Here's a question for WW II experts. Were the "flail tanks" of that era effective? Would more of them for Ukraine make sense, militarily? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail
Is it possible to produce them quickly? Even better, can we produce remote-controlled anti-mine vehicles, quickly?
They had to move very, very slowly. While kicking up a column of dust and earth and exploding mines that could be seen for miles. The drivers couldn't see directly in front and often had to close down completely and drive by radio command from another tank.
So they were very very vulnerable to being shot at.
Then the opposition invented things like a string of mines wired together, with the ones to the front having their sensors removed. So the flail tank would flail away, until it hit the mines at the end of the string - which would detonate the whole string together - right under the flail tank.
That's largely why they fell out of favour in many armies.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Bit early for you to be drunk, isn't it?
This is really fecking tiresome. In what way is my pointing out a simple fact of global economics, somehow evidence that I am "drunk"?
The idea that the West ever had untrammelled power is not supported by the facts.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
The West probably never had total military supremacy, unless you count the weird brief years from 1945-1949 when the US was the only nation with nukes
But have we ever had total economic supremacy? Absolutely. And for two centuries at least, from 1800 or so to about 2000-2010, first via the Birtish Empire, then the American empire, along with massive western advantages in all kinds of technology
Nearly all that advantage has now gone. We were once able to impose our will on the world, and shape it, via economics if not arms. We can't do that any more. It is an enormous change
It depends how you define the West. Blocs can shape shift.
As a voluntary club of democracies, rather than a bloc of dictators, we have been busy expanding. Korea is now the West, so is Taïwan, and I would argue so now are Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Ukraine of course, and a few other new joiners. Nigeria will soon hopefully be “the west”.
On the other hand Brazil and South Africa seem to be getting further distant. Indonesia remains Sui generis, the Middle East is the Middle East and much of Africa is slipping into the Chinese sphere.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Bit early for you to be drunk, isn't it?
This is really fecking tiresome. In what way is my pointing out a simple fact of global economics, somehow evidence that I am "drunk"?
The idea that the West ever had untrammelled power is not supported by the facts.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
The West probably never had total military supremacy, unless you count the weird brief years from 1945-1949 when the US was the only nation with nukes
But have we ever had total economic supremacy? Absolutely. And for two centuries at least, from 1800 or so to about 2000-2010, first via the Birtish Empire, then the American empire, along with massive western advantages in all kinds of technology
Nearly all that advantage has now gone. We were once able to impose our will on the world, and shape it, via economics if not arms. We can't do that any more. It is an enormous change
It depends how you define the West. Blocs can shape shift.
As a voluntary club of democracies, rather than a bloc of dictators, we have been busy expanding. Korea is now the West, so is Taïwan, and I would argue so now are Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Ukraine of course, and a few other new joiners. Nigeria will soon hopefully be “the west”.
On the other hand Brazil and South Africa seem to be getting further distant. Indonesia remains Sui generis, the Middle East is the Middle East and much of Africa is slipping into the Chinese sphere.
I remain sceptical that China will recover all the money it has shoved in to Africa, Africe has a habit of deciding whats in its best interest and funding China may not be.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
You claimed that China wasn't "lifting a finger" to help Russia
I proved that this is laughably wrong, with multiple citations (unlike you)
You merely bloviate and emote, and you do it without wit, humour or insight. This is a ridiculous waste of my precious time, I am off to do some work. Anon
You're absurd.
China is making money selling some stuff to Russia. That trade, that's not help. It's annoying that China aren't sanctioning Russia like we are but they're not helping them either. China is remaining more neutral.
Meanwhile the West has given around or over a hundred billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. Not exports, aid.
That is much more than lifting a finger to help.
If China starts giving Russia military aid that would be alarming but it's not happening today.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
If China wanted Russia to win the war, and began to supply Russia with artillery, ammunition, armoured vehicles, etc, then, yes. I would be very worried.
Thus far Western diplomacy has succeeded in dissuading China from providing that support. It's a key success.
Here's a question for WW II experts. Were the "flail tanks" of that era effective? Would more of them for Ukraine make sense, militarily? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail
Is it possible to produce them quickly? Even better, can we produce remote-controlled anti-mine vehicles, quickly?
They are very vulnerable to ATGms, which is a problem in combat. And require frequent repair, which is a problem when there are so many mines. The kit (eg the US M58) which provides explosive detonation over a corridor of 100m+ is much more useful for clearing a passage across contested ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M58_MICLIC
The remote controlled demining equipment is, AFAIK, much more useful for mine clearance outside of combat.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
You claimed that China wasn't "lifting a finger" to help Russia
I proved that this is laughably wrong, with multiple citations (unlike you)
You merely bloviate and emote, and you do it without wit, humour or insight. This is a ridiculous waste of my precious time, I am off to do some work. Anon
You're absurd.
China is making money selling some stuff to Russia. That trade, that's not help. It's annoying that China aren't sanctioning Russia like we are but they're not helping them either. China is remaining more neutral.
Meanwhile the West has given around or over a hundred billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. Not exports, aid.
That is much more than lifting a finger to help.
If China starts giving Russia military aid that would be alarming but it's not happening today.
Two countries have given "aid" to Russia: North Korea and South Africa.
Here's a question for WW II experts. Were the "flail tanks" of that era effective? Would more of them for Ukraine make sense, militarily? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail
Is it possible to produce them quickly? Even better, can we produce remote-controlled anti-mine vehicles, quickly?
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
You claimed that China wasn't "lifting a finger" to help Russia
I proved that this is laughably wrong, with multiple citations (unlike you)
You merely bloviate and emote, and you do it without wit, humour or insight. This is a ridiculous waste of my precious time, I am off to do some work. Anon
Yes, come on, do it WITH wit and humour like Leon does
I'd think it hard to ban them as a breed - especially with the rise of new varieties, as is obvious from the article. It'd be like trying to ban curly hair by banning poodles if cockapoos were available anyway.
Even the nicest dog can bite if it is frightened. A friend of mine had a seriously absurd border collie crossbreed - good natured, was runt of the litter originally so small absolutely no illusions about his place in the pecking order, definitely reckoned my friend's wife was the alpha - well socialised, castrated, no hint of aggression. I often took him out and never had any problem with him. But my friend was very upset one day when a woman let her toddler go up to the dog from behind and thump him heavily without warning [edit] completely unseeen - a "pat" which was more like an attack. My friend explained to me that if the dog had snapped in fear, and contacted the child however mildly, that would have been curtains for him. Now, with one of those dogs ...
Something like firearms licensing would probably have the same effect. Regular medical and welfare checks, home visits, don't let people with violent criminal records own them, fees to self fund the dangerous dog licensing system and for proactive enforcement, etc. People would rapidly lose interest.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Why would we? China is not Russia.
China has no love for the West but it also has no love lost for Russia. They're rivals not allies in the East. That's why while we have been pumping arms into Ukraine, China have barely lifted a finger.
China in the 20th century had to play second fiddle to Russia/USSR. China is interested in China and it wants Chinese hegemony in the East, to which Russia is a threat.
Russia still occupies much former Chinese territory that China covets.
Seeking Russia ground down and losing its power status is in China's own strategic interests. A humble, defeated Russia falling under China's sphere of influence, in the East at least, if not acquiring some Russia land directly is absolutely fine for China.
Do more reading
"China’s support may not be ‘lethal aid,’ but it’s vital to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine"
"China helps Russia evade sanctions and likely most supplies tech used in Ukraine, U.S. report says Chinese state-owned defense firms have shipped navigation equipment, fighter jet parts and other dual-use technology to Russian defense companies, a U.S. intelligence report said."
China is trying to make a quick buck where it can, that's not new. But it is not using it's military industrial complex to send billions of munitions into Russia like NATO is. These things are different by an order of magnitude.
You claimed that China wasn't "lifting a finger" to help Russia
I proved that this is laughably wrong, with multiple citations (unlike you)
You merely bloviate and emote, and you do it without wit, humour or insight. This is a ridiculous waste of my precious time, I am off to do some work. Anon
Something like firearms licensing would probably have the same effect. Regular medical and welfare checks, home visits, don't let people with violent criminal records own them, fees to self fund the dangerous dog licensing system and for proactive enforcement, etc. People would rapidly lose interest.
Required to keep them locked up, out of the reach of children.
Here's a question for WW II experts. Were the "flail tanks" of that era effective? Would more of them for Ukraine make sense, militarily? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_flail
Is it possible to produce them quickly? Even better, can we produce remote-controlled anti-mine vehicles, quickly?
seems the contemp way of doing it. There was footage the other day of a Ukr drone taking out a Russian vehicle doing this stuff
The problem with the line charges is the large quantities of explosive. which is bit tricky when people are shooting at you. As the Russian vehicle in question found out.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Well this is meant to be the Chinese Century - which I take to mean the period where they supplant the US as the world's biggest banana.
It’s going to be a very interesting race: between demographics (which favour the US), momentum (which favours China) and strategy (which remains all to play for). A race China should win easily but may take a little longer to get there. And could conceivably lose again later in the century.
In PPP it already is: China has overtaken the US. In dollars it isn’t yet.
Chinese GDP according to the World Bank was $17.9trn last year. US GDP was $25.5trn.
If China grows at 6% per annum and the US by 2% then in 9 years they will pass each other. But if China’s growth rate falls even a couple of percentage points it could take a much longer time. By which point the shrinking population could start to tell. Especially if net migration into the US keeps up.
The combined population of NATO countries is about 950 million. Now, sure, getting dozens of democracies to cooperate is worse than herding cats, but I was surprised at how close NATO's population was to China's.
The West has sort of believed itself into a weaker position than it has since the divisions over Iraq and the economic problems since the GFC.
I'd think it hard to ban them as a breed - especially with the rise of new varieties, as is obvious from the article. It'd be like trying to ban curly hair by banning poodles if cockapoos were available anyway.
Even the nicest dog can bite if it is frightened. A friend of mine had a seriously absurd border collie crossbreed - good natured, was runt of the litter originally so small absolutely no illusions about his place in the pecking order, definitely reckoned my friend's wife was the alpha - well socialised, castrated, no hint of aggression. I often took him out and never had any problem with him. But my friend was very upset one day when a woman let her toddler go up to the dog from behind and thump him heavily without warning [edit] completely unseeen - a "pat" which was more like an attack. My friend explained to me that if the dog had snapped in fear, and contacted the child however mildly, that would have been curtains for him. Now, with one of those dogs ...
There is actually some mandatory civil service training on legislation. The dangerous dogs act was cited as an example of the worst legislation ever drafted because of this problem - ie the impossibility of pinning down the breed.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
Bit early for you to be drunk, isn't it?
This is really fecking tiresome. In what way is my pointing out a simple fact of global economics, somehow evidence that I am "drunk"?
The idea that the West ever had untrammelled power is not supported by the facts.
Russian can’t win a war against *Ukraine* - which is being supported with NATOs odd socks and stuff that was in the garage sale. The American contribution is a few percent of their military spending.
The West probably never had total military supremacy, unless you count the weird brief years from 1945-1949 when the US was the only nation with nukes
But have we ever had total economic supremacy? Absolutely. And for two centuries at least, from 1800 or so to about 2000-2010, first via the Birtish Empire, then the American empire, along with massive western advantages in all kinds of technology
Nearly all that advantage has now gone. We were once able to impose our will on the world, and shape it, via economics if not arms. We can't do that any more. It is an enormous change
I think the West, in its broadest sense, had total military supremacy from the time of the Sun King and the War of the Spanish Succession up until about the GFC. So 300 years.
In that time no non-Western nation* or nations could challenge the West, if united. That's why the Moors, Ottomans, Persians, Mughals, and Chinese were all pushed back, and Africa/Oceania and most of North America was just too underdeveloped to resist. [*I include Russia in that but Russia is basically a rather modest power with nukes and would be more like a larger more bellicose South Africa without them.]
I'd think it hard to ban them as a breed - especially with the rise of new varieties, as is obvious from the article. It'd be like trying to ban curly hair by banning poodles if cockapoos were available anyway.
Even the nicest dog can bite if it is frightened. A friend of mine had a seriously absurd border collie crossbreed - good natured, was runt of the litter originally so small absolutely no illusions about his place in the pecking order, definitely reckoned my friend's wife was the alpha - well socialised, castrated, no hint of aggression. I often took him out and never had any problem with him. But my friend was very upset one day when a woman let her toddler go up to the dog from behind and thump him heavily without warning- a "pat" which was more like an attack. My friend explained to me that if the dog had snapped in fear, and contacted the child however mildly, that would have been curtains for him. Now, with one of those dogs ...
With one of those dogs it would have been curtains for the child rather than for the dog, which illustrates why they should be banned.
It's easier to enforce a ban on 'weapon' dogs than on other types of weapons because unlike guns, you can't keep them hidden.
I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:
"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.
She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""
She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....
I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:
"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.
She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""
She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....
Protected classes. There's actually some of that law stuff about this.
I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:
"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.
She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""
She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....
Protected classes. There's actually some of that law stuff about this.
Well yes, but beliefs are also protected so that doesn't work
(I was going to put that in the original post but posted too quick).
Something like firearms licensing would probably have the same effect. Regular medical and welfare checks, home visits, don't let people with violent criminal records own them, fees to self fund the dangerous dog licensing system and for proactive enforcement, etc. People would rapidly lose interest.
The "rescue dog" industry needs looking closely at. People brag about having "rescue dogs" because it shows their big-heartedness and their superior wisdom and understanding in the ways of dogdom. If these dogs have psychological problems of any kind at all they need putting down out of hand, for their own sake and everyone elses'. If they do not they are merely second hand dogs. The "rehoming" bodies do not of course *sell* dogs, Heavens no, but they charge a "rehoming fee" which looks awfully like a purchase price.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
If China wanted Russia to win the war, and began to supply Russia with artillery, ammunition, armoured vehicles, etc, then, yes. I would be very worried.
Thus far Western diplomacy has succeeded in dissuading China from providing that support. It's a key success.
There are things going on in China currently that suggest disagreements/discord at quite a high level. The foreign minister has just been removed and all record of him expunged. That does not happen by accident. Deflation also seems to be taking hold and economists are being told that they need to believe harder and be more positive. The all-out cold war confrontation with the West that full-scale military aid to Russia would create may not be the best way forward for Xi and co currently. But the Chinese are very, very good at waiting.
If they can update software remotely, they can likely brick it remotely too
(Yes, let’s see sanctions on equipment parts and servicing made much tighter).
Apparently, John Deere has been remote bricking stolen Ukrainian farm machinery, taken by the Russians.
Glad to see that even the scummiest of companies, can sometimes be persuaded to do the right thing!
Apparently it's the flip side of their scumminess. Yes, you are locked to their repair centre, parts etc. And they will brick it if you break their rules. But if you report your tractor stolen, they will brick it remotely.
I had no idea John Deere were known to be a scummy company. And I'm slightly taken aback that pb.com is so au fait with the tractor market that this is apparently well known on here.
It's an IT thing - the issue about remote updates, the company believing that they are really renting you the product they sold you etc etc.
Coming to a car near you, quite soon.
The only reason it hasn't been more of thing in the car world, is that Tesla, who pioneered rolling out much of the idea of centralised computers in cars, over the air updates etc haven't been really heavy handed with it yet.
The biggest one I recall was a chap who rebuilt a crashed Tesla, only to find that it was in their database as written off - it was a write off by the insurance company. So his Tesla can't charge at a Tesla supercharger.
John Deere uses DCMA to stop people repairing their own tractors and it is absolutely in cars now. Mercedes I think for one is putting items like heated seats on a subscription service
A friend of mine had a seriously absurd border collie crossbreed - good natured, was runt of the litter originally so small absolutely no illusions about his place in the pecking order, definitely reckoned my friend's wife was the alpha - well socialised, castrated, no hint of aggression.
A bit odd, but whatever floats his boat. What characteristics did the dog have?
Something like firearms licensing would probably have the same effect. Regular medical and welfare checks, home visits, don't let people with violent criminal records own them, fees to self fund the dangerous dog licensing system and for proactive enforcement, etc. People would rapidly lose interest.
The "rescue dog" industry needs looking closely at. People brag about having "rescue dogs" because it shows their big-heartedness and their superior wisdom and understanding in the ways of dogdom. If these dogs have psychological problems of any kind at all they need putting down out of hand, for their own sake and everyone elses'. If they do not they are merely second hand dogs. The "rehoming" bodies do not of course *sell* dogs, Heavens no, but they charge a "rehoming fee" which looks awfully like a purchase price.
I've seen, or discussed, several rescue dogs with friends/neighbours. Difficult to tell how fair a sample it is, because it's the difficult ones that stick in the mind as being rescue dogs, the OK ones just get on with life. But .... Two were just timid which is hardly unusual, and were obviously very glad of a quiet home. Probably just old dogs unsettled by the move. But it's slightly worrying even in an old dog - one owner was surprised it would even come and sniff the back of my hand when I held it out quietly (which is a fairly non-threatening move to say hello). Two were just too unrelaxed/not settling into the family at all and had to be returned (one even bit Mrs C slightly, though in that case it was fairly obviously an accident - a very clumsy animal grabbing a dog titbit). Heaven knows what happened to them. And the fifth was a large and completelu amiable greyhound - except that the poor thing had been starved when young (racing ...) and could never be left in the kitchen or he'd try to eat anything right down to a caterinbg jar of cooking oil or a bulk bottle of Irn-Bru.
A friend of mine had a seriously absurd border collie crossbreed - good natured, was runt of the litter originally so small absolutely no illusions about his place in the pecking order, definitely reckoned my friend's wife was the alpha - well socialised, castrated, no hint of aggression.
A bit odd, but whatever floats his boat. What characteristics did the dog have?
Border collie and ?whippet or labrador crossbreed.
In Ukraine we may be seeing this pivotal change, as it plays out in bloody reality
If China wanted Russia to win the war, and began to supply Russia with artillery, ammunition, armoured vehicles, etc, then, yes. I would be very worried.
Thus far Western diplomacy has succeeded in dissuading China from providing that support. It's a key success.
There are things going on in China currently that suggest disagreements/discord at quite a high level. The foreign minister has just been removed and all record of him expunged. That does not happen by accident. Deflation also seems to be taking hold and economists are being told that they need to believe harder and be more positive. The all-out cold war confrontation with the West that full-scale military aid to Russia would create may not be the best way forward for Xi and co currently. But the Chinese are very, very good at waiting.
I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:
"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.
She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""
She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....
The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.
And I fully support that!
The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".
Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.
But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.
Comments
Flail tanks worked. Sort of, some of the time.
They had to move very, very slowly. While kicking up a column of dust and earth and exploding mines that could be seen for miles. The drivers couldn't see directly in front and often had to close down completely and drive by radio command from another tank.
So they were very very vulnerable to being shot at.
Then the opposition invented things like a string of mines wired together, with the ones to the front having their sensors removed. So the flail tank would flail away, until it hit the mines at the end of the string - which would detonate the whole string together - right under the flail tank.
That's largely why they fell out of favour in many armies.
As a voluntary club of democracies, rather than a bloc of dictators, we have been busy expanding. Korea is now the West, so is Taïwan, and I would argue so now are Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Ukraine of course, and a few other new joiners. Nigeria will soon hopefully be “the west”.
On the other hand Brazil and South Africa seem to be getting further distant. Indonesia remains Sui generis, the Middle East is the Middle East and much of Africa is slipping into the Chinese sphere.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/16/the-alarming-rise-of-american-bully-xl-dogs-if-one-gets-hold-of-you-youre-in-trouble?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
China is making money selling some stuff to Russia. That trade, that's not help. It's annoying that China aren't sanctioning Russia like we are but they're not helping them either. China is remaining more neutral.
Meanwhile the West has given around or over a hundred billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine. Not exports, aid.
That is much more than lifting a finger to help.
If China starts giving Russia military aid that would be alarming but it's not happening today.
Thus far Western diplomacy has succeeded in dissuading China from providing that support. It's a key success.
And require frequent repair, which is a problem when there are so many mines.
The kit (eg the US M58) which provides explosive detonation over a corridor of 100m+ is much more useful for clearing a passage across contested ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M58_MICLIC
The remote controlled demining equipment is, AFAIK, much more useful for mine clearance outside of combat.
Trump refusal to sign loyalty pledge puts RNC in bind
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4154142-trump-refusal-to-sign-loyalty-pledge-puts-rnc-in-bind/
You going around complaining about toy soldiers is even more tiresome than moaning about people using cash.
https://vimeo.com/389022052
seems the contemp way of doing it. There was footage the other day of a Ukr drone taking out a Russian vehicle doing this stuff
https://shop.princeaugust.ie/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/comedians/graham-linehan-edinburgh-fringe-show-cancelled-trans-views/
Even the nicest dog can bite if it is frightened. A friend of mine had a seriously absurd border collie crossbreed - good natured, was runt of the litter originally so small absolutely no illusions about his place in the pecking order, definitely reckoned my friend's wife was the alpha - well socialised, castrated, no hint of aggression. I often took him out and never had any problem with him. But my friend was very upset one day when a woman let her toddler go up to the dog from behind and thump him heavily without warning [edit] completely unseeen - a "pat" which was more like an attack. My friend explained to me that if the dog had snapped in fear, and contacted the child however mildly, that would have been curtains for him. Now, with one of those dogs ...
The West has sort of believed itself into a weaker position than it has since the divisions over Iraq and the economic problems since the GFC.
In that time no non-Western nation* or nations could challenge the West, if united. That's why the Moors, Ottomans, Persians, Mughals, and Chinese were all pushed back, and Africa/Oceania and most of North America was just too underdeveloped to resist. [*I include Russia in that but Russia is basically a rather modest power with nukes and would be more like a larger more bellicose South Africa without them.]
That is no longer the case.
It's easier to enforce a ban on 'weapon' dogs than on other types of weapons because unlike guns, you can't keep them hidden.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643
I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:
"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.
She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""
She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....
And Worcs thrashing Northants.
(I was going to put that in the original post but posted too quick).
new thread
Failing regimes can gamble on wars.
And I fully support that!
The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".
Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.
But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.