zephyreks @ zephyreks @lemmy.ca

Posts

8

Comments

635

Joined

2 yr. ago

Our other options included no such terms, and, frankly, the F-35's stealth capability is much more important in offensive theatres than defensive ones where multiple overlapping radar frequencies are both feasible and already exist and active countermeasures can be freely used without fear of detection.

Canada's military is defensive in nature and it's primarily focused on patrolling the Arctic. For that purpose, the F-35's range and payload make it rather... unideal.

The Gripen was an option better suited for protecting Canada, while the F-35 was a better option for if we wanted to project power abroad in support of the US.

Canada has its priorities all out of whack.

Haha ok fair

The US hasn't even made an indication that they disapprove of India's actions. There's no pretext for sanctions.

He wasn't killed on American soil.

When did Russia do the same?

That's a fair assumption if the US didn't have almost complete access to our investigation. They do, so they know everything we know and they know the Canadian position.

They're our ally and they're intricately tied to our security apparatus. They should be standing up for us and, at the very least, making a statement condemning "general assassinations that violate the territorial sovereignty of other countries" or some shit.

So... What leverage does Ukraine have to make that happen?

That's not the point. The point is whether Ukraine's peace plan makes sense in the context of the current situation in Ukraine. It doesn't, and frankly it's an indication that Ukraine really doesn't want peace right now because they dont think they have the leverage to demand a fair peace.

China is still leading in solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro deployment...

I'm sure China would be happy to harness geothermal too, but they don't really have dense geothermal capacity to exploit.

Isn't that less efficient because of motor losses, drag, etc? It's also heavily dependent on geography.

Because on a per-capita basis, you still outpollute China by a factor of at least 2?

Because unlike China, your government moves incredibly slowly and needs more momentum to actually accomplish change?

Most of China's increased electricity demand is to bring poor people who are currently farming in rural fields into urban jobs within big cities. It's to help meet the growing demand of a population that currently has:

1. 296 cars/1000p (US: 908/1000p)
2. 73.7% Internet connectivity (US: 92%)
3. Limited heating capacity because of very little natural gas supply (US: this basically isn't a problem because the US has infinite gas reserves)
4. Rolling blackouts in the summer because of AC use since China and other countries that make up the Global South have been disproportionately affected by climate change (US: this isn't really a problem)

But yes, please feel free to blame the rich... but please don't ignore the fact that you ARE the rich.

Dude isn't wrong: fossil fuels are just really good for a bunch of industrial operations. Doesn't stop China from leading the world in the manufacture and deployment of solar panels, manufacture and deployment of wind turbines, development and deployment of nuclear power plants, development and deployment of hydroelectric power plants...

Fun fact: The Moscow Times is majority-owned by a Chinese businessman.

Sounds like you're pro-vigilantism to me.

China doesn't actually want a war, nor do they want to give any indication that they want to escalate tensions.

China stands the most to gain in a peaceful world order where they never have to use their military. Their military doctrine is defensive in nature, as is their nuclear doctrine (which, contrary to US/Russian policy, explicitly prohibits first-strike capability).

With a peaceful world order, relations with Taiwan can be normalized and the economy can continue to grow without impediment. Without the threat of encirclement and invasion, China doesn't have much means to justify their military budget (given that they are already regionally superior and have no real global power projection capability) and would see much more domestic backlash to their rapidly expanding military. China's core domestic geographical goals are to secure a more robust supply of O&G, secure the Himalayas as their southern border against potential Indian aggression, and prevent Xinjiang from devolving into a humanitarian crisis as it tries to integrate the (previously) predominantly rural Xinjiang population into the urbanized world that China has created.

When US-China relations were better back in 2018, the US even helped Chinese interests by striking ETIM training camps near the border between China and Afghanistan.

Where are you getting this saying from lol

Vietnam's asking for a US arms deal so that they can get leverage on their Russian arms deal...

Vietnam hasn't exactly had the best recent history with the US, after all. They've also shown a really strong capability for asymmetric warfare, so I doubt they're that concerned about self-defence with advanced technologies either, particularly when those technologies were designed under the assumptions of an offensive war against Russia and/or China.

Ah yes, because the Dui Hua Foundation is so reliable.