stoltzmann

8 ms·

61.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
NATO does have to at least keep parity with Russia. Russia is the number one threat in the region, and NATO was made specifically for this purpose. Without adequate weapons to ensure peace, there would be no point of the alliance. Nuclear w
62.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
The poster you've replied to said >NATO does not need nuclear deterrence again Russia's conventional weapons NATO has more than enough capabilities to destroy Russia's conventional weaponry, but as Russia has nuclear weapo
63.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Russian expansion does indeed mean dead people. It means constant suffering, political oppression (including killing opponents or forcibly relocating them), destruction of economy and the death of culture.
64.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
And that's why countries have to consider all of their neighbors when deciding on their foreign policy. There was a lot of bad blood for example against Germany, but since we have a very good economic partnership with them, there is no
65.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Russia has been invading it's neighbors for centuries. Eastern Europeans do remember that. Joining NATO is not only about the conflict today, it's due to pretty much all generations in the area suffering due to their aggressive ne
66.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
If Cuba decides to align itself with the USSR, then it has the right to do so. Same as Ukraine has the right to align with the West rather than Russia. >There should be no countries aligned with the US military within a very wide margin
67.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
The US has not been marching NATO towards Russia. It's ex-eastern bloc countries willingly joining the alliance to be protected from Russian aggression. If Russia did not have a long history of invading their neighbors, there would be
68.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
From the article: >Now, as a reminder - I own two speakers - both speakers have had their performance nerfed by this firmware update. So even not counting everybody else on the internet with the same issue, I find it quite unlikely that
69.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
>There was an incident once where a primitive ai system misidentified some birds as a nuclear launch. A submarine captain was supposed to launch missiles vs the United States, which would have ended the entire world. He decided not to. I
70.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
The war in Ukraine is extremely clear. One country attacked another in an attempt to overthrow their government and incorporate them into the Soviet Union 2.0. There is one side that is the clear aggressor that's killing civilians, a
71.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
I don't quite see your point here. Russians were killing Ukrainian civilians in territory they attacked and occupied, and presumably this is still happening on the territory they still hold. I definitely count that as genocide, I don&#
72.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
This is literally a copy of the Wikipedia article you listed earlier and it does not support your accusations. Do you have any sources that support any of your other claims?
73.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Do you have any sources for your current claims? What you're saying in the first paragraph goes against what you linked earlier.
74.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
That does not prove your accusation that CIA was meddling in countries that willingly asked to join NATO because they did not want to get invaded by Russia. Also, you're mischaracterizing the purpose of Operation Gladio.
75.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Do you have a single fact to back up your accusation of CIA meddling with NATO membership? Your link does not prove that. Also, you have not provided any sources on the dismissal of reasons for joining NATO. Please do link to them if you ha
76.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
The issue with kicking out members is that it starts a precedent. The idea is that NATO got your back if you're in, you won't get kicked out if your membership starts being inconvenient, and that the other members will act when Ar
77.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Do you have a single fact to back up your accusation of CIA meddling with NATO membership? The truth is, that countries want to join NATO so that Russia does not invade them. That's the sole reason.
78.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
There is a significant difference between Russian soldiers killing civilian population, and Ukrainian soldiers destroying enemy tanks that are invading their country. One is a despicable war crime, and the other one is a heroic act of defen
79.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
From anecdotal evidence, I've got the same pair of sneakers for... 4 years now I think? I'm using them daily and yeah, they've got dirty on the bottom, but I wouldn't consider throwing them out just due to that. I'l
80.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Can you elaborate what you consider the problem to be?
81.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
I'll bite the bait. Do you have any sources that would cover your interpretation of events? To the best of my knowledge, the crisis in 80s Romania was due to similar causes as in other communist countries of the period - the economy wa
82.
by stoltzmann 4y ago
Polls done in the 90s in the Eastern European countries provide a picture contrary to what you're claiming here. As an example - Poland (my home country), https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2022/K_040_22.PDF - 6
83.
by stoltzmann 5y ago
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. It didn't sound right to me that there would be so many turbo-charged piston aircraft, but if we add the high-compression engines then the fuel usage would definitely follow the Pareto prin
84.
by stoltzmann 5y ago
That'd make sense - I'm just wondering how many of those would be in use today. From my limited experience with skydiving operators, I've seen only smaller dropzones run piston planes that take avgas (i.e. C182), or turboprop
85.
by stoltzmann 5y ago
>The aircraft with high-powered turbo-charged engines represent around 25% of the engines. Because of their higher utilization, those engines burn around 75% of the avgas purchased in a year. Wouldn't turbo-charged engines burn jet