4 ms·

I don't think this post applies much critical considerations on the reality we live in. Just pulling some of the examples at the start of the article and giving

I don't think this post applies much critical considerations on the reality we live in. Just pulling some of the examples at the start of the article and giving an alternative interpretation: > Helsing has a contract making German Eurofighters able to detect radar lock-on (which indicates the aircraft may be being targeted by AAW, Anti Aircraft Warfare). This could help make German Eurofighters more “survivable”, which includes the ones that carry Nuclear Weapons for deterrence. They argue this helps ensure German nuclear deterrence isn’t nullified by AAW, ensuring peace. Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German. Perhaps this German fighter was destroying an unoccupied bridge to stop the advance of enemy troops that were about to kill and rape a village of citizens. Does this now make the plane "good" and no longer "evil"? > Autonomous drone flight control systems for Ukraine, including “GPS Denied” option (navigating while GPS is being jammed). It was impossible to confirm IRL whether or not this is purely reconnaissance or navigating and dropping payloads on targets. However, it is likely part of a kill chain, as even SIGINT will likely be used for e.g. artillery fire. Perhaps this will also be used by the civilian aviation industry which currently suffers the same GPS interference. Would the author prefer a precise artillery strike that disables an opponent or imprecise artillery that may destroy kilometres of land and housing and ancillary buildings (and potentially innocent lives)?

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
> Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German... Correct, but some of them are part of the so called 'Nukleare Teilhabe', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing , meaning we are not only entitled, but even mandated to shoot us into our own foot with them, just in case... Which was the case since the days of the F-104G Starfigther, F-4F Phantom, MRCA/Panavia Tornado, and is now with the Eurofigther. Which was also the point of controversy from several points of view. For one, the range of the aircrafts, loaded with these free-falling 'firecrackers'. (See shooting into our own foot abvove... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb ) For another, the unwillingness(for some time, got resolved) of the USA to make sure the avionics of the Eurofighter get the necessary codes for integration. "Nice plane you got there, but wouldn't you rather wanna buy the superior F35?" (To shoot yourself into your own foot with our own firecrackers, just in case?)

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

> Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German... Correct, but some of them are part of the so called 'Nukleare Teilhabe', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing , meaning we are not only entitled, but even mandated to shoot us into our own foot with them, just in case... Which was the case since the days of the F-104G Starfigther, F-4F Phantom, MRCA/Panavia Tornado, and is now with the Eurofigther. Which was also the point of controversy from several points of view. For one, the range of the aircrafts, loaded with these free-falling 'firecrackers'. (See shooting into our own foot abvove... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb ) For another, the unwillingness(for some time, got resolved) of the USA to make sure the avionics of the Eurofighter get the necessary codes for integration. "Nice plane you got there, but wouldn't you rather wanna buy the superior F35?" (To shoot yourself into your own foot with our own firecrackers, just in case?)