This is absolute fantasy. Stockpiles are only depleting, production hasn't and won't come close to meeting demand, and until there's a shooting war inside the bloc, it won't.
3,826 karma · joined July 16, 2021
The reality would be lots of denunciations, some token measures, followed by Business As Usual. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Spain aren't sacrificing their entire economies for Greenland.
It's also the most expensive region in the world to raise a military.
This includes Denmark, who would not have fought the US, as much as they tried to put on a show.
The idea that France was going to engage in armed conflict with the US over Greenland is absurd. The US could probably take Saint Pierre and Miquelon or French Guiana without triggering a French armed response.
The above are definitely the majority of software people are paying developers to write. By an order of magnitude.
The novel problems for customers who specifically care about code quality is probably under 1% of software written.
If you don't recognise this, you simple don't understand the industry you work in.
So how might a global and region powers engage in a war without engaging in territorial invasion? What kind of advancement might allow such a conflict to take place with only a tiny number of combatants?
Probably none at all.
At this point, I'm actually not sure if you're trolling or unironically don't get it?
Even including Aative + reserves + paramilitaries, less than 2% of Iranian adults are in the military.
CBRN defence imposes a substantial burden on modern militaries. Our infantry CBRN kit alone weighed 4.5kg, roughly the same weight as ten loaded 30-round STANAG magazines. That penalty applies to every soldier and similar burdens apply to vehicles, emplacements, heavy equipment. It increases fuel consumption, maintenance, logistics.
The training burden is also significant. In my experience nearly 8% of training time was dedicated to CBRN defence, more than marksmanship or signalling.
Operating under CBRN threat severely degrades ops tempo. Buttoning up slows movement, comms, situational awareness and command effectiveness. Speed and violence of action suffer and op tempo can drop by half or more. The impact on combat support and support units is worse than combat units. Naval and air forces fare worse again, with large decontamination requirements affecting sortie tempo, all external operations, and resupply. Even without casualties, the threat alone severely degrades manoeuvre warfare. They act as a force divisor.
The author reverses the logic. Modern militaries avoid chemical weapons for political reasons, not because they are ineffective. After WW1 they became politically toxic, and the Geneva Protocol has held because any state using them today would face immediate international condemnation and serious domestic political consequences.
Of course you would. What an infantile response divorced from reality.
Global media is reporting B-52s over Iran, which implies complete air supremecy and complete Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses, so this, on the face of it, seems to be untrue.