Humanities desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 22

US / UK tanks to Ukraine

To begin with, I'm asking this as a German (with a Polish mother and an American Jewish father of Ukrainian heritage): My mendacious government has been claiming for months now it cannot send the German "Leopard" battle tanks as well as "Marder" IFVs long-desired by Ukraine, as none of its allies has done similarly so far in terms of providing Western battle tanks. However, it's a fact, for instance, that Poland has provided more than 200 T-72 battle tanks modernized and adapted to NATO standards to Ukraine.

Hence, I tried to find a rationale why the US and UK as well are still reluctant to provide their tanks to Ukraine – although e. g. the US embassy in Germany recently tweeted in this context that every ally is free to choose the kind of assistance to Ukraine, a hint which is currently under hot discussion in Germany. However, I was unable to find a single article tackling the issue of providing ~~"Anglo-Saxon"~~ US / UK battle tanks.

Therefore I'm asking: Why is this obviously not at all discussed in the Anglo-Saxon world, considering that delivering US or UK tanks to Ukraine would make a huge difference as to ending that goddam war, and also would debunk the said spurious German line of argument for non-delivery, thus probably prompting the lame, lily-livered Huns to finally follow suit (the US / UK governments surely know that the Germans are scaredy-cats in military terms not least due to their ignominious history)? Hildeoc (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I may venture to add an appeal in these abnormal days: Please do talk about this issue to as many people as you can – as this may once get things going to definitively end that senseless, barbarian bloodshed and destruction ...--Hildeoc (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ever simple reasons for the choices made by government leadership? I don't think I know enough about the invasion of Ukraine (or about the foreign policies of NATO members) to offer a solid explanation for this decision. Here is one guess I can offer: So far, the military materiel provided to Ukraine has been for the implicit purpose of defense against Russian invasion. Now, however, Ukraine is undertaking a counteroffensive, which has been highly successful; it could become more successful still should strong support (in the form of a shipment of modern MBTs) be thrown behind it. It may be that the big sticks in NATO are wary of sending military aid for an implicitly offensive (even if counteroffensive) purpose, for various reasons of both foreign and domestic policy. Shells-shells (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc -- The word "Anglo-Saxon" in the way that you used it is actually a kind of calque on a French-language meaning. Many people in the United States would have little idea what you were talking about... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Thanks for pointing this out. However, confer e.g. the definition here (at section in American English): 10. English-speaking; British or American. But I've now changed it anyway. Best, Hildeoc (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no military experience, but tanks are not cars. You can't just hop in an unfamiliar one and just drive to the front. It's probably very, very, very difficult to transition from Russian tanks to American. Also, the maintenance issues are immense. You have to set up a whole new infrastructure and train mechanics to keep tanks running (and tanks need a LOT of maintenance). When you're fighting for your national life, you don't have the time and resources to do that. Better to get whatever Russian tanks ex-Warsaw Pact countries are willing to donate, like the Polish T-72s you mentioned (as well as the ones the Russians leave laying around when they are advancing hurriedly to the rear). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Well, to tell the truth, this is exactly what they've been telling us here with regard to Panzerhaubitze 2000 as well as Flakpanzer Gepard (both being said to be like some of the most sophisticated [German] combat vehicles there are) for months as well – and now? The Ukrainians have been handling both remarkably well already in the past weeks ... Hildeoc (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyiv government has been requesting Leopards and Marders (as well as Pumas, Boxers and Fuchses) for many months. A plan to send 100 Marders was blocked by Scholz in April, the stated reason being, reportedly, that Germany needs them for its own defense.^[1] This was well before the recent success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. On would think that Ukraine accounted for the cost of training and maintenance in calculating the balance. --Lambiam 11:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to later news, Germany dispatched 50 Leopards and 60 Marders to Ukraine later in April.^[2] --Lambiam 11:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: NOPE. That's definitely fake news! Also, I'm afraid I didn't quite get the point of your last post. What were you trying to say regarding the provision of Western MBTs? Hildeoc (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make three points. One: that Scholz earlier came up (if the reporting by Politico is correct) with a very different excuse than his latest one of the necessity of coordination with NATO and the EU. Two and three: that the issues of the Ukrainian counteroffensive and of training and maintenance (now struck out) can hardly have played a role in the reluctance. --Lambiam 13:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I got it. Thank you. Of course, you are totally right: Scholz is indeed a nasty little liar, and the official excuses for his inaction in this respect seem to change with his underwear. (Sorry for being polemical at this point, but this man's shifty demeanor really keeps driving me up the wall. His prevarications actually at times remind me very much of Putin's rhetorical games and distortion of facts.) Hildeoc (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc, please be aware that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia including the reference desks. You are not permitted to describe Scholz or anyone else in such terms. Consider this a warning. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US may give Ukraine tanks in the future, senior US military official says (CNN - 19 September)

Tanks are “absolutely on the table” for the US to provide to Ukraine in the future, according to a senior US military official, but are not an option for the immediate fight because of issues with training, maintenance and sustainment.

If that training is already underway, they are unlikely to advertise it. It is worth pointing out that the unique propulsion of the M1 Abrams is a gas turbine (basically a helicopter engine), which famously requires a massive support infrastucture. In the field it is relatively easy to swap engines, but then the used one has to be refurbished in a rear area. Facts M1 Abrams tank revealed

In the case of the UK, they have a much smaller tank force. Only 386 Challenger 2 tanks were built, with 227 now in service. Production of new tanks ended in 2002. If NATO does get dragged into a full-scale European war, they're going to need all of them. Alansplodge (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect (but can't confirm) that the out-of-service Challengers are earmarked for the upgrade to Challenger 3, otherwise the front-line strength would be degraded during this process. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: First of all, thank you so much for your profound information. Now, does "Production of new tanks ended in 2002" mean that no new models were developed, or, in fact, no more units (of the existing types) were built at all? And does that apply to both US and UK? Hildeoc (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC) I just saw that was indeed only referring to the Challengers.--Hildeoc (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Britain's last tank factory, ROF Leeds, closed in 2004 after some further Challengers had been built for Oman. It is now a housing estate. The plan to upgrade the Challenger hulls (by a German company) was the only alternative to buying foreign tanks. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot gummy dispensary-church-cult in Palm Springs

I heard there is one that is registered as a church in Arkansas, but operates in the Coachella Valley. It's a marijuana related religion used as a front to avoid licensing laws. They specialized in cannagummies. What is it called and where is it? 2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a growing problem [3], Coachella Valley Church. 78.141.40.98 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some would call it a solution, rather than a problem. —Tamfang (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which one is "not" a problem in Palm Springs area? 2600:1700:C440:95C0:C9B6:6E7B:E37B:D917 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe there is another one but the one I am asking about is located in the vicinity of Palm Springs' Coachella Valley, do you know of one there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.26.173 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Magical Papyri

Has a complete transcription of the original ancient text of the PGM ever been published?-The Traditionalist (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the bibliography of the article you cited, there are a number of avenues for you to pursue. It is likely one of those contains the transcriptions you seek. --Jayron 32 14:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Obviously. But I don't have access to most of the titles, so that's why I ask if anyone knows.-The Traditionalist (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passport expiry date travel?

Suppose a person has a passport that with "Date of Expiry" identified as 15 April. Is it still possible to use the document on the 15th until midnight, or is it invalid from midnight between 14th and 15th? (I know many countries have minimum 6 months validity or similar for entry rules, but that's not the question here) --Soman (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with so many other questions relating to “The Law”… I doubt that there is one single answer, and that “it depends on the country”. I suspect that some countries will say the passport is valid through the expiration date, while others will say it is valid until the expiration date, and yet others have never defined it. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in which time zones, that of the issuing office or that of a country where one is seeking entrance? So many questions, so few answers... Some credit cards have the text "Valid thru",^[4] which (as I interpret it) means it remains valid throughout that date. Others have "Expiration date",^[5] which I take to mean just the same as "Valid thru". --Lambiam 08:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard advice given to travelers is not to travel with passports that will expire in less than six months [6] [7], as many countries will not grant entrance to persons bearing them (the exact minimum period of validity varies from country to country). So the problem is likely to arise well before the clock strikes midnight on the fateful day. Xuxl (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majesty vs. Royal Highness

Inspired by a previous question here, I was curious about why in the United Kingdom, only the reigning monarch is addressed as His/Her Majesty and other royals as His/Her Royal Highness. Surely all royals are majestic and royally high? JIP | Talk 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Majesty and Royal Highness#United Kingdom may help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One could equally wonder whether only popes are holy, only cardinals are eminent etc. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molies are also holy. --Lambiam 07:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, Camilla is also Her Majesty The Queen Consort -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 10:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because, through a combination of historical precedent, and someone just kinda deciding it should be so, rules of protocol were developed and laid out and they just are. Protocol are not determined by the laws of the universe, and are mostly arbitrary rules that just exist. They could have been literally anything. They are what they are. --Jayron 32 11:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More interesting to me is why Serene Highness and Illustrious Highness are lower than plain Highness! —Tamfang (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's always Serene Highness. Why never Anxious Highness? --Jayron 32 17:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highnesses only become anxious when there is a serious concern of them being forced out of being Highnesses. You know, revolutions and guillotines and such. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity now, anxiety later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]