available related to the Russian electoral interference claims.
> Really? I thought the US just arrested Maduro. To me, that seems like something that would matter.
You can't arrest a foreign head of state in a country where you have no jurisdiction. You can only kidnap them, as a rogue state.
Do you think Iran should be able to arrest Trump because they don't consider him legitimate?
International law isn't "I don't like you, so I will 'arrest' you". It's rules that all countries are bound by and that the US is breaking - making themselves a rogue state on the same level as North Korea.
> Can you actually try to explain why? Can you explain why a reasonable person looking at this from the outside should arrive at the conclusion that "Maduro was the legitimate government"?
Because he led Venezuela, that's what makes him the government of Venezuela. Any judgement on legitimacy is reserved to the Venezuelan people, not far-right oligarchs (who the US government considers the "legitimate government" since they'll make for nice puppets as they rob the place), not foreign dictators like Trump.
I like the unconventional approach. A few minutes with GPT raises two issues:
1. We've raised CO2 from 280ppm to 420ppm, about a 50% increase. To dilute it back down would require 50% more total atmosphere. This would also raise the surface air pressure 1.5x.
2. How much heat is trapped is related to the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the fraction. So the diluted atmosphere would retain just as much heat.
Interesting thought but you would need a lot of these gasses on the one hand and on the other hand it doesn’t help in working against the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect depends on the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the percentage. How much infrared light is absorbed by CO2 primarily depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We will unquestionably reach more than twice the CO2 concentration of pre-industrial levels (which was around 280 ppm; we're at 424 ppm now, it'll increase to beyond 560 ppm in most not-super-optimistic projections).
Do you really think it's both feasible and a good idea to release so much O2 and N2 to double the mass of the atmosphere? Or even just increase it by some appreciable fraction?
For the record, the atmosphere is around 5 150 000 000 000 000 metric tons. 5 quintillion kilograms. You're talking about producing metric exatons of gas.
Wikipedia says that there's 300 000 to a million gigatons of nitrogen in the earth's crust; that's 300 teratons to a petaton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen#Occurrence). If you extracted LITERALLY ALL THE NITROGEN IN THE CRUST, converted it to nitrogen gas and released it into the atmosphere, and we use the extremely optimistic 1 petaton estimate, you'd have increased the mass of the atmosphere by roughly 1/5000. That means you'd have decreased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ... by roughly 1/5000. From 424 ppm to 423.92 ppm.
Think about the magnitude you’re talking about here. Every internal combustion engine on earth is emitting CO2. Every volcano, forest fire, coal power plant, etc. The atmosphere is massive. We’ve been, basically, doing our best to pump it full of CO2 for the last 150 years, and this is what we’ve got. Ignoring the chemical challenges with your idea here, the scale is impossibly gargantuan.
Where else are they going to come from? They’re all basic elements, either you separate them from air, or you have to go through an energy intensive process to liberate them from various chemicals they’ve been compounded into.
But guess what, all of those chemicals are extremely valuable, such as nitrates for fertiliser, water, and Argon does really react with anything (it’s a noble gas), which is why we use it as a shield gas in processes like welding.
So producing enough of those gases to somehow offset CO2 production would first require ludicrously large amounts of energy, and if we had access to that amount of clean energy we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Plus it requires breaking down really valuable chemicals that we spend quite a lot of energy trying to produce or preserve anyway.
I think a commission of experts, put into place (but not supervised) by the democratically elected government, with judicial review as check & balance seems like a good first draft, but governance isn't my expertise.
Tbh the details don't really matter, what matters is that we ban this propaganda before it destroys us.
And presumably behind the scenes submarines are being positioned.
Crazy times we live in.