201–210 of 540 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground It doesn’t matter what the reason, if you can’t do something you can’t do it.
I'm not interested in a lengthy semantic debate about what "can" means but I'd hope we could agree at least one possible interpretation includes things you're unwilling but able to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't really accurate, small drones are enough to antagonize regional neighbors. They are far from being able to project influence, stabilize international trade, or even remotely protect a territory from an enemy that isn't concerned with civilian casualties.
How not? Precision kills with 0 warning. You can just bring one on a plane to whatever country and have the thing charge with solar/powerlines until your target is getting coffee outside on a nice day. Or whatever.
But I am sure of who I wouldn't put in charge of critical military operations.
Just to be clear I am against this as well, just the journalism is so filthy now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> last major source of instability in the region. Are you forgetting the bad neighbor that keeps attacking most of its other neighbors, even while under ceasefire agreements? And then moving onto the land and saying "this is ours, time to redraw the border again.". Because that, to me, screams instability.
What really puts all of this into perspective for me is I work in academia and one of my friends works for a defense contractor. He told me the maintenance cost per flight hour of F-35 was a bit more than $40k, which is significantly more than I make in a year as a grad student. It's crazy basic science is what's been the focus of so many cuts while it's so cheap.
How many million graduate students do you need to give the US the military hegemony and political influence over allies and adversaries that the F-35 program provides ? Looked at from a policy maker's viewpoint, things look very different.
All of tech traces its roots to American academia.
American tech enthralls more of humanity than American military has ever fought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not interested in a lengthy semantic debate about what "can" means but I'd hope we could agree at least one possible interpretation includes things you're unwilling but able to do.
Generously, what difference does it make to any person if you technically achieve some result but in practice are not able to realize that end state?
Because personally, I'd still take Lebron on a basketball team even if he wasn't willing to dunk the ball that one time.
Article seems a bit biased. Similarly like some other ones where he cut research funding to then later resume it, with almost no significant loss, but the Democrats cried about it all over like if funding was completely stopped. They always tell one side of the story that fits the narrative. Just to be clear I am against this as well, just the journalism is so filthy now.
Congrats, the funding came back that time; but jobs were already cut, people already got deported whose college time depended on it, the professor got axed because the college couldn’t afford it anymore, etc.
Stability is worth its weight in gold in some areas. This isn’t that.
Article seems a bit biased. Similarly like some other ones where he cut research funding to then later resume it, with almost no significant loss, but the Democrats cried about it all over like if funding was completely stopped. They always tell one side of the story that fits the narrative. Just to be clear I am against this as well, just the journalism is so filthy now.