Just a moment...
peoplesdispatch.org

On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg

    • mx_smith@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      6 days ago

      Some of those have been decommissioned. I know for sure the first one in the second column has, as I was stationed in that one.

      • mitchty@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        And the bonhomme Richard basically got arsoned in port. The enterprise is definitely out of it since 2017, this graphics full of bs.

          • mitchty@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            5 days ago

            None I could find, spraypaint those 3 out at least >.< I’ve no idea on the other countries accuracy my bet is that graphic is pre 2017 at the least cause the enterprise was decommissioned that year.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
        2·
        6 days ago

        I’m sure it’s a bit out of date.

        Even so, the reality is that the US can afford to staff, deploy, and supply, multiple carrier battle groups far away from home. Nobody else can. The US Navy has a credible chance of taking on the entire rest of the world’s navies combined.

    • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      6 days ago

      The US also has about 750 military bases (not including black sites) scattered across 80 countries around the world

    • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 days ago

      This is somewhat misleading. It’s not like US can deploy a massive fleet of carriers that overwhelms most of the worlds militaries. This is so US can maintain a presence, a mobile base, in parts of the world it seems important. Full time. This is just a carrier in each ocean, even during maintenance cycles.

      A big difference is most of these other countries are not trying to project power far away, just defend their turf. For example does the number of carriers China has really matter? The contention is us carriers and bases in Asia vs all of China.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
        2·
        4 days ago

        Oh definitely, they can’t all be deployed at once - but the ability to rotate them out means a sustained presence that nobody else can achieve. And the point is really more about the organization structure that supports those carriers and their accompanying battle groups - the US can control any part of the ocean anywhere in the world, for as long as they want. That kind of force projection is hard to compete with.

    • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
      8·
      6 days ago

      There is more countries with CVs than i thought. Also Brazil and Thailand? I wasn’t aware they had any sizeable navy to begin with.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
        1·
        6 days ago

        Yes, although having the ship is only part of it. What the diagram can’t really show is that the US also has a global logistics system which supplies the carriers and their accompanying battle groups when they deploy to other side of the planet. That system has been decades in the making, it’s not something you can just buy, it requires a crazy amount of planning and organization.

        I doubt the US could deploy every carrier effectively, but it can certainly put multiple battle groups at sea simultaneously and keep them there for a long time.