What the fuck :yea:
removed by mod
hey, I didn’t get to finish reading my hot plate of slop! how am I ever to make it into pasta now?
RationalityAboveAll
, you think your batshit crazy bigoted ideas
yaaaawwwwn
I value effort, this is ‘7 year old dying from cancer’ weak. watered down skim milk shit.
right, i doubt CIA needed to do much to work fucking Australia, of all places
Whatever, three failed states have no power to stop Xi or China’s growth
What even is their consent manufacturing line on “combating China”? Sure media say authoritarian China bad but it doesn’t seem like the State department/Pentagon/Biden are saying China needs to be fought because of some bogus humanitarian grounds. Are they saying China is what, like, strutting in international waters? Like if a reporter asked Jen Psaki or whatever “Why are we building international military consensus on ‘combating’ China?” what would she say? Straight up Cold War style “containing communism”? I feel like that doesn’t even make sense for them to say in this current political reality
The propaganda I see them putting out consistently that China is engaging in an international scheme to takeover global governments via their “united front” work. The BBC recently put out a horrificly dangerous sinophobic documentary called " China’s magic weapon " that basically claimed all Chinese people abroad are in on it. Students too.
It is horrific. Serious warning. It will make you really really fucking angry if you watch it.
I think it might not be any different from their actual reason: a rising china represents a threat to us hegemony and dominance. Remember it’s basically unquestioned amongst a lot of americans that the us is a force for good and that, although the execution or efficacy of us interventions may be called into question, never the righteousness of the us’ dominant position. If china threatens that then there may be debate about the appropriate response, but not about weather they need to be stopped.
I’m genuinely trending towards it being just a massive grift for military contractors. There’s literally no good reason for the US to go to war with China, but the ever creeping “threat” of war justifies a never ending bonanza of public spending on weapons. Australia might be stupid enough to go along with war because we’re such racist jigonistic shitbags, although there’s plenty of military grifting happening there as well.
Is there a distinction between nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines, or are they usually both?
most countries that have subs don’t have nuclear powered ones. The countries that do are basically the same countries that have nuclear weapons. China still has some diesels, in addition to their nuclear subs. All of US’ subs are nuclear powered, but only the SSBNs (“boomers”) are armed with nuclear weapons (trident missiles). SSGNs were converted from SSBN after the cold war and carry tomahawks instead. The other US sub classes like Seawolf are called “fast attack” submarines, also nuclear powered but don’t carry ballistic or cruise missiles, different mission. The diesel subs are significantly quieter underwater than nuclear subs are.
Apparently france is selling some to brazil, they and nz Australia (it’s late and i’m illiterate) would be the only countries without nuclear weapons that have nucleur subs
