tsotha

24 ms·

211.
by tsotha 11y ago
>But you must realize that during such a war, the maximum economy possible in the US would be whatever can work without international trade, which would be comparable to 1900 or so. So every country except the US is involved in this hypo
212.
by tsotha 11y ago
Those troops aren't there to fight. They're there to die so we have a justification to get involved in a war. The 40k US ground troops in Germany will have very little effect in a European war involving any of the major powers.
213.
by tsotha 11y ago
>The EU crumbles. France and England have some very Polandesque choices to make. Scandinavia goes to war which, historically, can be rather frightening. The economic side would be devastating for the US economy. Many US citizens would ge
214.
by tsotha 11y ago
>There is this treaty we signed in 1949 called the North Atlantic Treaty ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty ), in which we promised the Germans (and the other signatory nations) that we would consid
215.
by tsotha 11y ago
This isn't the case for a lot of reasons. The first is, as epoxyhockey noted, the CIA has their own system. But even beyond that, the Russians and the Chinese already know who works for the CIA officially, just as we know who works fo
216.
by tsotha 11y ago
Publishers may be okay at the moment, but I still think they're doomed. There's literally no barrier to entry in the publishing business, which is eventually going to break their pricing cartel.
217.
by tsotha 11y ago
Oh, there's a reason the Germans and the Japanese and the Koreans might want to have troops. There's just no reason for US troops to be there. WW II has been over for a long, long time. If the Russians attack the Germans, or the
218.
by tsotha 11y ago
This is somewhat deliberate. We have the resources to stay on top, but we have other priorities. During the cold war we spent 10% of our GDP on the military. These days it's more like 4%. Personally I'd like to see the US pull
219.
by tsotha 11y ago
It seems like fixing the software problem is a more reasonable response than buying and maintaining significant numbers of a new air frame.
220.
by tsotha 11y ago
It's likely everyone will have lost interest and shut the thing down in 200 days.
221.
by tsotha 11y ago
>Bitcoin and others will never succeed because they are too friendly towards illicit behaviour. I doubt various governments can do a whole lot about it, which means it's likely to succeed eventually.
222.
by tsotha 11y ago
Puerto Rico is a US territory, but technically it's not part of the US. They refer to it as "international" because it is.
223.
by tsotha 11y ago
SAMs may be fine for shooting down airliners, but they're not very effective against fighters. You realize the US lost only one F-16 in the 2003 attack on Iraq, and that was to "fuel starvation"? And no, the rear of the F-35
224.
by tsotha 11y ago
The gun on the F-35 is basically pointless. They didn't even include it on the B and C versions. CAS from an F-35 is all about SDB.
225.
by tsotha 11y ago
>But we failed to stop the Taliban (Mission Definitely Not Completed), which just shows we failed to learn anything from the Russians and/or the British. That's why the Taliban are comfortably ensconced in Kabul, right? >So,
226.
by tsotha 11y ago
That would be unconstitutional in the US.
227.
by tsotha 11y ago
I'm not sure I buy the idea it has anything to do with Clinton's tweet specifically. She's doesn't hold political office, and it's looking less and less likely by the day that she'll ever make it to the oval o
228.
by tsotha 11y ago
>That is exactly how government works. The legislative branch can veto laws. What? This makes no sense whatsoever. The legislature makes law. They can change it however they want. Veto is a different concept entirely. >And the jud
229.
by tsotha 11y ago
The Spanish-American war of 1898. The Philippine guerrillas on Mindanao were crushed so savagely and effectively the locals still associate the US with actions taken during that time period. War is ultimately a contest of wills. It's
230.
by tsotha 11y ago
War Is Boring is a terrible site for military news and analysis. I've read several articles that included elements that were factually wrong and obviously so to anyone with even passing knowledge on the subject. A good example is th
231.
by tsotha 11y ago
People need to realize that while the A-10 is a good morale booster, it only carried out 20% of CAS missions in A-stan. The numbers just don't support its continued existence for anything but anti-tank warfare.
232.
by tsotha 11y ago
>So the A-10 is getting squashed from two sides: The F-35 can penetrate the high-threat environment, and provide CAS in a lethal SAM environment, while the A-29 can provide CAS/COIN against militants in a low to non-existent threat
233.
by tsotha 11y ago
Years ago I watched a documentary on California oranges. They said the crop was basically divided into thirds by quality, with the first third going to the markets, the second third being juiced for frozen concentrate, and the last third w
234.
by tsotha 11y ago
Only if there's a constitutional basis for doing so. I'm no expert on North Carolina law, but I'm going to go ahead and assume the state constitution is silent on electronic pictures of naked people.
235.
by tsotha 11y ago
>But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake. Not so much fake as embellished. >Gees - you're all over the place on logic. I laughed when I read that.
236.
by tsotha 11y ago
>More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true... This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
237.
by tsotha 11y ago
I can only assume you skimmed my comment without actually reading it. As I pointed out, judges should not be determining which laws get enforced. In North Carolina prosecutors are elected , so there's no "the executive"
238.
by tsotha 11y ago
Eh? I never said elephants are stupid. The elephants in question had never been to the refuge before - my problem was the writer assumes because they mated with elephants who had they knew where to go. I find that a really difficult cl
239.
by tsotha 11y ago
The fact that poachers exist doesn't mean these particular elephants were attacked by poachers. If the writer assumed poachers based purely the poison arrows they yes, the story is, ipso facto , fabricated. Whether or not poachers a
240.
by tsotha 11y ago
>Java 8 has a nice stream and lambda syntax. You could write code like this: final List<String> filtered = list.stream() .filter(s -> s.startsWith("s")) .map(s -> s.toUpperCase()) .collect(Collectors

More ›