We're all born naked. The rest is drag.
Hyperreality
joined 2 years ago
I think a lot of people underestimate how much farm work and actual hard labour is required to maintain a commune.
I also question if someone is actually left-wing, if they think they're somehow above physical labour, or implicitly believe they're too good to be doing it.
Oh, yeah.
Even if the invasion was succesful, it would be a textbook pyrrhic victory. IRC there are already plans to ship everything important out ASAP and destroy what can't be shipped. Obviously they don't want the Chinese to get their hands on it. What isn't destroyed on purpose, would like be destroyed by the war itself. Taiwan's lovely, but the whole reason it has strategic value is because of its high tech industries.
It makes no sense to invade. But hey, never underestimate the stupidity, megalomania and vanity of an ageing autocrat.
China does not have the ability to launch an amphibious invasion.
It's closer than you think:
CSIS developed a wargame for a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan and ran it 24 times. In most[!!!] scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule. Victory is therefore not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence immediately.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan
However, it inevitably raises the question: if China tries to take Taiwan, are the United States and its allies able to stop it? And the alarming answer is: Quite possibly not. Analysts say China has more troops, more missiles and more ships than Taiwan or its possible supporters, like the US or Japan, could bring to a fight. That means that if China is absolutely determined to take the island it probably can. But there’s a caveat; while China could likely prevail, any victory would come at an extremely bloody price for both Beijing and its adversaries.
TLDR:
- China has mass. 1.4billion people means you can keep throwing meat in the grinder.
- If the CCP/Xi commits to an invasion, it'd be an existential risk to fail, so they'd be more likely to make that sacrifice.
Also: risk of nuclear war.
One of the things companies like Cambridge Analytica do, is target voters unlikely to change who they vote for, and convince them to not bother voting at all by convincing them that 'both sides' are just as bad as each other.
I remember reading a story about how a Danish shipping company helped the communist DDR export weapons (perhaps including West European weapons) to Apartheid South Africa and bypass international sanctions, likely with the foreknowledge of the CIA given the Brits and French were likely also doing it.
Ridiculously complex, but for all the rhetoric and bullshit, whether it's communists, capitalists, democrats, or theocrats, islamists, christian nationalists.... but as you say they all worship that dollar.
Some sources:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229108535234
The UK Department for Transport estimated that cameras had led to a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions and 42% fewer people being killed or seriously injured at camera sites. The British Medical Journal recently reported that speed cameras were effective at reducing accidents and injuries in their vicinity and recommended wider deployment. An LSE study in 2017 found that "adding another 1,000 cameras to British roads could save up to 190 lives annually, reduce up to 1,130 collisions and mitigate 330 serious injuries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera
“Our research suggests the growing use of average speed cameras in motorway roadworks and increasingly on sections of A-road is reinforcing the road safety message as they are extremely effective at slowing down drivers. ... “For instance, on the A9 in Scotland the number of deaths has halved since average speed cameras were introduced between Dunblane and Inverness in October 2014.
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/average-speed-cameras-more-effective-study-finds/
All but one of the studies showed effectiveness of cameras up to three years or less after their introduction; one study showed sustained longer term effects (4.6 years after introduction). Reductions in outcomes across studies ranged from 5% to 69% for collisions, 12% to 65% for injuries, and 17% to 71% for deaths in the immediate vicinity of camera sites. The reductions over wider geographical areas were of a similar order of magnitude.
https://www.bmj.com/content/330/7487/331
We can’t have street daddies on every corner keeping us safe.
You can and thanks to the revenue cameras generate, it generates enough revenue to save the tax payer money, and free up the police for other duties.
I have seen documented evidence many times that enforcement does NOT alter people’s behaviour in a way that persists
Given I found plenty of evidence with a 5 second search, is it possible you didn't want to find evidence because you had already come to a conclusion about the effectiveness of speed enforcement?
That's not surprising either. This stuff usually only ever comes to light, when the talent is no longer profitable.
I find it entirely unsurprising.
The amount of vegan, organic, health-obsessed, non-GMO twats I know, who happily snort coke or do ecstacy during the weekend is huge.
I can only surmise they're not true believers, they're just boring people who think going on about it makes them more interesting than they actually are.
The war went well. The occupation and aftermath turned out to be a bigger challenge.
They ended up losing me as a customer forever.
I have been reliably informed he 'knows words' and has 'the best words'.