181–190 of 218 posts
I'm far from an expert but given the timeliness and complexity of 5th generation fighters I'm sceptical this could be operational by 2035 unless there have already been significant work or it's more of an iterative generation.
If past is an indicator, it might take upto 30 years for it to be operational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As another European, I am in favor of aligning ourselves in a mutually beneficial economic exchange with Russia and China, which causes interdependence and a diminishing risk of military conflict. Putin, repeatedly, has been shown to be a reliable, and predictable partner - something we cannot really claim about the US, and increasingly less so in recent years.
Putin has not shown to be an reliable ally. The annexation of Crimea and the ongoing hybrid war in east Ukraine is one such example. Putin does not want a strong independent ally next to Russia. He either wants puppet states such as Belarus as allies or a weak and fractured European union. For all the faults the US have they are still better allies than Russia by several lightyears.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd assume Linus has much better quality of life than Gates or Ellison. He's pretty well off, but doesn't have to suffer from recognazibility and billionaire problems.
> suffer from recognazibility and billionaire problems It's a mistake to assume that all people are socially anxious just because one is posting on HN or reddit. Recognazibility is lit and so are billionaire problems (btw what billionaire problems? Failing to win the America's Cup? G650ER mantainance fee?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't a linear relationship here. If our militaries were 50% weaker, we'd have thought twice before iraq 2 and we wouldn't be rattling the sabre at iran would we? So right now, for the US and allies, more preparing for war means more (pointless, wasteful) wars...
Taiwan would be gone, Korea unified under Kim Jong Un. The soviet union would not have fallen. The world would be radically different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> suffer from recognazibility and billionaire problems It's a mistake to assume that all people are socially anxious just because one is posting on HN or reddit. Recognazibility is lit and so are billionaire problems (btw what billionaire problems? Failing to win the America's Cup? G650ER mantainance fee?)
Having your children abducted and held for ransom. People wanting to kill you because they think you put microchips in their bodies through a vaccine. Not knowing if people you meet are just trying to extract money or publicity from you.
The last "problem" honestly it's more of a compliment , and besides a billionaire's pockets are so deep that the extraction of money via social interactions are small leaks which are not only acceptable but should be again taken as a compliment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taiwan would be gone, Korea unified under Kim Jong Un. The soviet union would not have fallen. The world would be radically different.
Would the US actually get into a major conflict with China over Taiwan? I could see a skirmish, but Ukraine has made it clear that the US will not defend its (non-NATO) allies in the face of full scale warfare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>do we mean that no-one is going to bomb or shoot people in the UK or Ireland to attempt to achieve a political objective No, that's not what we mean. War between the UK and the RoI, the actual states involved, is in fact pretty unthinkable.
The RoI did make plans to invade the north in the 60s.
Second, I think thats misleading. The Irish military did scenario analysis on this in case they were asked, and concluded it was hopeless, if that's what you mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know there is no handbook for peace What does peace look like to you? Do people just stop fighting and start loving their neighbours? You mentioned Jerusalem. I'm Israeli, so I'm biased towards one side of the Jerusalem story but let me try to frame the other side of the story as to not play my biases. I probably won't be accurate because my propaganda is different from their propaganda. And I won't reply because…
> What does peace look like to you? Peace is what the United States has had with Vietnam since 1975. How can we understand that, when the reason for going to war, at the cost of 58,000 American lives, was that without an intervention, the domino theory predicted that the world order would inevitably collapse? It didn't. Vietnam, notwithstanding the pandemic, is a tourist destination where 18 year old American kids ha…
Also the Communists were quite open about their plans for world domination.
War is in part an expression of technological competitive advantage. Nth generation weaponry is expensive because technology requires the best minds, materials, and facilities that money can buy. But what if for the same money, or less, we could buy something even better? How much does peace cost? Has anybody ever costed it? For example, what could $2 trillion have bought in Iraq, Portland, or Jerusalem if it had bee…
> I know there is no handbook for peace What does peace look like to you? Do people just stop fighting and start loving their neighbours? You mentioned Jerusalem. I'm Israeli, so I'm biased towards one side of the Jerusalem story but let me try to frame the other side of the story as to not play my biases. I probably won't be accurate because my propaganda is different from their propaganda. And I won't reply because…
Favorited!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's not like nobody has ever thought of that before. The best we've been able to do is deterrence, which requires developing advanced weapons like aircraft carriers, stealth fighters and nukes. I know this isn't what you had in mind, but the world is about to find out what it's like to not have superpowers interfering in their affairs. The US doesn't really have any need for troops abroad: the Cold War is over…
Yankees truly defy parody... > there are going to be a lot more disruptions without the US military to stabilize things Or, you know... there are going to be a lot fewer disruptions without the US military to destabilize things
- Japan and Korea were historically enemies. But they've been at peace since WWII, mainly because both have US troops stationed there. Any time tensions flare up, the US does a little diplomacy and they make nice. That will probably continue for a while, even without US troops because both countries value the alliance with the US and don't want to be dominated by China.
- With the US withdrawing from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is arming its self and allying with Israel (!) to deal with the threat from Iran. Iran, meanwhile is emboldened to attack Saudi oil fields and threaten shipping through the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile Yemen has destabilized, leaving Saudi Arabi to worry about whether it will be able to get access to the Arabian Sea. Hard to predict how this shakes out, but I can't see it being peaceful and stable.
- As soon as the US showed signs of disinterest in Europe, Russia annexed Crimea. With that experiment having been successful, they'll be looking for more opportunities to take back bits of the USSR. Now Europe is arming up to protect themselves from that threat. The catch is that Europe needs oil and natural gas, and that's mainly coming from Russia right now. We may see internal conflict in Europe over whether to be friendlier to Russia to secure that supply, and perhaps increased European presence in the Middle East. Either way, stability in that part of the world has decreased without US willingness to commit troops and money to maintaining it.