3 ms·

the goal is to make a war unpalatable to the us public. this is not very difficult to do, since the us public doesn't like it when their own soldiers die. havin

the goal is to make a war unpalatable to the us public. this is not very difficult to do, since the us public doesn't like it when their own soldiers die. having fighter jets that can be remotely shut down by the us makes it a great deal more difficult.

bulbar 8mo ago
US citizen also not used to having war at their front door. I assume that would make a great difference. But what the duck are people (including me) even discussing here? Within a year it has come so far that the US government alienated one of their most important allies and people discussing the possibility of a war against them.
- wakawaka28 8mo ago
  I think this could be a scheme to get other countries to start paying for their own defense more, instead of relying on the US to do it. It is perhaps rude or undiplomatic, but it's supposed to be a kick in the ass. I remember Trump talking to EU leaders years ago to explain this to them, and nothing changed. Maybe now they got the message.
  - youngtaff 8mo ago
    And perhaps the US should start paying for it’s own debt instead of relying on the rest of the world to support it?
    - wakawaka28 8mo ago
      I agree! But I think bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion. Our financial situation over decades, facilitated by the rest of the world, has destroyed most industry in the US because nobody can afford to compete with foreigners while getting paid in "strong" fiat dollars. I expect it to end in disaster. The US needs to rebuild industry and eat its own dog food product-wise, but that will be difficult to get back to.
jgwil2 8mo ago
If any weapon can be remotely shut down by anyone, that should be a deal breaker. But is there any evidence that is the case?
- wakawaka28 8mo ago
  How the hell would anyone know? You think they ship detailed plans and schematics to 3rd parties? Even the US government can hardly get those things from the manufacturer in general. Are we to believe that governments that want to backdoor your phone and every other personal device, would not put backdoors into equipment sold to foreign nations?
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]

bulbar 8mo ago

US citizen also not used to having war at their front door. I assume that would make a great difference. But what the duck are people (including me) even discussing here? Within a year it has come so far that the US government alienated one of their most important allies and people discussing the possibility of a war against them.

wakawaka28 8mo ago
I think this could be a scheme to get other countries to start paying for their own defense more, instead of relying on the US to do it. It is perhaps rude or undiplomatic, but it's supposed to be a kick in the ass. I remember Trump talking to EU leaders years ago to explain this to them, and nothing changed. Maybe now they got the message.
- youngtaff 8mo ago
  And perhaps the US should start paying for it’s own debt instead of relying on the rest of the world to support it?
  - wakawaka28 8mo ago
    I agree! But I think bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion. Our financial situation over decades, facilitated by the rest of the world, has destroyed most industry in the US because nobody can afford to compete with foreigners while getting paid in "strong" fiat dollars. I expect it to end in disaster. The US needs to rebuild industry and eat its own dog food product-wise, but that will be difficult to get back to.

jgwil2 8mo ago

If any weapon can be remotely shut down by anyone, that should be a deal breaker. But is there any evidence that is the case?

wakawaka28 8mo ago
How the hell would anyone know? You think they ship detailed plans and schematics to 3rd parties? Even the US government can hardly get those things from the manufacturer in general. Are we to believe that governments that want to backdoor your phone and every other personal device, would not put backdoors into equipment sold to foreign nations?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]