The US could definitely do that, their logistics capabilities are immense. On top of that you have the submarine fleet, as well as assistance from regional allies. Probably not enough to take the entire country, but enough for it to capitulate through conventional means.
Arcturus
joined 2 years ago
Perhaps an exaggeration?
Life expectancy did increase, with a few blips in the 1930's, but this doesn't seem particularly out of the ordinary, it also increased during the Tsarist government if you look outside of the Sino-Japanese War and WWI era. There really isn't much consensus here, as well as a marked increase in living standards.
Other countries during that time period also had significant life expectancy increases over that period, which I think is just attributed to better infant mortality rates.
The only metric that that could be demonstrably better than than the Tsarist regime was education levels and literacy as a whole.
It was really from mid-1930's that Soviet Russia was actually pulling away from the Tsarist regime. But who's to tell that, had not WWI happened that gradual development would happen under the Tsar, or even the Provisional Government?
Germany had been worried about Russia's potential since both the German Empire and the Third Reich.
Similarly, you do see a different rate of industrialisation from post-WWII China and Japan.
Yeah, it's quite unlikely, we're both making too much money off each other.
It all depends on Taiwan and the SCS regional partners now.
It's not profitable. For example, in Sweden, the companies involved aren't interested. There was talk of EDF being restructured a couple of years back separating the unprofitable nuclear away from their other businesses (until state bailout and investment). Their CFO resigned over their decision to carry on building UK's latest nuclear powerplant. The Conservatives only pushed through the UK's next nuclear powerplant only after giving EDF assurances and ability to start taking in profits before the completion of the project.
This is what it takes to build nuclear. A lot of state money... Whereas renewables are cheaper, easier, and faster to decarbonise.
China's President sent his own daughter to Harvard and China has wide income inequality, as well as the greatest proportion of millionaires and billionaires in the world. The wealthy in China go on day trips to Paris to literally eat cake.
Overall, probably cheaper, as it requires less tax to help pay for the cost of nuclear infrastructure.
But it's not the general public who is averse to nuclear, they're as a whole, probably more in favour of it. The current Swedish governmrnt campaigned on it. It's nuclear companies themselves who don't want it. Which is partially why Sweden suddenly and quietly scrapped their plans.
It's still overall, a small part of their grid. They don't have plans to expand their nuclear fleet all too much. A good chunk are experimental, and for military research.
Renewables?
I have two family subscriptions. I find it worth it. It's quite cheap on Stacksocial (even cheaper if you have a discount code).
On top of that, I have one of these routers at home. It comes in-built with Adguard Home. There is a newer, better model coming out soon as well.
Well, that's the US fault for not thinking about that smh.