Was just watching Jack Ryan Season 3 and seeing the display of force and their movements causes some interesting dissonance given what we know now.

  • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Could be worse OP, could be a movie about the North Koreans successfully invading America, you know, North Korea, a country that barely has a navy and who’s Air Force is mostly old Migs from several decades ago, a country who starts threatening their neighbors whenever their food supply runs low because their chubby leader eats too much while the rest of the country is at famine levels of hunger.

    At least the original version of the movie was against the Russians while they were a super power.

    • Sylver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The remake was originally going to feature a Chinese invasion, but they wanted it to still release and sell in China, so they made North Korea the bad guy instead.

      It never did release in China.

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same sort of reasoning for NK being the baddie in the game Homefront. North Korea just isn’t a credible threat when it comes to invasion. Helped if you imagined it was the Chinese

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      a country that barely has a navy

      North Korea has the largest submarine fleet of any nation. Of course most of those are old diesel subs, but the point still stands.

      • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’ve seen what the Russian military has been like in Ukraine, if you think most of those subs aren’t rusting piles of garbage then you’re probably drinking that tankie Kool aid. They’ve probably had to cannibalize the majority of them just to keep what few they have running, because it’s not like they just idly make parts for 1950’s era subs, especially not for a country that barely has enough money to feed themselves and spends most of that on their nuclear program.

        Also they’re loud ass diesel subs, every modern navy will know exactly where they are and how many they have easily, and it’s not like 1950’s weaponry is going to make up the difference.

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This being said, Russia also isn’t as weak as we like to think. Given how the war has ground to a standstill, it’s not unlikely it’ll become yet another frozen conflict. And that’s after arming the Ukrainians with large amounts of advanced weaponry.

          We’ve become so used to the idea we’d have air supremacy in any potential war, we thought the Ukrainians would be able to push their way through the front, forgetting that the Ukrainians aren’t able to take out artillery or mines beforehand.

          The Russians have also adapted quite quickly. At the beginning of the war, the Ukrainians were having huge successes with drones. Now the Russians are downing 10,000 drones a month:

          https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-losing-10000-drones-month-russia-electronic-warfare-rusi-report-2023-5?op=1&r=US&IR=T

          To be clear, Russia is an existential threat to Europe. If they turn this conflict into a stalemate, they will have won territory that doesn’t belong to them and it’s almost certain they’ll rebuild, rearm and do it again. Just like happened with Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine in 2014.

          But underestimating the Russians is not in NATO members’ interests. No one ever won a war underestimating the enemy, better to give Ukraine more than they need, than just barely enough to make incremental advances under the assumption Russia won’t do a second wave of conscription and/or doesn’t have (or isn’t building up) reserves for a (counter) counter-offensive.

          And given how Ukraine has struggled, even with advanced weaponry, it’s clearly high time for Europe to re-arm so that Russia doesn’t mistakenly think we’re weak.

          • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            An actual world super power would have rolled over Ukraine in a week. The fact that they’ve beat the Russians back for an entire year is not only totally bad-ass and heroic, but it also exposed the Russian Army for the weakling it is. The only reason Russia is still considered a world super power is because of their stockpile of Soviet era nukes. If Russia can’t take Ukraine, they have zero chance against countries like China or the US, and especially not the combined forces of the United Nations?

          • Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The really advanced US tanks and jets haven’t entered the fight yet, and we’ve seen big gains in the last week with Russia losing 3 towns in the south, all the gains they made in the north over the last month taken back, and more groups crossing the Dnipro river. It’s been a slow acceleration wearing through Russian reserves, but there’s still a way to go before winter slows things down.

            The real advanced weapons enter the fight next spring.

      • SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Few old diesel shitters that will be suppressed immediately. Quality over quantity, especially after a military superpower like the US

        • Hyperreality@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Old diesel subs? Sure.

          But back in 2005 a now thirty year old Gotland-class diesel sub embarassed the USS Reagan in war games.

          Since then, plenty of countries have designed newer and better diesel subs, and battery tech has obviously improved.

      • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        According to the documentary Down Periscope, a nuclear sub is no match for a diesel sub with a misfit crew.

        The US Navy wouldn’t last a week

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least the original version of the movie was against the Russians

      You’re forgetting the real beef behind that invasion: Nicaragua.

    • Every time this movie comes up, I feel obligated to point out that despite being under occupation by China North Korea - Subway is somehow still open with uniformed staff and a well stocked sandwich bar, all while having dine-in customers for convenient ad placement..

      Ad placement that, get this: goes as far to even have the characters use the official ‘Sandwich Artist’ job title while robbing them ಠ_ಠ

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well how else do you justify maintaining defense spending at 5x the next biggest military? You need a boogeyman to keep the nation spending like WW2 never ended.

    Now I’m hearing there isn’t enough money for Medicare or social security…

    • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was just thinking that as I was reading this post. Yeah, so they’re not “right behind the US” in overall ability and preparedness, and NOW they’re drained financially and their populations morale is at a low point with the drafts and the prisoner-units, who else do we have all these guns for then? Who will be the next boogeyman, and have we already laid the groundwork to say it’s China?

      • sheogorath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The next boogeyman is definitely going to be China. But with their looming demography crisis, it’ll be quite unpredictable how’s the world geopolitical state going to be in 20-30 years. For all we know some country like India or Indonesia managed to solve their internal corruption and be a superpower.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Y’all seem to be forgetting the “axis of evil” — the justification conservatives used to double military industrial complex spending, the last time they faced cost cutting…

        Only a fool would disregard the formidable economic powerhouses of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea!

        TL;DR they have successfully manufactured boogeymen as needed. Realistic adversaries are unnecessary.

  • Dadifer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s important to have a powerful enemy, otherwise why would the US pay for an $800 billion per year military?

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is such a popular misconception I really don’t understand. Russia was so entirely dependant on the US for their logistics in WW2 it’s shocking how little it’s talked about. They were supplied American food and trucks in mass. Without the help of American supplies Hitler would of beaten Russia. Then once the Western front was more of a threat the Russians were able to surge forward with their mass of bodies and utter disregard for casualties.

      The Russian army has always been a joke. Brutality and lack of regard for human life is their strength. Theyre like the big dumb fat kid who bullies people in school. You get in a real fight with em and it quickly becomes obvious they haven’t ever done cardio (logistics, supplies) and there’s very little muscle mass (technology) hiding behind the fat layer (overblown specs and lies about capabilities).

        • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not reading material, but WWII In Color is an amazing documentary that covers the entire war, all fronts, all nations, and most major battles. It also covers the Holocaust and concentration camps, which is a horrific nightmare to see with your own eyes.

    • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The USSR that was massively propped up and kept in the fight thanks to the absurd volume of war materiel being pumped in by Britain and America?

      A general disregard for numbers of casualties, an almost complete lack of maintenance capability for heavy vehicles, and unimaginative tactics relying primarily on overwhelming numbers and firepower might have ground down the resource starved Nazis, but it would have been a very different story against the Allies.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Russians didn’t defeat the Nazis, they stopped their advance. While this was critical for the eventual defeat of the Nazis, it is not the same thing. The Nazis were defending against advances from Allied forces along 3 flanks, while stopped-dead against the 4th in Russia. The Russians also lost 1.5 million people in the battle for Lennongrad and were almost out of supplies. The wouldn’t budge because it was their absolute last stand. By the end of that battle Russian soldiers were reporting to the lines without weapons or boots, and picking up both from the guy in front of them when he was killed. It was a horrific nightmare of a situation. It was a critical victory against the Nazis, but not their ultimate defeat. The Nazis were defeated when the western forces advanced on Berlin and Hitler killed himself rather than be captured.

      • TaTTe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would like to make one correction. Berlin didn’t fall because the Western forces captured it, but it was in fact the Red Army that got there first. This of course doesn’t change the fact that the Soviets never would have managed it by themselves, but this is the reason why claiming “the Soviets defeated the Nazis” is technically true.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Yes it was. The USSR has very little in common with kleptocracy Russia. My wife was raised under their educational system and she was studying organic chemistry in the eight grade. Today she is one of the top people in her field (easily top ten) and she says that most of her career she’s mostly leaned on her early education. Especially math and science.

    • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is wild to see this. It’s amazing how quickly things change.

      Yeah, Russia was incredibly powerful in its heyday, both in global influence and military power. Think about how people are worried about climate change now, then double it. That was the threat of nuclear war that kept people awake at night for decades.

      After the time of the collapse we found out how empty a lot of their power was. How much of their achievements were less an unstoppable train and more of a rocket that couldn’t be refueled. They had power but they never figured out how to make it sustainable.

      • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How much of their achievements were less an unstoppable train and more of a rocket that couldn’t be refueled.

        Love the analogy. I’m aware they were and still are a threat from a nuclear perspective. I was just more curious about their ability to successfully mount a tactical battle strategy, logistics to supply said strategy, etc.

        • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          To a degree that was shown in the hot parts of the Cold War like the Vietnam War or the Congo Crisis where they provided logistical support. Like the US, or more accurately as a counter to them, they fiddled with countries for years to get outcomes that benefited the USSR ideology.

          You could argue that it’s easier to shake up someone else than lead a full invasion force, but the US has learned that lesson too and followed that same play book. Invasion is harder than giving someone the tools to destroy themselves.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In its heyday under Peter / Catherine the Great, depending on who you ask, Russia was a true world superpower. Richest royals, biggest population, massive food supply.

      In the 50s and 60s, if the nuclear deterrent hadn’t existed they could have taken over most of Europe through a combination of capture of democracy and invasion.

      Even after than, Russian hard-science education was extremely good (biology they got screwed by ideology).

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    On the other hand, it does make the player character in certain Modern Warfare/Battlefield single player campaigns mowing down Russian mooks by the dozens seem a bit more realistic 😅

  • freamon@endlesstalk.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s also surreal (for a different reason), to hear lines like

    Why attack Russia? Aren’t they our friends now?

    from Terminator 2.

  • oyenyaaow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Rewatching Stargate and international cooperation feels so strange and bereft somehow. A kinder path.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m old enough to remember when movies like ‘Firefox’ and ‘The Hunt For Red October’ first came out.

    The US was always miles ahead of the Soviets. It was so bad that during the Reagan Era the Right had to come up with a new metric that let the Reds look tougher than they were. “Throw weight” was the measure of how big a load an ICBM could carry. Because the Russians had inferior tech, they had to build bigger missiles. Kind of how a 1700’s musket had a higher caliber than an M-16. It was actually a symbol of soviet inferiority, but you’ll hear people talking about it to this day.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of this was apparent since Afghanistan at the very least. Probably says a lot more about the US and NATO trying to justify maintaining itself after the USSR collapsed than it does about Russia.