US threatens to arrest ICC judges for Afghan war crimes

[Ifreann]

Is it really a joke when Federal Law mandates such a thing?

TBF we could actually fucking steamroll Europe in a war. Just putting that out there. And if Russia is working with trump and his admin like the left say they are then Europe will probably also having to fight a 2 front war against America in the east, and Russia in the west, coming back to reclaim its lost soviet satellite states.

Tell us more about America going to war with its allies, including two states with their own nuclear weapons, five states that have American nuclear weapons in their territory, and a neighbouring state, because the ICC might investigate war crimes in Afghanistan.

[Valgora]

"You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield."

"That's true. That's also irrelevant."

Just saying. All of Europe really can't stand up to America, especially when majority of it has shit for military. The only ones who will be a problem really are Britain, France, and Germany.

Switzerland would be a problem, although the smart choice would be to not try to invade Switzerland.

[Datlofff]

Just saying. All of Europe really can't stand up to America, especially when majority of it has shit for military. The only ones who will be a problem really are Britain, France, and Germany.

Cool, enjoy MAD then.

I don't feel like a nuclear war will be starting over the ICC. Good try though.

[Chestaan]

Steamroll Europe? You guys struggled against Iraq and were beaten by rice farmers in Vietnam.

Guerilla wars are much more different than conventional warfare.
(We mostly struggled in nam because of the thick un-mapped jungles. Not many of those in Europe. Also, we fucking won the war, congress just screwed our promise to come back if the north fucked up again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords)

And what makes you think Europe would fight a war in a way that suits you? You didn't go back to Vietnam because the people didn't want to, and if you think the US citizens would support a sustained war against the EU you are sorely mistaken.

Not to mention that such a war, even if it didn't almost instantly devolve into MAD, would be a logisitical nightmare. None of your European allies would allow you to use their country as a base to invade so you;d have to bring everything through hostile waters.

[Vassenor]

Cool, enjoy MAD then.

I don't feel like a nuclear war will be starting over the ICC. Good try though.

Full scale invasion wouldn't end in nuclear war? What fantasy are you living in?

[Valgora]

Guerilla wars are much more different than conventional warfare.
(We mostly struggled in nam because of the thick un-mapped jungles. Not many of those in Europe. Also, we fucking won the war, congress just screwed our promise to come back if the north fucked up again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords)

And what makes you think Europe would fight a war in a way that suits you? You didn't go back to Vietnam because the people didn't want to, and if you think the US citizens would support a sustained war against the EU you are sorely mistaken.

Not to mention that such a war, even if it didn't almost instantly devolve into MAD, would be a logisitical nightmare. None of your European allies would allow you to use their country as a base to invade so you;d have to bring everything through hostile waters.

We do have control of the oceans more or less.
However, it would still be a logistical nightmare to move soldiers all the way to Europe.

[Proctopeo]

I can't tell if you missed my joke entirely, or responded with an even more opaque joke.

Is it really a joke when Federal Law mandates such a thing?

Damn.
Good for us, then. Our officials should only be persecuted by courts which we are party to.

[Datlofff]

Guerilla wars are much more different than conventional warfare.
(We mostly struggled in nam because of the thick un-mapped jungles. Not many of those in Europe. Also, we fucking won the war, congress just screwed our promise to come back if the north fucked up again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords)

And what makes you think Europe would fight a war in a way that suits you? You didn't go back to Vietnam because the people didn't want to, and if you think the US citizens would support a sustained war against the EU you are sorely mistaken.

Not to mention that such a war, even if it didn't almost instantly devolve into MAD, would be a logisitical nightmare. None of your European allies would allow you to use their country as a base to invade so you;d have to bring everything through hostile waters.

Hostile water's we'd easily control because even all of Europes navy is like half the size of ours, and we didn't have a hard time shipping supplies needed from the factories in the eastern USA across America, then across the pacific, to whatever shitty island the marines were invading that morning in ww2, and that was before things such as the interstate system.

[Ifreann]

Cool, enjoy MAD then.

I don't feel like a nuclear war will be starting over the ICC. Good try though.

The Hague is in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands is in NATO.

Invading the Netherlands would constitute an attack on all the rest of NATO, which includes nuclear armed states, and Canada.

[Valgora]

And what makes you think Europe would fight a war in a way that suits you? You didn't go back to Vietnam because the people didn't want to, and if you think the US citizens would support a sustained war against the EU you are sorely mistaken.

Not to mention that such a war, even if it didn't almost instantly devolve into MAD, would be a logisitical nightmare. None of your European allies would allow you to use their country as a base to invade so you;d have to bring everything through hostile waters.

Hostile water's we'd easily control because even all of Europes navy is like half the size of ours, and we didn't have a hard time shipping supplies needed from the factories in the eastern USA across America, then across the pacific, to whatever shitty island the marines were invading that morning in ww2, and that was before things such as the interstate system.

"We didn't have a hard time..."
Press X to doubt.

Logistics is always a bitch to deal with. We likely did have a hard time setting it all up in order for it to work.

---

What you said also doesn't apply to invading Europe either.
Except for control of the ocean.

However, the Swedes do have a submarine that sank one of our most advanced aircraft carriers during a simulated training thing. It was able to do it undetected. The only thing that was detected was the simulated hits.

[Vassenor]

And what makes you think Europe would fight a war in a way that suits you? You didn't go back to Vietnam because the people didn't want to, and if you think the US citizens would support a sustained war against the EU you are sorely mistaken.

Not to mention that such a war, even if it didn't almost instantly devolve into MAD, would be a logisitical nightmare. None of your European allies would allow you to use their country as a base to invade so you;d have to bring everything through hostile waters.

Hostile water's we'd easily control because even all of Europes navy is like half the size of ours, and we didn't have a hard time shipping supplies needed from the factories in the eastern USA across America, then across the pacific, to whatever shitty island the marines were invading that morning in ww2, and that was before things such as the interstate system.

One Swedish submarine was able to completely wreck a US carrier group in an exercise. One submarine.

[Datlofff]

Hostile water's we'd easily control because even all of Europes navy is like half the size of ours, and we didn't have a hard time shipping supplies needed from the factories in the eastern USA across America, then across the pacific, to whatever shitty island the marines were invading that morning in ww2, and that was before things such as the interstate system.

One Swedish submarine was able to completely wreck a US carrier group in an exercise. One submarine.

Yes, and we have 70. The submarine the swedes had also managed to get through passive sonar. But I won't try to explain the difference between passive and active sonar to you, you wouldn't understand it probably.

[Vassenor]

One Swedish submarine was able to completely wreck a US carrier group in an exercise. One submarine.

Yes, and we have 70. The submarine the swedes had also managed to get through passive sonar. But I won't try to explain the difference between passive and active sonar to you, you wouldn't understand it probably.

Active pings for echoes, passive just listens for sounds. Next time try making your point without insulting my intelligence.

[Datlofff]

Yes, and we have 70. The submarine the swedes had also managed to get through passive sonar. But I won't try to explain the difference between passive and active sonar to you, you wouldn't understand it probably.

Active pings for echoes, passive just listens for sounds. Next time try making your point without insulting my intelligence.

Yes, exactly. They didn't see the sub because they weren't actively searching for it, they were running passive. What would actually happen would be pretty simple. They hear the torpedoe launch on their passive sonars, activate whatever countermeasures they have for such things, then run attack where the sound came from, and switch to active to look for the fucker. Im pretty sure our modern carriers can survive more than 1 torpedo anyways, the old ww2 ones could. The way the exercise was done they didn't even fire training torpedoes at the carrier

[Vassenor]

Active pings for echoes, passive just listens for sounds. Next time try making your point without insulting my intelligence.

Yes, exactly. They didn't see the sub because they weren't actively searching for it, they were running passive. What would actually happen would be pretty simple. They hear the torpedoe launch on their passive sonars, activate whatever countermeasures they have for such things, then run attack where the sound came from, and switch to active to look for the fucker. Im pretty sure our modern carriers can survive more than 1 torpedo anyways, the old ww2 ones could. The way the exercise was done they didn't even fire training torpedoes at the carrier

So because the exercise doesn't fit your rules it doesn't count. Got it.

This is like Millennium Challenge '02 all over again.

[Datlofff]

Yes, exactly. They didn't see the sub because they weren't actively searching for it, they were running passive. What would actually happen would be pretty simple. They hear the torpedoe launch on their passive sonars, activate whatever countermeasures they have for such things, then run attack where the sound came from, and switch to active to look for the fucker. Im pretty sure our modern carriers can survive more than 1 torpedo anyways, the old ww2 ones could. The way the exercise was done they didn't even fire training torpedoes at the carrier

So because the exercise doesn't fit your rules it doesn't count. Got it.

This is like Millennium Challenge '02 all over again.

>"sinks" a carrier
>never fired a torpedo at the carrier in the first place

"sO bEcAuSe tHe ExErCiSe DoEsN't FiT yOuR rUlEs It DoEsN't CoUnT"

[Eodor]

So because the exercise doesn't fit your rules it doesn't count. Got it.

This is like Millennium Challenge '02 all over again.

>"sinks" a carrier
>never fired a torpedo at the carrier in the first place

"sO bEcAuSe tHe ExErCiSe DoEsN't FiT yOuR rUlEs It DoEsN't CoUnT"

America would be beaten by a European coalition, it's as simple as that. America couldn't beat Nazi Germany without the USSR and UK let alone all of Europe fighting together.

[Vassenor]

So because the exercise doesn't fit your rules it doesn't count. Got it.

This is like Millennium Challenge '02 all over again.

>"sinks" a carrier
>never fired a torpedo at the carrier in the first place

"sO bEcAuSe tHe ExErCiSe DoEsN't FiT yOuR rUlEs It DoEsN't CoUnT"

And yet the Pentagon still recognised it as indicating a severe threat to US naval power.

[Aellex]

International law is a joke and the people who're foolish enough to believe anyone gives a shit about it can only blame themselves for that stupidity.

U.S. will either take the polite approach of saying they got gonna take care of it themselves and do nothing about it or the less polite one and just tell people to fuck off.
Both responses would be appropriate.

[Chestaan]

International law is a joke and the people who're foolish enough to believe anyone gives a shit about it can only blame themselves for that stupidity.

U.S. will either take the polite approach of saying they got gonna take care of it themselves and do nothing about it or the less polite one and just tell people to fuck off.
Both responses would be appropriate.

The fact that the US has the power to ignore international law doesn't mean that they aren't pricks for allowing war crimes.

[Uxupox]

>"sinks" a carrier
>never fired a torpedo at the carrier in the first place

"sO bEcAuSe tHe ExErCiSe DoEsN't FiT yOuR rUlEs It DoEsN't CoUnT"

And yet the Pentagon still recognised it as indicating a severe threat to US naval power.

gl getting passed a Carrier's battle group escort. tbh i don't seen anything coming close to the CV. The damned thing is even escorted by nuclear weaponry.

[Datlofff]

>"sinks" a carrier
>never fired a torpedo at the carrier in the first place

"sO bEcAuSe tHe ExErCiSe DoEsN't FiT yOuR rUlEs It DoEsN't CoUnT"

And yet the Pentagon still recognised it as indicating a severe threat to US naval power.

"HSwMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier."

Pictures are very different than firing a torpedo at a carrier and actually sinking it.

But then you remember this happened in 2005, and the US navy has already upgraded its sensors sense then. Then you also remember that diesel subs are great for costal protection, but shit for actual open sea engagements. Why may you ask? Because to complete long term operations they need tenders to refuel them at sea, and they can't stay submerged indefinitely like a nuclear sub can, which makes them very easy to track once they have to inevitably surface. All of these combined reasons are the exact reason the USA and many other countries entirely dropped diesel submarines from their navies. Hell, Gotland didn't even make it back to Sweden under her own power, she was shipped on a barge.

[Telconi]

International law is a joke and the people who're foolish enough to believe anyone gives a shit about it can only blame themselves for that stupidity.

U.S. will either take the polite approach of saying they got gonna take care of it themselves and do nothing about it or the less polite one and just tell people to fuck off.
Both responses would be appropriate.

The fact that the US has the power to ignore international law doesn't mean that they aren't pricks for allowing war crimes.

I don't see why they should be obligated to operate basedan on your opinions, or anyone else's.

[Vassenor]

And yet the Pentagon still recognised it as indicating a severe threat to US naval power.

"HSwMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier."

Pictures are very different than firing a torpedo at a carrier and actually sinking it.

But then you remember this happened in 2005, and the US navy has already upgraded its sensors sense then. Then you also remember that diesel subs are great for costal protection, but shit for actual open sea engagements. Why may you ask? Because to complete long term operations they need tenders to refuel them at sea, and they can't stay submerged indefinitely like a nuclear sub can, which makes them very easy to track once they have to inevitably surface. All of these combined reasons are the exact reason the USA and many other countries entirely dropped diesel submarines from their navies. Hell, Gotland didn't even make it back to Sweden under her own power, she was shipped on a barge.

And what would repelling an invasion of Europe be? Coastal defence.

[Eodor]

And yet the Pentagon still recognised it as indicating a severe threat to US naval power.

"HSwMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier."

Pictures are very different than firing a torpedo at a carrier and actually sinking it.

But then you remember this happened in 2005, and the US navy has already upgraded its sensors sense then. Then you also remember that diesel subs are great for costal protection, but shit for actual open sea engagements. Why may you ask? Because to complete long term operations they need tenders to refuel them at sea, and they can't stay submerged indefinitely like a nuclear sub can, which makes them very easy to track once they have to inevitably surface. All of these combined reasons are the exact reason the USA and many other countries entirely dropped diesel submarines from their navies. Hell, Gotland didn't even make it back to Sweden under her own power, she was shipped on a barge.

I'd like to point out Sweden has a coast on the Atlantic Ocean not the Pacific Ocean, so the barge makes sense