digitalscribe

6 ms·

1.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
Boots on the ground is basically the end game. Taiwan has no ability to overcome boots on the ground. They don't even take their defense seriously -- they haven't updated their defense doctrine (e.g., annual Han Kuang) for decades
2.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
> There's a difference between building nukes vs. building amphibious assault ships and transports. Nukes have essentially zero "defense" purposes. Yet all the great powers have them. It's called "good defense po
3.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
Carefully re-read my comments. AND read the links I provided. It will be a good educational experience.
4.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
Sorry, but most of this is uninformed gibberish. The PRC and its army (the PLA) have experienced nothing short of a breathtaking modernization for both the country and military. Most of the points raise are simply wrong. > 1.) too much c
5.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
It's important to understand what "reunification" means. The PRC is seeking "peaceful development" [1] towards the goal of reunification. To this end, the mainland encourages exchange, including investments and work
6.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
Does anyone else not live off of propaganda here? The Chinese civil war started in the 1900s, many many decades ago, not yesterday. Every single last PRC leader has had a goal for reunification of China, including Mao, Deng, Xi, Hu, etc, et
7.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
> Why would they be building these specific things if they weren't planning on invading Taiwan? It's basic, obvious, and rational defense policy. Everyone does it. Why does the US have thousands and thousands of nukes? It'
8.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
Due to the "p" word. Probably few people here realize that China settled the majority of its land border disputes (12 of 14) through negotiation. China, by and large, gave up much more territory than it acquired for each border se
9.
by digitalscribe 2y ago
> as if amphibious assault against a country that has been preparing invasion for 70 years You might want to update your understanding of the balance of forces in Asia. For example: "China’s military has the capability to land groun
10.
by digitalscribe 3y ago
This was an interesting discussion when I read about it long ago. I don't think it's obvious that Marilyn's interpretation is the correct one. Two possible interpretations could be equally valid. In law we have the "rule
11.
by digitalscribe 3y ago
> Not only is Marilyn's interpretation grammatically valid I would consider both interpretations equally valid. If anything, in law we have the "rule of the last antecedent" (phrase/clause modifies nearest antecedent
12.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
> Also, speed matters. Going 15 or 50 when the thing breaks makes a difference. Isnt this an argument that helmets are more important for passenger vehicles? After all, car accidents cause about 10x more head trauma in the usa.
13.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
*pole, or column, or post I thought they were forcing you to run some election polls.
14.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
Basically there is ZERO accountability to making batshit insane predictions. So one is much better off as an alarmist than as a skeptic -- alarmism draws attention/funding. But we did get an interesting movie out of the fake population
15.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
The 10°C higher average temperature during the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is a great counter example to the alarmist view. I have not seen a very persuasive argument for why it's different now. If anything, there's vi
16.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
Because this is for utility companies where the value of the rate of discharge might be even more important than the energy capacity? A quick look at their site shows "battery power capacity" is measured in watts, whereas "ba
17.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
The article is perfectly clear that all the values are watts (MW, GW). It's really silly to assume that the literal Energy Information Administration doesn't know the difference between the units of watts and watt-hours. Battery p
18.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
> draconian persecution of misbehaviour Like banning chewing gum. And the death penalty for bringing in drugs?
19.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
Found this site recently. Felt compelled to comment on this. Don't worry, i'm opinionated and give equal opportunity commenting to most everything. This deceptive faux environmentalism just rubs me the wrong way. People are more p
20.
by digitalscribe 4y ago
This is misleading. Fishing gear killed the whale. Coca-cola has nothing to do with it. If you want to rid the ocean of the vast majority of its trash, station a person to monitor each fishing boat, and permenently plug up all the rivers in