Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
The US is not going to war with another nuclear missile armed nation over an island which is a product of the Chinese civil war nearly a century ago and which even the US doesn't officially recognise as an independent nation anyway
If you believe Trump that is something that might occur before this month is over. Meanwhile in No. 10 we have Starmer who is committed to reaching 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. I sincerely hope that Starmer has been lying through his teeth for months, and behind the scenes all sorts of contingencies are being prepared for, because we might be in a very deep hole before spring arrives.
If Trump annexes Greenland just before the May elections, it's going to give quite a few party leaders some interesting questions to answer.
"Hilarity ensues"
You can predict with a high degree of certainty what would happen. Zack P. and Ed D. condemn it while Starmer, Farage and Whatshername look the other way.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
I'm not sure the US would defend Korea or Japan against China. Albeit those scenarios are unlikely right now. They have the same questions about their erstwhile ally as Europe does.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
That’s why there are partial mockups of Taipei in the Chinese deserts.
It's been war-gamed to death. Best guess seems to be that it would be a close-run thing but in the end it is unlikely China could succeed without recourse to nukes.
China doesn't need Taiwan in any economic or practical sense. It represents a problem for the Chinese government though mainly by virtue of demonstrating what the PRC could have been were it not run by the current crew. As long as it exists however it does at least provide a focus for Chinese Nationalism which helps sustain the position of Xi and chums, so on balance I suspect they will be happy just to keep sabre-rattling. Actually going for an invasion runs the very big risk of failure and the demise of the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
I'm not sure the US would defend Korea or Japan against China. Albeit those scenarios are unlikely right now. They have the same questions about their erstwhile ally as Europe does.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
The US is not going to war with another nuclear missile armed nation over an island which is a product of the Chinese civil war nearly a century ago and which even the US doesn't officially recognise as an independent nation anyway
No, but the US and the rest of the world would cut off all trade with China and the charred remains of what was once Taiwan.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
The US is not going to war with another nuclear missile armed nation over an island which is a product of the Chinese civil war nearly a century ago and which even the US doesn't officially recognise as an independent nation anyway
No, but the US and the rest of the world would cut off all trade with China and the charred remains of what was once Taiwan.
Would we though?
If it hurts us more then it hurts them, perhaps there's a lot of people who would decide not to do so, just as politicians decided to stop mentioning Tibet as China became stronger and more important.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
The US is not going to war with another nuclear missile armed nation over an island which is a product of the Chinese civil war nearly a century ago and which even the US doesn't officially recognise as an independent nation anyway
No, but the US and the rest of the world would cut off all trade with China and the charred remains of what was once Taiwan.
Would we though?
If it hurts us more then it hurts them, perhaps there's a lot of people who would decide not to do so, just as politicians decided to stop mentioning Tibet as China became stronger and more important.
We didn’t even cut off all trade with Russia after they invaded Ukraine.
In any case it seems more likely to me that China exerts gradually escalating pressure on Taiwan culminating in a blockade, rather than just invading out of the blue. That sort of frog boiling approach is harder to react to, as Russia has shown repeatedly.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
The US is not going to war with another nuclear missile armed nation over an island which is a product of the Chinese civil war nearly a century ago and which even the US doesn't officially recognise as an independent nation anyway
No, but the US and the rest of the world would cut off all trade with China and the charred remains of what was once Taiwan.
Would we though?
If it hurts us more then it hurts them, perhaps there's a lot of people who would decide not to do so, just as politicians decided to stop mentioning Tibet as China became stronger and more important.
We would have no choice, since it would be the only practical response left open to us. Even a Trump-led USA would see that.
Let's be real, if Donald Trump boiled a baby alive on national TV, Keir Starmer would say he is waiting for the facts before making a statement, and when that statement came, he would condemn the baby's parents and say boiling babies must always be done in compliance with international law..... 😂😂😂😂
"David Blair Trump is forcing us to confront the world as it really is. That’s a good thing Maduro’s capture proves the US president has ripped up the international rulebook – yet Britain can benefit from this new, hard reality"
Let's be real, if Donald Trump boiled a baby alive on national TV, Keir Starmer would say he is waiting for the facts before making a statement, and when that statement came, he would condemn the baby's parents and say boiling babies must always be done in compliance with international law..... 😂😂😂😂
In your opinion, when Chavez Regime, of which Mad Youro is the heir, nationalised Venezuela oil, was it theft? Simple yes no question for you.
Private US company’s had put in, invested a lot of money in Venezuela oil, not least in infrastructure, which they were never compensated for. How could it not have been anything other than theft?
Yes. Witness the horror as characters from CorrieNorrie and Emmadale Farm get simultaneously nuked as Trump decides to renegotiate our membership of NATO
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
I'm not sure the US would defend Korea or Japan against China. Albeit those scenarios are unlikely right now. They have the same questions about their erstwhile ally as Europe does.
Japan has three stage solid fuel “space launchers”. And has for years. These are ICBMs, essentially.
Japan has multiple metric tons of “civil” plutonium, large quantities of “military grade” plutonium and large quantities of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU).
If they decide to break from the NPT, the question is whether it would be hours or a week or 2 until they have their first nuke.
My guess is hours - the implosion system can be tested with non-nuclear material. The plutonium or uranium could even be already cast and machined.
"David Blair Trump is forcing us to confront the world as it really is. That’s a good thing Maduro’s capture proves the US president has ripped up the international rulebook – yet Britain can benefit from this new, hard reality"
The US oil refineries that could take Venezuelan oil have long been converted to other work. Converting back would be expensive - to take a feedstock that would be expensive and years away from coming on line anyway.
Let's be real, if Donald Trump boiled a baby alive on national TV, Keir Starmer would say he is waiting for the facts before making a statement, and when that statement came, he would condemn the baby's parents and say boiling babies must always be done in compliance with international law..... 😂😂😂😂
In your opinion, when Chavez Regime, of which Mad Youro is the heir, nationalised Venezuela oil, was it theft? Simple yes no question for you.
Private US company’s had put in, invested a lot of money in Venezuela oil, not least in infrastructure, which they were never compensated for. How could it not have been anything other than theft?
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
The US is not going to war with another nuclear missile armed nation over an island which is a product of the Chinese civil war nearly a century ago and which even the US doesn't officially recognise as an independent nation anyway
No, but the US and the rest of the world would cut off all trade with China and the charred remains of what was once Taiwan.
Would we though?
If it hurts us more then it hurts them, perhaps there's a lot of people who would decide not to do so, just as politicians decided to stop mentioning Tibet as China became stronger and more important.
We would have no choice, since it would be the only practical response left open to us. Even a Trump-led USA would see that.
Professor Rosenblum called it correctly forty years ago: They'll never put you in a situation where you have no choice. They'll stick to salami tactics.
Admittedly he was talking about Russians, not Americans, but the principle holds. Gangsters generally know not to be too greedy at once, or the effective ones do, anyway.
The world has changed and Trump is going to do whatever he wants with western leaders left powerless
It is likely most will stay the course with Trump, but it is going to be very uncomfortable as opponents of Trump demand opposition to him
It was noticeable that when Cooper addressed the HOC today [Badenoch quite rightly asked why Starmer was avoiding questions] that she faced a lot of anger from her own side
This, and everything else, may well conspire to threaten Starmer's position
Certainly he is being overwhelmed with so many problems, many of which are beyond his control, that his head must be spinning
I have no time for Starmer but to be honest I cannot think of any leader who has the answers to this new world order
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
The trouble is that we now have a president who is too fucking dumb to realise what the best interests of America are and who actually doesn't care. He is only interested in accruing money and power for himself and his cronies and if the rest of the US burns along with the rest of the world it is not his problem.
The world has changed and Trump is going to do whatever he wants with western leaders left powerless
It is likely most will stay the course with Trump, but it is going to be very uncomfortable as opponents of Trump demand opposition to him
It was noticeable that when Cooper addressed the HOC today [Badenoch quite rightly asked why Starmer was avoiding questions] that she faced a lot of anger from her own side
This, and everything else, may well conspire to threaten Starmer's position
Certainly he is being overwhelmed with so many problems, many of which are beyond his control, that his head must be spinning
I have no time for Starmer but to be honest I cannot think of any leader who has the answers to this new world order
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
The trouble is that we now have a president who is too fucking dumb to realise what the best interests of America are and who actually doesn't care. He is only interested in accruing money and power for himself and his cronies and if the rest of the US burns along with the rest of the world it is not his problem.
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Bet it's just the franchisee.
Works the other way round in hospitality.
Hilton is the op co - other investors own the real estate
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
The trouble is that we now have a president who is too fucking dumb to realise what the best interests of America are and who actually doesn't care. He is only interested in accruing money and power for himself and his cronies and if the rest of the US burns along with the rest of the world it is not his problem.
The Mango Mafia is all that matters.
The Mango Mafia: giving Banana Republics a bad name since 2017...
We all knew, even before the events of last week, the Monroe Doctrine was enjoying a new lease of life in the Trump Administration but let's be fair, it never really went away.
The notion of "buying" territories is hardly new for America - the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska? Making Denmark a commercial offer for Greenland would seem the sensible move - I always thought the only way Ireland would ever be reunited was if one side bought out the another.
Diplomancy via force majeure and the power of money - it's really nothing new. The Americans used financial leverage against France and ourselves over Suez and the Romans would bribe tribes to collaborate.
We might like to think international diplomacy is governed by rules and regulations more akin to a chess game but sometimes it isn't and forcing regime change through military or commercial power has occurred down the ages.
Yes but it's a matter of degree and about the direction of travel. People on the whole strive for improvement in their various fields of endeavour. That's where progress comes from. Why should international affairs and geopolitics regress to a more primitive time? There's nothing 'shrug' about that.
It's probably more nuanced than the way I've stated it.
The use or threat of force as a part of diplomacy has been a part of human history - the use of money or capital is a more recent phenomenon but is an integral part of how nations function. When we had an Empire, we used both military and economic force to build and maintain it - it didn't always work and it doesn't always work.
As an example, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 primarily because we had a prosperous agricultural economy with strong trade to Flanders and a healthy supply of silver which was currency.
I would argue we have, whether out of fear or choice, built in some limitations. Nuclear and biological warfare represents such an existential threat to the species we have used them sparingly - we know (and that means the people who matter know) the consequences of nuclear escalation or the use of chemical weapons.
Technology (rightly or wrongly) has allowed a degree of precision of destruction hitherto unseen. We don't have to level a city if we want to decapitate or excise a regime not to our liking but as we know removing a tyrant rarely leads to a happy or peaceful future for the population as would-be successors jostle for power. Libya is one example - Iraq was another, Afghanistan arguably a third.
I really don't know what the incursion into Venezuela has achieved at this time - Trump clearly has a view. One thing it has done is to demonstrate American power and finesse to hostile countries. The medium and longer term implications are, for this observer, harder to ascertain. Does America really want to "run" Venezuela? I suspect not but it wants to have a big involvement in the economic future of the country.
I do not think the U.S. would provide any military response to a Chinese blockade of Taiwan.
It has been US policy my entire life to remain suitably ambiguous about this up until the current day, in order to leave China guessing, and thereby to deter any such invasion, and protect US maritime hegemony in the Pacific.
However I believe Trump has to all intents blown that up (whatever “official” policy remains) and China essentially has a green light.
I’m not up on the extent to which - if at all - the West (or U.S. and Europe independently) have managed to reduce reliance on Taiwanese semiconductors. I suspect not much. I suspect therefore that any blockade would cause a short term global economic crisis, although it would be in China’s and the world’s interests to see a resumption to any halt on semiconductor exports as quickly as possible.
The notion of "buying" territories is hardly new for America - the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska?
Florida, the Gadsden Purchase, and many more. (One of the most interesting was after the Mexican-American War: The US paid Mexico for the land.)
Even before there was a US, some of the colonial land was acquired by purchases; for example, William Penn purchased the land that became Philadelphia and its surroundings.
And then there were hundreds of purchases from Indian tribes, For example:
The purchase of the Louisiana Territory led to debates over the idea of indigenous land rights that persisted into the mid 20th century. The many court cases and tribal suits in the 1930s for historical damages flowing from the Louisiana Purchase led to the Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA) in 1946. Felix S. Cohen, Interior Department lawyer who helped pass ICCA, is often quoted as saying, "practically all of the real estate acquired by the United States since 1776 was purchased not from Napoleon or any other emperor or czar but from its original Indian owners".[3]
In 2017, the total cost to the U.S. government of all subsequent treaties and financial settlements up to the year 2012 for the land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase was estimated to be around $2.6 billion, or $11.4 billion in 2024 dollars.[2][3] This is equivalent to $418 million in 1803 dollars, so the $15 million originally paid to France was roughly 3.5 percent of the total amount paid for this land, to both France and the Indians.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
I'm not sure the US would defend Korea or Japan against China. Albeit those scenarios are unlikely right now. They have the same questions about their erstwhile ally as Europe does.
S Korea and Japan are not going to be invaded by China. Either are far more formidable targets than Taiwan, are pretty strongly allied together, and the idea is nonsense anyway.
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Bet it's just the franchisee.
Works the other way round in hospitality.
Hilton is the op co - other investors own the real estate
Hilton won't be the operating company, that will be the franchisee. Hilton is a brand for which a hefty fee is charged alongside various quality requirements see https://www.hilton.com/en/corporate/development/
"David Blair Trump is forcing us to confront the world as it really is. That’s a good thing Maduro’s capture proves the US president has ripped up the international rulebook – yet Britain can benefit from this new, hard reality"
The President of the Security Council, who just happens to be Somalia’s UN rep (Somalia having assumed the Presidency at the beginning of this year)…seems to be caught up in this US Healthcare/Childcare scam.
We all knew, even before the events of last week, the Monroe Doctrine was enjoying a new lease of life in the Trump Administration but let's be fair, it never really went away.
The notion of "buying" territories is hardly new for America - the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska? Making Denmark a commercial offer for Greenland would seem the sensible move - I always thought the only way Ireland would ever be reunited was if one side bought out the another.
Diplomancy via force majeure and the power of money - it's really nothing new. The Americans used financial leverage against France and ourselves over Suez and the Romans would bribe tribes to collaborate.
We might like to think international diplomacy is governed by rules and regulations more akin to a chess game but sometimes it isn't and forcing regime change through military or commercial power has occurred down the ages.
Yes but it's a matter of degree and about the direction of travel. People on the whole strive for improvement in their various fields of endeavour. That's where progress comes from. Why should international affairs and geopolitics regress to a more primitive time? There's nothing 'shrug' about that.
It's probably more nuanced than the way I've stated it.
The use or threat of force as a part of diplomacy has been a part of human history - the use of money or capital is a more recent phenomenon but is an integral part of how nations function. When we had an Empire, we used both military and economic force to build and maintain it - it didn't always work and it doesn't always work.
As an example, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 primarily because we had a prosperous agricultural economy with strong trade to Flanders and a healthy supply of silver which was currency.
I would argue we have, whether out of fear or choice, built in some limitations. Nuclear and biological warfare represents such an existential threat to the species we have used them sparingly - we know (and that means the people who matter know) the consequences of nuclear escalation or the use of chemical weapons.
Technology (rightly or wrongly) has allowed a degree of precision of destruction hitherto unseen. We don't have to level a city if we want to decapitate or excise a regime not to our liking but as we know removing a tyrant rarely leads to a happy or peaceful future for the population as would-be successors jostle for power. Libya is one example - Iraq was another, Afghanistan arguably a third.
I really don't know what the incursion into Venezuela has achieved at this time - Trump clearly has a view. One thing it has done is to demonstrate American power and finesse to hostile countries. The medium and longer term implications are, for this observer, harder to ascertain. Does America really want to "run" Venezuela? I suspect not but it wants to have a big involvement in the economic future of the country.
Finesse ? A very odd word to use in that context.
The finesse has been to go into a hostile capital, neutralise the opposition forces and extract the leader and his wife from their residence without suffering a single casualty (apparently).
The alternative would have been a "shock and awe" style attack on Caracas. There's been military finesse and political finesse - analogous to the Obama adminstration killing Bin Laden, the President hasn't declared war (he's need Congressional approval) but has allowed a precision strike to be carried out by special forces.
The extent to which other leaders now worry the same might happen to them I don't know but as others have stated, it has shown Putin, Xi and others some of America's military capability and that was also probably part of the intention.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
That’s why there are partial mockups of Taipei in the Chinese deserts.
It's been war-gamed to death. Best guess seems to be that it would be a close-run thing but in the end it is unlikely China could succeed without recourse to nukes.
China doesn't need Taiwan in any economic or practical sense. It represents a problem for the Chinese government though mainly by virtue of demonstrating what the PRC could have been were it not run by the current crew. As long as it exists however it does at least provide a focus for Chinese Nationalism which helps sustain the position of Xi and chums, so on balance I suspect they will be happy just to keep sabre-rattling. Actually going for an invasion runs the very big risk of failure and the demise of the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.
I totally agree with this.
Not only might it actually fail, it would also severely damage international trade and the Chinese economy, for no good reason. They aren't stupid.
If Trump were in charge in China, it would be a different matter.
Miller misunderstands the nature of the British Empire. Imperial subjects were as British and had as much right to live in Britain as those born and living in Britain: as Trevor McDonald was fond of pointing out, his passport when he migrated into the UK had "British Passport" at the top. This was the legal situation until the 1960/70s, when various Nationality Acts restricting these rights came in.
This situation (where Very Online right-wing people reconstruct the past according to their present understanding - not you, I mean them) is beginning to bug me. We have Tom Harwood insisting that UK is a neologism, and now we have Stephen Miller misunderstanding the nature of empires and sovereign states (if only somebody had written an article about how the meaning of Britain evolved). When my generation dies we will be left with people with no past, just a continually-updated present.
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Bet it's just the franchisee.
Works the other way round in hospitality.
Hilton is the op co - other investors own the real estate
Hilton won't be the operating company, that will be the franchisee. Hilton is a brand for which a hefty fee is charged alongside various quality requirements see https://www.hilton.com/en/corporate/development/
That’s not a link for franchisees, it’s a link to people who want to develop (build) a hotel but need an operator. One of my clients owns about 100,000 keys (ie rooms) globally and regularly runs beauty parades to select the best operator for each site (eg JWM vs Hyatt vs Hilton).
The operators have both management contracts and franchise arrangement, but with the development of the propco model they have been switching to manco (otherwise they are not actually doing all that much and are vulnerable to being squeezed).
Miller misunderstands the nature of the British Empire. Imperial subjects were as British and had as much right to live in Britain as those born and living in Britain: as Trevor McDonald was fond of pointing out, his passport when he migrated into the UK had "British Passport" at the top. This was the legal situation until the 1960/70s, when various Nationality Acts restricting these rights came in.
This situation (where Very Online right-wing people reconstruct the past according to their present understanding - not you, I mean them) is beginning to bug me. We have Tom Harwood insisting that UK is a neologism, and now we have Stephen Miller misunderstanding the nature of empires and sovereign states (if only somebody had written an article about how the meaning of Britain evolved). When my generation dies we will be left with people with no past, just a continually-updated present.
I haven’t watched Corrie since about 1992, mind. I was shocked to discover recently that Ken and Rita are “still in it”.
I remember 'Lofty' and his sad end in Eastenders. I think that was my last encounter with UK soaps.
Apart from the one I can't even remember the name of. Set in ... Spain? Eldorado? I faintly remember it was very expensive to film and bombed in the ratings - but I had a teenage crush on one of the characters.
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
Brexit really has the square root of feck all to do with what Trump is doing.
It is a quirk of our politics that some who cannot accept brexit try to pin every problem on it
Even as a Europhile I have long considered the EU to be a profligate talking shop which through the CAP seemed to benefit the French and Welsh hill farmers with no sheep. Nonetheless we were at the top table and we could set the agenda regarding the topics to be discussed. The alternative to EU membership seemed far worse.
Putin would appear to be a key source for the funding model for some of the various wings of the Leave campaign in general. Money laundered to perfection . What? I'm a lying sack of shit? But what of all those UKIP speeches in the European Parliament by paid Russian shills like Nathan Gill. True, and it's nothing to do with Brexit but Russian Trojan horses like Viktor Orban haven't helped either. And now we have people like Trump and Miller promoting right wing EUexit candidates in Poland, the Netherlands and Austria to destabilise the EU further.
So if Brexit had nothing to do with destabilising the EU why did Putin pay for it?
And no, the EU shouldn't want us back with the spectre of a Russian - friendly UK government on the horizon. Why would they?
He's a babbling feckin' lunatic, but we are in a World where babbling feckin' lunatics have the ear of the most powerful man in the World, so we are well and truly fecked.
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
The King is head of the UK armed forces
But his mum gave him all his medals and he absolutely detested his very brief stint of National Service. He was never Rambo.
Remember Donald Trump is Commander -in--Chief AND a draft dodger, so Head of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily make a warrior king.
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
Brexit really has the square root of feck all to do with what Trump is doing.
It is a quirk of our politics that some who cannot accept brexit try to pin every problem on it
Even as a Europhile I have long considered the EU to be a profligate talking shop which through the CAP seemed to benefit the French and Welsh hill farmers with no sheep. Nonetheless we were at the top table and we could set the agenda regarding the topics to be discussed. The alternative to EU membership seemed far worse.
Putin would appear to be a key source for the funding model for some of the various wings of the Leave campaign in general. Money laundered to perfection . What? I'm a lying sack of shit? But what of all those UKIP speeches in the European Parliament by paid Russian shills like Nathan Gill. True, and it's nothing to do with Brexit but Russian Trojan horses like Viktor Orban haven't helped either. And now we have people like Trump and Miller promoting right wing EUexit candidates in Poland, the Netherlands and Austria to destabilise the EU further.
So if Brexit had nothing to do with destabilising the EU why did Putin pay for it?
And no, the EU shouldn't want us back with the spectre of a Russian - friendly UK government on the horizon. Why would they?
It’s been a great investment by Russia. It weakened Western European solidarity, and the UK economy to boot. UK is simply less consequential these days. All this is true even if we allow the critical importance of UK’s solid support of Ukraine.
Russian support for Scottish independence is also a given. Alec Salmond had a spot on RT, for goodness sake. A quick look at the map suggests that Britain would be severely emasculated without Scotland. It’s now 12 years since the last referendum and independence sentiment goes through the roof if you ask voters to imagine a Farage premiership.
China has an expeditionary warefare capacity issue regarding Taiwan. Its called troops carrying sea transport.
It is noted that they appear to trying to fill this gap via testing civilian ferries and building a number of military purpose ferries. The problem is that you have to land enough troops early, which is hard to do with a big ferry coming in to shore as an easy target and there is a question of whether they have transport capacity yet to get critical mass onshore. In its absence they'd be left to do a lot of battlefield prep first, potentially over many days, to enable such vessels to come in with minimum risk. That prep needs to be suffciently heavy and the question, have they got the sustained, round the clock air resources alongside inflitration and cyberwarfare skills.
Off topic:
The Iranian regime seem to be working to the assumption someone is going to attack them very soon.
There is a lot of speulation that the US is about to try to seize the Venezuelan oil carrying tanker, which is now Russian flagged tht is somewhere to the west of Ireland
Some activity in Caracas this evening. Been very quiet since the US strikes.
China has an expeditionary warefare capacity issue regarding Taiwan. Its called troops carrying sea transport.
It is noted that they appear to trying to fill this gap via testing civilian ferries and building a number of military purpose ferries. The problem is that you have to land enough troops early, which is hard to do with a big ferry coming in to shore as an easy target and there is a question of whether they have transport capacity yet to get critical mass onshore. In its absence they'd be left to do a lot of battlefield prep first, potentially over many days, to enable such vessels to come in with minimum risk. That prep needs to be suffciently heavy and the question, have they got the sustained, round the clock air resources alongside inflitration and cyberwarfare skills.
Off topic:
The Iranian regime seem to be working to the assumption someone is going to attack them very soon.
There is a lot of speulation that the US is about to try to seize the Venezuelan oil carrying tanker, which is now Russian flagged tht is somewhere to the west of Ireland
Some activity in Caracas this evening. Been very quiet since the US strikes.
Wasn't warfare on too many fronts what ultimately did for Hitler?
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
Brexit really has the square root of feck all to do with what Trump is doing.
It is a quirk of our politics that some who cannot accept brexit try to pin every problem on it
Even as a Europhile I have long considered the EU to be a profligate talking shop which through the CAP seemed to benefit the French and Welsh hill farmers with no sheep. Nonetheless we were at the top table and we could set the agenda regarding the topics to be discussed. The alternative to EU membership seemed far worse.
Putin would appear to be a key source for the funding model for some of the various wings of the Leave campaign in general. Money laundered to perfection . What? I'm a lying sack of shit? But what of all those UKIP speeches in the European Parliament by paid Russian shills like Nathan Gill. True, and it's nothing to do with Brexit but Russian Trojan horses like Viktor Orban haven't helped either. And now we have people like Trump and Miller promoting right wing EUexit candidates in Poland, the Netherlands and Austria to destabilise the EU further.
So if Brexit had nothing to do with destabilising the EU why did Putin pay for it?
And no, the EU shouldn't want us back with the spectre of a Russian - friendly UK government on the horizon. Why would they?
It’s been a great investment by Russia. It weakened Western European solidarity, and the UK economy to boot. UK is simply less consequential these days. All this is true even if we allow the critical importance of UK’s solid support of Ukraine.
Russian support for Scottish independence is also a given. Alec Salmond had a spot on RT, for goodness sake. A quick look at the map suggests that Britain would be severely emasculated without Scotland. It’s now 12 years since the last referendum and independence sentiment goes through the roof if you ask voters to imagine a Farage premiership.
It was a terrible investment by Russia since it brought to power Boris Johnson who was Putin's most formidable and dauntless opponent outside Ukraine and maybe the Baltics in the key weeks after the invasion. And it didn't really weaken Western European solidarity in any way at all that actually matters to Russia. What might have been to Putin's benefit to a limited extent was the three years of paralysis that followed as Remainers refused to accept the largest popular vote in British history, but he didn't really take advantage of that in any obvious way.
If Putin did think he was going to get any benefit from our leaving the EU, he made yet another serious error of judgement.
China has an expeditionary warefare capacity issue regarding Taiwan. Its called troops carrying sea transport.
It is noted that they appear to trying to fill this gap via testing civilian ferries and building a number of military purpose ferries. The problem is that you have to land enough troops early, which is hard to do with a big ferry coming in to shore as an easy target and there is a question of whether they have transport capacity yet to get critical mass onshore. In its absence they'd be left to do a lot of battlefield prep first, potentially over many days, to enable such vessels to come in with minimum risk. That prep needs to be suffciently heavy and the question, have they got the sustained, round the clock air resources alongside inflitration and cyberwarfare skills.
Off topic:
The Iranian regime seem to be working to the assumption someone is going to attack them very soon.
There is a lot of speulation that the US is about to try to seize the Venezuelan oil carrying tanker, which is now Russian flagged tht is somewhere to the west of Ireland
Some activity in Caracas this evening. Been very quiet since the US strikes.
Wasn't warfare on too many fronts what ultimately did for Hitler?
The thing about the 1914-18 war is endless grounds for speculation about how it ever got started in the first place; even Baldrick asks about it in Blackadder. The Great War began suddenly, out of nowhere, and ended almost as quickly, with four years of mass deaths for little gain in the middle. The Second World War equivalent is debate about why Germany lost. There are so many reasons it seems almost invidious to single one out. But yes, that is one.
I haven’t watched Corrie since about 1992, mind. I was shocked to discover recently that Ken and Rita are “still in it”.
I remember 'Lofty' and his sad end in Eastenders. I think that was my last encounter with UK soaps.
Apart from the one I can't even remember the name of. Set in ... Spain? Eldorado? I faintly remember it was very expensive to film and bombed in the ratings - but I had a teenage crush on one of the characters.
I've never watched the soaps but was given a lot of what the cool kids know as merch when Eastenders launched, and still have a Queen Vic beermat on the shelf.
I haven’t watched Corrie since about 1992, mind. I was shocked to discover recently that Ken and Rita are “still in it”.
Here is everything you need to know about ITV. There's lots of advertising in the run-up to Christmas. They can't give away advertising slots over Christmas itself. All the shops are shut and no-one has any money left. You might even have noticed that some commercial breaks had no commercials, just trailers for other programmes. Then once we reach the first full week of the new year, ie now, we enter the peak holiday advertising season.
So ITV's Christmas programming rarely gets out of first gear and they aim to win viewers back in January. Hence Corriedale.
Driverless cars will make journeys safer, halt road rage and combat drink-driving, the transport secretary has said.
Outlining her plans for the future of travel, Heidi Alexander said Britain should ‘embrace technology’ and will run self-driving vehicle pilot projects across the country in 2026.
Driverless cars will make journeys safer, halt road rage and combat drink-driving, the transport secretary has said.
Outlining her plans for the future of travel, Heidi Alexander said Britain should ‘embrace technology’ and will run self-driving vehicle pilot projects across the country in 2026.
Government about to learn that it’s a lot more difficult than it looks, especially on UK roads that are quite different from where this technology has been trialled elsewhere.
Driverless cars will make journeys safer, halt road rage and combat drink-driving, the transport secretary has said.
Outlining her plans for the future of travel, Heidi Alexander said Britain should ‘embrace technology’ and will run self-driving vehicle pilot projects across the country in 2026.
Government about to learn that it’s a lot more difficult than it looks, especially on UK roads that are quite different from where this technology has been trialled elsewhere.
That’s why you run pilot schemes surely? That’s all the government has committed to do
Driverless cars will make journeys safer, halt road rage and combat drink-driving, the transport secretary has said.
Outlining her plans for the future of travel, Heidi Alexander said Britain should ‘embrace technology’ and will run self-driving vehicle pilot projects across the country in 2026.
Government about to learn that it’s a lot more difficult than it looks, especially on UK roads that are quite different from where this technology has been trialled elsewhere.
That’s why you run pilot schemes surely? That’s all the government has committed to do
Indeed so, but some of the pilot schemes elsewhere have been disastrous, with roads blocked and traffic chaos.
It seems like it isvonly a matter of time before the US will need to leave all of their bases in Europe. I'm slightly surprised we are not seeing demonstrations outside Mildenhall, Lakenheath or Meneith Hill.
Something Trump sycophant/whisperers like Starmer and Rutte don't appear to have grasped is that the senile old guy in the White House is unlikely to make it to the end if his term.
And those surrounding him are far less susceptible to flattery. And are driven by very specific agendas severely detrimental to our interests, rather than random whim.
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
The King is head of the UK armed forces
But his mum gave him all his medals and he absolutely detested his very brief stint of National Service. He was never Rambo.
Remember Donald Trump is Commander -in--Chief AND a draft dodger, so Head of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily make a warrior king.
Five years in the Royal Navy is not nothing, and the evidence is that he seems to have enjoyed his time. The King is the embodiment of the state commitment to the armed forces, so I can't get worked up that the head of state demonstrates this by maintaining his links even after his active service ends and he serves the state in other duties. Outrage seems a silly reaction to a pragmatic relationship between the Crown and the armed forces.
I don't want it to happen, but I have thought for a while that 2026-28 (I thought 2027 likeliest) could well see China have a crack at Taiwan. Militarily, that window is probably the now or never period, for demographic reasons and due to the USA having its current joyous leadership.
I wonder whether an EU wide nuclear deterrent will now become a priority. If it existed now, that would probably be very reassuring to Denmark/Greenland.
Comments
"Time flies by when you're the driver of a train, speeding into Trumpton with a cargo of cocaine"
https://x.com/stephenm/status/2008035701804208224
China doesn't need Taiwan in any economic or practical sense. It represents a problem for the Chinese government though mainly by virtue of demonstrating what the PRC could have been were it not run by the current crew. As long as it exists however it does at least provide a focus for Chinese Nationalism which helps sustain the position of Xi and chums, so on balance I suspect they will be happy just to keep sabre-rattling. Actually going for an invasion runs the very big risk of failure and the demise of the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.
https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/67089
If it hurts us more then it hurts them, perhaps there's a lot of people who would decide not to do so, just as politicians decided to stop mentioning Tibet as China became stronger and more important.
In any case it seems more likely to me that China exerts gradually escalating pressure on Taiwan culminating in a blockade, rather than just invading out of the blue. That sort of frog boiling approach is harder to react to, as Russia has shown repeatedly.
😂😂😂😂
US Oil refinery’s are gasping for what Venezuela has.
https://www.channel4.com/news/why-are-shares-and-oil-prices-rising-despite-venezuela-uncertainty
Rather than any kind of thing you'd actually want to watch.
I do not watch coronation street but do watch Emmerdale so made some sense but not my cuppa tea
Private US company’s had put in, invested a lot of money in Venezuela oil, not least in infrastructure, which they were never compensated for. How could it not have been anything other than theft?
Japan has multiple metric tons of “civil” plutonium, large quantities of “military grade” plutonium and large quantities of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU).
If they decide to break from the NPT, the question is whether it would be hours or a week or 2 until they have their first nuke.
My guess is hours - the implosion system can be tested with non-nuclear material. The plutonium or uranium could even be already cast and machined.
The US oil refineries that could take Venezuelan oil have long been converted to other work. Converting back would be expensive - to take a feedstock that would be expensive and years away from coming on line anyway.
They'll never put you in a situation where you have no choice.
They'll stick to salami tactics.
Admittedly he was talking about Russians, not Americans, but the principle holds. Gangsters generally know not to be too greedy at once, or the effective ones do, anyway.
It is likely most will stay the course with Trump, but it is going to be very uncomfortable as opponents of Trump demand opposition to him
It was noticeable that when Cooper addressed the HOC today [Badenoch quite rightly asked why Starmer was avoiding questions] that she faced a lot of anger from her own side
This, and everything else, may well conspire to threaten Starmer's position
Certainly he is being overwhelmed with so many problems, many of which are beyond his control, that his head must be spinning
I have no time for Starmer but to be honest I cannot think of any leader who has the answers to this new world order
Waaf
wack
Wacs
Wada
wade
wadi
wads
waff
Wafs
waft
wage
wagh
wags
wahs
waif
wail
wain
wair
wait
waka
wake
wakf
wale
wali
walk
wall
walm
walt
waly
wame
wand
wane
wang
wans
want
wany
waps
waqf
ward
ware
wari
warm
warn
warp
wars
wart
wary
wase
wash
wasp
wast
wate
wath
wats
watt
wauk
waul
waur
wave
wavy
wawl
waws
waxy
ways
weak
weal
wean
wear
Weas
webs
weds
weed
week
weel
weem
ween
weep
weer
weet
weft
weid
Weil
weir
weka
weld
welk
well
welp
wels
welt
wems
wend
wens
went
wept
were
werf
weri
werk
wers
wert
west
weta
wets
weys
whae
wham
whan
whap
whar
what
whau
whee
when
whet
whew
whey
whid
Whig
whim
whin
whip
whir
whit
whiz
whoa
whom
whoo
whop
whos
whup
whyo
whys
wich
wick
wide
wife
wigs
wiki
wild
wile
wilk
will
wilt
wily
wimp
wind
wine
wing
wink
winn
wino
wins
winy
wipe
wire
wirk
wirl
wirr
wiry
wise
wish
wisp
wist
wite
with
wits
wive
woad
woah
woes
woft
woke
woks
wold
wolf
womb
womp
wone
wong
wonk
wons
wont
wood
woof
wool
woon
woos
woot
word
wore
work
worm
worn
wort
wots
wove
wowf
wows
wran
wrap
wren
writ
wrop
wull
wump
wuns
Wurm
wuss
wych
wyde
wyes
wynd
wynn
wyns
wyte
???
The Mango Mafia is all that matters.
Seems Billy has been killed off.
I liked Billy. It is a shame.
Hilton is the op co - other investors own the real estate
A very odd word to use in that context.
It has been US policy my entire life to remain suitably ambiguous about this up until the current day, in order to leave China guessing, and thereby to deter any such invasion, and protect US maritime hegemony in the Pacific.
However I believe Trump has to all intents blown that up (whatever “official” policy remains) and China essentially has a green light.
I’m not up on the extent to which - if at all - the West (or U.S. and Europe independently) have managed to reduce reliance on Taiwanese semiconductors. I suspect not much. I suspect therefore that any blockade would cause a short term global economic crisis, although it would be in China’s and the world’s interests to see a resumption to any halt on semiconductor exports as quickly as possible.
Met Office
@metoffice
Something to watch later this week. Could you see some heavy snow, heavy rain or strong winds...
https://x.com/metoffice/status/2008273295679123463
Even before there was a US, some of the colonial land was acquired by purchases; for example, William Penn purchased the land that became Philadelphia and its surroundings.
And then there were hundreds of purchases from Indian tribes, For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase
(For the record: I am not arguing that all of these purchases would have occurred without force, or threat of force.)
Fun fact: The US did not have enough cash to pay for the Louisiana Purchase, so we borrowed much of it from a bank that many of you know . . . .
I haven’t watched Corrie since about 1992, mind.
I was shocked to discover recently that Ken and Rita are “still in it”.
Either are far more formidable targets than Taiwan, are pretty strongly allied together, and the idea is nonsense anyway.
Do we really have to go through all that nonsense again ?
Tough call.
The alternative would have been a "shock and awe" style attack on Caracas. There's been military finesse and political finesse - analogous to the Obama adminstration killing Bin Laden, the President hasn't declared war (he's need Congressional approval) but has allowed a precision strike to be carried out by special forces.
The extent to which other leaders now worry the same might happen to them I don't know but as others have stated, it has shown Putin, Xi and others some of America's military capability and that was also probably part of the intention.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002pd51
Not only might it actually fail, it would also severely damage international trade and the Chinese economy, for no good reason. They aren't stupid.
If Trump were in charge in China, it would be a different matter.
This situation (where Very Online right-wing people reconstruct the past according to their present understanding - not you, I mean them) is beginning to bug me. We have Tom Harwood insisting that UK is a neologism, and now we have Stephen Miller misunderstanding the nature of empires and sovereign states (if only somebody had written an article about how the meaning of Britain evolved). When my generation dies we will be left with people with no past, just a continually-updated present.
77% of Green voters, 63% of Labour voters, 69% of LD voters and 47% of Tory voters disapprove.
49% of Reform voters approve though
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53810-britons-disapprove-of-us-capture-of-venezuelan-leader-nicolas-maduro-split-on-government-response
The operators have both management contracts and franchise arrangement, but with the development of the propco model they have been switching to manco (otherwise they are not actually doing all that much and are vulnerable to being squeezed).
Stephen Miller is the most malevolent **** currently walking this planet. Stephen Miller's plan for Planet Earth is a white supremacist dystopia.
CNN
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2008313539384275289
Ranting hysterically by the end.
Apart from the one I can't even remember the name of. Set in ... Spain? Eldorado? I faintly remember it was very expensive to film and bombed in the ratings - but I had a teenage crush on one of the characters.
Putin would appear to be a key source for the funding model for some of the various wings of the Leave campaign in general. Money laundered to perfection . What? I'm a lying sack of shit? But what of all those UKIP speeches in the European Parliament by paid Russian shills like Nathan Gill. True, and it's nothing to do with Brexit but Russian Trojan horses like Viktor Orban haven't helped either. And now we have people like Trump and Miller promoting right wing EUexit candidates in Poland, the Netherlands and Austria to destabilise the EU further.
So if Brexit had nothing to do with destabilising the EU why did Putin pay for it?
And no, the EU shouldn't want us back with the spectre of a Russian - friendly UK government on the horizon. Why would they?
Remember Donald Trump is Commander -in--Chief AND a draft dodger, so Head of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily make a warrior king.
It weakened Western European solidarity, and the UK economy to boot. UK is simply less consequential these days. All this is true even if we allow the critical importance of UK’s solid support of Ukraine.
Russian support for Scottish independence is also a given. Alec Salmond had a spot on RT, for goodness sake. A quick look at the map suggests that Britain would be severely emasculated without Scotland. It’s now 12 years since the last referendum and independence sentiment goes through the roof if you ask voters to imagine a Farage premiership.
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxjpBttbBmVwX3M2FIw655CArv6P6PbfUU
It is noted that they appear to trying to fill this gap via testing civilian ferries and building a number of military purpose ferries. The problem is that you have to land enough troops early, which is hard to do with a big ferry coming in to shore as an easy target and there is a question of whether they have transport capacity yet to get critical mass onshore. In its absence they'd be left to do a lot of battlefield prep first, potentially over many days, to enable such vessels to come in with minimum risk. That prep needs to be suffciently heavy and the question, have they got the sustained, round the clock air resources alongside inflitration and cyberwarfare skills.
Off topic:
The Iranian regime seem to be working to the assumption someone is going to attack them very soon.
There is a lot of speulation that the US is about to try to seize the Venezuelan oil carrying tanker, which is now Russian flagged tht is somewhere to the west of Ireland
Some activity in Caracas this evening. Been very quiet since the US strikes.
Explosions reported at Miraflores Palace in Venezuela's capital Caracas — El País
If Putin did think he was going to get any benefit from our leaving the EU, he made yet another serious error of judgement.
So ITV's Christmas programming rarely gets out of first gear and they aim to win viewers back in January. Hence Corriedale.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2008087404725379326
He said they were reducing by £150, but will actually be nearly £200 higher than when he took office.
Outlining her plans for the future of travel, Heidi Alexander said Britain should ‘embrace technology’ and will run self-driving vehicle pilot projects across the country in 2026.
Speaking in her office, the MP told Metro: ‘We are going to have some pilots and trials in the spring. We need to pass some secondary legislation in Parliament to set up a permit system so that we can make sure that when we are doing these trials, we do so in a safe and responsible way.
https://metro.co.uk/2026/01/05/self-driving-cars-wont-get-road-rage-will-distracted-kids-backseat-25788452/
TAPPER: Can you rule out that the US is going to take Greenland by force?
STEPHEN MILLER: Greenland should be part of the US. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The US is the power of NATO.
TAPPER: So you can't take military force off the table?
MILLER: Nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2008318519142686860
And those surrounding him are far less susceptible to flattery. And are driven by very specific agendas severely detrimental to our interests, rather than random whim.
I don't want it to happen, but I have thought for a while that 2026-28 (I thought 2027 likeliest) could well see China have a crack at Taiwan. Militarily, that window is probably the now or never period, for demographic reasons and due to the USA having its current joyous leadership.
https://x.com/danfriedman81/status/2008284251028926495
She’s seen as a unifying candidate, and not beholden to the sectarian politics which has become a problem in the State.
Diplomacy is about surviving until the next century – politics is about surviving until Friday afternoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hsNfNM0SvE&t=43s