nanotuber

4 ms·

1.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Hey so the Trump Administration resumed military aid, as I said above.
2.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Dude you need to go outside and touch grass. Good luck.
3.
by nanotuber 2y ago
The countries and territories mentioned in the broader thread need much more than tactical nukes if they are going to seek nuclear deterrence. Russia invades Spain, Spain hits what exactly with a tactical nuke? Or are they nuking Catalina?
4.
by nanotuber 2y ago
I'll buy you a beer if any of these regions have a nuke in 10 years.
5.
by nanotuber 2y ago
So you've said that if you're proven wrong you won't change your mind? This is in general a bad strategy. Re: logical fallacies, I have no idea what you are talking about. You should be specific. I don't consider this a
6.
by nanotuber 2y ago
I am no bot. Dang can reach out to confirm etc. On the flip side, your comments have been incredibly disrespectful and flamewar-ish. You may not know me as a person, and may be paranoid about bots etc. But that does not mean you can mistrea
7.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Responding to what I thought the parent comment was saying. I'll buy you a beer if a new state (besides Iran) gets nuclear weapons in the next 10 years.
8.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Unless Europe steps in, or a peace is negotiated.
9.
by nanotuber 2y ago
I don't disagree. I definitely wouldn't want to be invested (or living) there. But the point is that "collapse" is very different from "spent a ton of money on stuff that got destroyed." The economic pain just
10.
by nanotuber 2y ago
I think you are spot on. In 2022 Russia was pushed back from several areas and debating whether it would commit to a wider war. I think there were some opportunities for negotiation in early 2023 even to get favorable terms. But yeah in 202
11.
by nanotuber 2y ago
If it happens come back and read and think about this thread again (read my other comments in it). :) Promise I'll do the same if it doesn't happen.
12.
by nanotuber 2y ago
ROK and Japan have formal legal treaties. Ukraine does not. This hasn't stopped ROK from thinking the Biden Administration wouldn't come to its aid if push came to shove. I see your point but the effect is going to be much, much l
13.
by nanotuber 2y ago
This is nuclear powered (long range) submarines.
14.
by nanotuber 2y ago
For sure this is destabilizing to the security of the region. One war at a time though. Hard choices? There are so many. One is that Russia had to deploy a large number of air defense systems to the Finnish border, and as a result didn&#x27
15.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Any developed nation _with a well developed nuclear energy industry_ would be able to build a bomb with years of effort. There's a lot that goes into a bomb beyond refining (e.g. miniturization of warhead). And to deploy the bomb a ton
16.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Yes. And in fact the Trump Administration may boost military aid to Ukraine in the future still. This was mentioned in the above thread: "A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is another, much less likely alternative. The idea
17.
by nanotuber 2y ago
The deeper reason is that the Baltics are in a security conundrum. Russia is inherently insecure, and Europe doesn't know where Europe ends. For security - let's compare the Russian Federation and the US. Russia is the largest cou
18.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Certainly Russia's economy has difficulties. It has inflation roughly 9-10% and (dangerously low) unemployment around 1%. Russia's Central Bank key rate needs to be extremely high to fight its inflation because it is not as primar
19.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Comments are disappointing for hacker news standard. This pause was predictable (I predicted it in Nov 2024). It's negotiation leverage to steer toward an immediate resolution of the war. An immediate resolution of the war cuts losses:
20.
by nanotuber 2y ago
It's a negotiation tactic. It's trying to force Ukraine's hand to come to negotiations. That's adherent to many Trump policies: - Force a resolution of the conflict - Get Europe to pay for its own security - Focus on Ira
21.
by nanotuber 2y ago
That's a good point. Both the ROK and Japan though are cases where the US "pivoting to Asia" from Europe would make them less, not more, likely to pursue such a breakout. And in both cases, their incentives has existed prior
22.
by nanotuber 2y ago
The implication is that nuclear proliferation is linked to the US pausing Ukraine aid. That's a gross mischaracterization. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that Ukraine won't end up with nukes.
23.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Disagree with the implication here and expect the opposite. Ukraine peace (even an imperfect one) allows the US and Russia to work together to prevent Iran from getting a nuke. Ukraine won't get nukes in either scenario. An ongoing war
24.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Note: Tesla does get the $7500 and gets it immediately, from the customer, who is then reimbursed later by the US government. If you check Tesla's website they count on this: they advertise Tesla prices after the rebate, even though th
25.
by nanotuber 2y ago
A BYD buyer would not get $7500 from the US government. It is not a qualified manufacturer, which are companies from the US and allies (Germany, Japan): https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04012024/inside-clean-ene.
26.
by nanotuber 2y ago
Hmm. I appreciate the response but it does not address my concern. The reason is I'm trying to quantify the subsidization. I think what you are trying to articulate is that a $1k subsidy (in the form of a corporate credit card analogy)
27.
by nanotuber 2y ago
The subsidies are a different structure, but they each allow the companies to sell a more expensive car for a lower price - which is the global competition we're discussing. The billions in funding (~2) for BYD is what I was discussin
28.
by nanotuber 2y ago
I was looking into this the other day. China's subsidies for BYD amounted to approximately a $1k subsidy per electric vehicle (not counting battery subsidy, looking for numbers). America subsidizes electric vehicles up to $7.5k per ele