> If israel's nuclear program isn't a "bad action", then Iran's nuclear program isn't a "bad action", either. If there is no bad action there, then there's nothing to excuse, and we're left with unjustified israeli attacks on Iran (along with Palestine and Lebanon to boot).
Who said it wasn't?
We're also left with unjustified Iranian attacks (along with Hamas and Hezbollah and Houthis).
> Why are you excusing israel breaking those rules? Iran has been an NPT member for decades, israel refuses to even sign it, much less abide by the restrictions and safeguards around nuclear nonproliferation. Clearly they are the real proliferation threat here.
I didn't excuse them. I think the only country that should have nuclear weapons is America. Maybe the UK. Israel's bad actions don't excuse Iran's. If you want to argue that countries have equal rights (which just isn't reflected in reality and arguably isn't even a good thing) the construction of those rights require rules and laws and arbitration and you have to be fair and also criticize Iran for breaking those rules. Iran breaking the rules, stands opposed to your ideals about countries having equal rights. If Iran has the right to break their signature for nuclear non-proliferation, so does anyone else. Whatever the excuse or justification anyone can also do the same and it's equally valid.
You're quick to stand in defense of Iran and attack Israel. I'm saying both countries suck and both are breaking the rules.
> It's even simpler than that: all countries do have equal rights. The fact that russia or israel or the USA feel differently, and violate those rights, is immaterial.
You forgot some countries (Venezuela, Iran, &c.) but this very fact proves my point. Those rights are just fictions which are mostly backed by American military power.
> What does the United Nations say about israel's actions in Lebanon and Palestine? I'll give you a hint: it matches what they say about russia's actions in Ukraine, because they're the same thing
What does that have to do with Iran? And why would the bad actions of one country excuse the bad actions of another?
> The United Nations agrees that countries have equal rights. Beyond that, are you talking about israel's nuclear weapon proliferation here, or iran's civilian nuclear program?
I’m talking about Iran’s nuclear weapon proliferation. There are rules, you think all countries should be beholden to those rules. Why are you excusing Iran breaking the rules?
If you want to excuse them, then fine, but then I excuse any rules a country I agree with breaks and we just go back to my original point which is at the international stage might makes right.
I agree and upvoted you for a good comment with a good source.
In my mind I was thinking about how humans have to actually go back to the land. In Ukraine we’ve seen what amount to drone enforced no-man’s lands where no human can really seize or make use of the land. There of course can be the case where the drones clear the land of enemy troops and drones and then your own people or soldiers move and then occupy the land.
It’s even more simple. All countries don’t have equal rights. The strong make the rules and the weak suffer what they must. That’s how the world actually functions.
But if you want to argue that countries have equal rights, well, in order to have equal rights one must have some rule, or law, or some other mechanism in which to receive and agree upon such rights or a forum to argue that such rights have been violated requiring some sort of justice. Otherwise these aren’t really rights, just claims.
The closest thing we have to an entity that defines and adjudicates relations with respect to countries and rights is the United Nations.
What does the United Nations say about nuclear weapon proliferation?
That’s wrong. The US and UK airlifted anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles among other things to Ukraine while telling the world Russia was about to invade (which Europeans refused to believe).
You may be confusing European support and their lack of it (remember the famous time Germany just sent 45,000 old helmets?) with how the United States and United Kingdom helped.
And let’s not forget China’s helping of Russia to prosecute its war in Ukraine by training soldiers [1] and providing dual use technology access.
It’s interesting how the OP that you responded to was quick to start slinging accusations of propaganda and react so violently without even asking a clarifying question. Well, let’s just say some of us read those comments with a little extra interest.
Iran routinely denied inspectors access to facilities. American intelligence isn’t 100% accurate. And why should we have to effectively pay off Iran or have some special deal where they hold the world hostage less they build a nuclear bomb? Why do we only have to do that with Iran but not other countries?
I’m all for diplomatic solutions to problems, but Iran was building nuclear weapons under our nose anyway and loading up on missiles and drones to make it difficult to impossible for the US to do anything about them without severe regional casualties. Nevermind Iran’s continued funding of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis and their support for Russia in its war against Ukraine.
> Ukraine is proving that the "big bombs" are useless
Depends on the application. The drones have to be manufactured somewhere. You need electricity. Running water. Industrial facilities. The big bomb still matters there.
> The age of WW2-era mechanised warfare is gone. It's as obsolete as the cavalry that came before it.
Well the primary issue is that drones can’t hold or take land, only deny. I think mechanized infantry will continue to have a place, they’ll just be augmented by drones. But who knows you could be right depending on how things develop.
What diplomatic means should the United States (why the US and not others) take to stop Russia in Ukraine, stop Iran in the Middle East, stop North Korea, and stop China and its support for Russia or insistence of attacking Taiwan?
Certainly there is some room for negotiation and diplomacy and frankly I think we've tried that and tried it until it was clearly insane and then we still tried it. We (the west) tried to invite Russia to NATO and we opened up Europe to Russian gas. We tried the JCPOA with Iran. We have no clue what to do with North Korea. And we pushed for Chinese entry into the WTO only for them to backstab the west.
There are a lot of differences. One of the chief differences was that during World War II the United States continental homeland was pretty much untouchable, which allowed the United States and the allies access to a secure and resource rich supply chain that helped lead to victory over the Axis powers.
In an engagement with China it is likely that both sides would be able to strike each other's defense industrial base, with the added "benefit" that American missiles, aircraft, and other equipment are stationed strategically in the region in various countries (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, and others) and as such the United States can project some amount of destruction on critical Chinese industrial facilities. I'm wondering if China in this scenario would be eager to, or hesitant to strike the United States for fear of a very rapid escalation of the war. Anyway - the point is that long range missiles, drones, and other offensive capabilities mean that supposedly "safe" manufacturing facilities are in danger, with the United States being a bit closer in range to inflict damage than China and with China having I would guess a little bit of hesitancy to strike mainland America.
In addition to some of the simple geographic differences, China has its own strategic challenges. Energy, for one. So far nobody has built a tank, plane, or ship that can run on batteries and while drone technology has continued to advance in many critical ways they don't bring the big bombs quite yet. Naturally the United States in the event of a war is going to at least consider if not outright strike Chinese energy facilities, and deny imports of oil which are critical to supply chains and conducting a war.
If China's only theater is perhaps Taiwan that's probably less of an issue, but then you've got the United States with its, in my view, inferior supply chain, operating unfettered, similar to during World War II while the Chinese supply chain both local and superior particularly for small or "low cost" components is facing both energy stress and stress from missiles or other attacks.
I don't mean to sound pro-USA here or to suggest there aren't other significant advantages or disadvantages for either the United States or China, but to just highlight that your thoughtful comment here which seems to imply that China's massive industrial capacity is akin to the United States' during World War II is not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.
Credit certainly that Russian logistics failed, but was it Ukrainian logistics that beat them back or was it Ukrainian logistics and heroism alongside American and British support, intelligence, and 24/7 airlifts of critical weapons and equipment that beat them back?
You're straying away from the analogy though. If the LLM is more like the processor in the phone then you'd just compare the Apple series chips to the low cost chips in the low cost phone.
> I will choose the cheapest/fastest because I can switch it out in a matter of seconds anyways.
Sure but that's why you would go with the Apple series chip in this analogy. It's more expensive but when it comes to getting what you want done it would actually be cheaper and faster.
For some reason everyone wants to praise China's low-cost models and simultaneously applaud their move to create and restrict higher-cost/performative models while criticizing the US for also creating and restricting higher-cost/performative models. It really doesn't make sense.
If you want to say all models are the same or close enough so you'll just switch to the cheapest and fastest then market forces will allow American companies to just create those same models or, since they're open source, they'll just use those but American companies can just do that too and they're choosing not to because performance matters, approximate winner-take-all matters, and cost is important but not the only factor.
If you want to suggest that America is doing all the high cap-ex spend and then China is just undercutting with cheap models, then American companies will adopt that strategy too if it is what is most profitable and then Chinese companies will have to spend on cap-ex to get ahead and they can be undercut by American companies. But this doesn't reflect reality and China's actions demonstrate that point because they're still spending cap-ex and trying to produce higher-end models which they then restrict and blah blah blah.
Someone might say "dang they absolutely murdered that slice (I'm watching Wimbledon right now)". Nobody thinks well murdering is a crime, I need to go and comment on how the word murder is used inappropriately here.
The OP is using the terms incentive and bribe interchangeably. People do that in the US all the time. I don't think anyone really thinks it is wrong or morally disagreeable what the Netherlands is doing nor are they using the term in the legal sense. I was just explaining why someone might have used that term, obviously the OP probably should speak for themselves though in case they did mean it in the legal sense or something.
In the US we sometimes use the term “bribe” in morally neutral or even positive situations.
It just means giving someone money or a different incentive to convince them to do something they weren’t going to do or were undecided but considering doing and the extra incentive is the catalyst for making the decision.
We also have the legal concept of a bribe but the OP probably wasn’t using it in the legal sense - I.e. accusing the Netherlands of doing something illegal.
It doesn’t mean that. Low-cost models will still enter the market because China isn’t the only country capable of creating them. If you want to do the manufacturing comparison then it’s like the latest iPhone versus the cheap Android phone from Wal-Mart.
They are both phones and do all the same things but you buy one and you pay a lot more money for it because at the end of the day it is way better. Cheap models capture the slim margin and marginal utility product mix, whereas these “high-end” models capture more of that iPhone market.
China doesn’t want to just be a low-cost manufacturer (you can see this reflected in the ongoing hollowing out of Germany’s economy losing 10,000 manufacturing jobs/month) - they want to make high end models too because the economics and capabilities are far superior.
In neighbouring Assam, BJP chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said the state “has been waging a relentless war against illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims” whose “very presence threatens to alter the demographic fabric of our nation”. He said Assam “will not spare a single illegal migrant” who should be “pushed back to where they belong”.
Nope. Capitalism == private ownership of the means of production. There is no definition that exists or is taken seriously that defines capitalism in a major or minor way as a system in which "capital controls everything".
You should comment less on my mindset and comment more on your proposal.
"It'll just work" isn't convincing (if not taxes and tolls then what?), and withdrawing from the conversation because your idea was challenged is not very mature and shows you haven't really thought this through.
If it's easy and the Dutch figured it out a millennium ago, then you should be able to explain how it will work going forward. If you're unable to do that, that's fine, but be honest about it instead of wasting time trying to critique my great questions that happen to expose the various flaws in your own comment.
Downvotes mean I'm right, upvotes mean folks agree with me :)