Sure drones are very significant. For close combat, tanks,roads are significantly countered. Littoral Ships are extremely vulnerable.
Drones don’t stop a propagandized meat grinder “for others”. Pure evil warmongering gets comitted under the promise of fucking around with the profits of corruption, propaganda will declare that history starts when you find out, and you were only made to find out because they hate our freedoms.
The big difference between a drone/terrorist attack and a hypersonic nuclear slap, is that you can’t just double down on security and hate and reiterate the promise of never again, if there is provably the capability of doing the same or worse tomorrow. Theoretically, just the threat should be enough, but demonic propagandists, say UK, would prefer the benefits of corrupt sycophancy, and making a case to increase it, by say having their US air force or CIA base nuked. Nuclear slaps have a potential to end war instead of amplifying it the way conventional attacks can be countered by ever more money/commitment. A combined popular and military coup is the natural path to end any warmongering corruption that would have “dared execution” of the threat instead of reacting responsibly.
I’m not very impressed by this author’s assessment. There are so many questionable claims I can’t believe I’m bothering to respond.
America’s operating bases in West Asia (Europe) are not secure, its bases in the Middle East are under attack, and they daren’t set foot near Taiwan.
The military bases in Europe have always been vulnerable. Intentionally so. Is it not the intent of the American military establishment to use a strike on them to generate public support for nuclear war? How have attacks on military bases in the middle east recently re-shaped America’s global military posture? Didn’t America recently quadruple its (small) presence in Taiwan? Are there not American troops on Taiwan held islands less than a mile from the Chinese mainland?
their military is no longer the strongest in the world
Whose is stronger? Russia can’t even beat Ukraine. I don’t think Iran could beat Israel albeit America should get most of the “credit” for that. I think Americans probably racistly judge the Chinese army to be of poor quality but China’s military (to it’s credit) hasn’t dropped a bomb since 1979, so it’s difficult to know what it’s really capable of.
America still holds a nuclear gun to the world’s head
Isn’t it Russia that has recently amended its policy on the use of nuclear weapons to try to keep Ukraine’s arms tied behind their back?
I’m in favour of a more democratic world where countries can set their own economic and social priorities. I believe America should end its so called war on terror and dismantle the bourgeois domination of political power at home and in its puppet states. But I don’t think Russia, Yemen and Iran having hypersonic missiles affects the likelihood of that happening very much.
Sure drones are very significant. For close combat, tanks,roads are significantly countered. Littoral Ships are extremely vulnerable.
Drones don’t stop a propagandized meat grinder “for others”. Pure evil warmongering gets comitted under the promise of fucking around with the profits of corruption, propaganda will declare that history starts when you find out, and you were only made to find out because they hate our freedoms.
The big difference between a drone/terrorist attack and a hypersonic nuclear slap, is that you can’t just double down on security and hate and reiterate the promise of never again, if there is provably the capability of doing the same or worse tomorrow. Theoretically, just the threat should be enough, but demonic propagandists, say UK, would prefer the benefits of corrupt sycophancy, and making a case to increase it, by say having their US air force or CIA base nuked. Nuclear slaps have a potential to end war instead of amplifying it the way conventional attacks can be countered by ever more money/commitment. A combined popular and military coup is the natural path to end any warmongering corruption that would have “dared execution” of the threat instead of reacting responsibly.
I’m not very impressed by this author’s assessment. There are so many questionable claims I can’t believe I’m bothering to respond.
The military bases in Europe have always been vulnerable. Intentionally so. Is it not the intent of the American military establishment to use a strike on them to generate public support for nuclear war? How have attacks on military bases in the middle east recently re-shaped America’s global military posture? Didn’t America recently quadruple its (small) presence in Taiwan? Are there not American troops on Taiwan held islands less than a mile from the Chinese mainland?
Whose is stronger? Russia can’t even beat Ukraine. I don’t think Iran could beat Israel albeit America should get most of the “credit” for that. I think Americans probably racistly judge the Chinese army to be of poor quality but China’s military (to it’s credit) hasn’t dropped a bomb since 1979, so it’s difficult to know what it’s really capable of.
Isn’t it Russia that has recently amended its policy on the use of nuclear weapons to try to keep Ukraine’s arms tied behind their back?
I’m in favour of a more democratic world where countries can set their own economic and social priorities. I believe America should end its so called war on terror and dismantle the bourgeois domination of political power at home and in its puppet states. But I don’t think Russia, Yemen and Iran having hypersonic missiles affects the likelihood of that happening very much.
For missiles there is a cost and production rate advantage to resistance. Hypersonics is a tech advantage.
They think its to prevent US escalation, but sure, theater script is they will win in Ukraine eventually.