Ooops

No, they actually can't, they can make a drone that can parkour a know course. On a good day an unknown course strictly comprised out of known parts. The more autonomous the task, the harder it gets.

Contrary to public believe A.I. isn't actually intelligent but really dump. They can only work well with permutations of known things but are still rather helpless when confronted with unknown factors.

These were not stored because they are great, but ~~as a kind of emergency-reserve~~ because proper disposal costs more than letting them rot on some shelf.

You could have clicked the link above and read it yourself (for example here). It's about a study from 1978 with data often much older from plants in Tenessee and Alabama (known for their magnicicient regulations, especially at that time *cough*)

To quote from that article:

"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities."

"Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants."

"According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays."

You will not find any mention of nuclear waste in there because the actual only number they used in that study is radiation living next to running nuclear power plant... as a base line to compare against.

EDIT: As for the increasing levels of radiation. The UN has a lot to say about that:

"The main man-made contribution to the exposure of the world's population has come from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, from 1945 to 1980. Each nuclear test resulted
in unrestrained release into the environment of substantial quantities of radioactive materials, which were widely dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited everywhere on
the Earth’s surface"

Yes... here we can actually talk about nuclear waste. It's still less harmful then nuclear testing was.

The production also increased much more than in the whole US. Basically Europe's goal was at least a million shells until the end of the year. And even when they might fall a bit short on that goal, the US -by it's own account- is still in the we can probably produce 20k per month from 2024 and onward stage of ramping up production.

the German Leopard 1 tanks currently in Ukraine are partially the second line of defense for the Bundeswehr

Yeah, that's bullshit. They had to find people (most of them many decades past their jobs in military) to even do the training because Leopard-1s were simply not a thing for a long time. The ones they are sending to Ukraine are refurbished trash sitting in some yard for decades, mostly out of Germany even.

The only still existing Leopard-1s in operation are found in Greece. Then there are engineering vehicles because they were still sufficient for their job. And when they weren't anymore (because tanks they would need to tow got too heavy) that's when Wisent1 were invented. Which is a commercially developed upgrade for Leopard-1-based engineering vehicles to improve their power to a level where they can handle modern Leopard-2s again. And before the Ukraine war there was only a single buyer: the danish army.

Same reason Russia did it. The allmighty leader gets older and wants to see it happen before he dies as some stupid form of legacy.

No it isn't and it will never be. Doesn't matter how many time you repeat that lie.

The actual fact (very clearly told in the studies that are then brought up to justify the rediculous claim) is: Coal power plants 60 years ago (that's how old the study is) spread more radioactivity via fly ash, then escapes through the massive concrete walls of a running reactor. That's it. No mention of actual waste or anything else.

So coal power is more radioactive than nuclear power only if nuclear power would not create any waste at all and also not contaminate anything that has to be build back and cared for. So basically in a computer game where we you just click on it to remove it from your map, not in any reality.

Seriously has anyone actually read the shit you parrot or is there really a fundamental lack of ability to read beyond clickbait headlines?

PS: Also that radioactivity by fly-ash is based on the natural radioactity contained in earth and stone. Can you imagine the difference in radiation spread by you compared to the world around you? Yeah, there is none... with very small variations by which layer of earth you look at.

So basically you can also pretend that picking up a rock and throwing it at your head is me radiating my surroundings...

Actually that isn't even true. Because decades of nuclear testing has actual incresed the radiation in our natural surroundings, so layers of earth buried for quite some time actually contain lower radiation. If they had done the same study just two decades later then that fly-ash would not even have registered against the normal radiation level around us.

And another thread of "oh no! they fuck the environment and us all" when the reality is the lowest coal use in Germany for decades. With a hike in reduction the moment these shitty nuclear reactors providing basically nothing (>2% in the months they were still running) but getting renewable energy shut down were finally gone

Reactivating coal power plants for winter in case they should be needed is not the same as actually burning coal. Not that any of your favorite propagandists would ever tell you that secret.

Yes... since WW1. After exactly any war people where eager to proclaim the end of tanks as warfare had obviously adapted and they were far to expensive and ineffective. Every single time. But the reality is: no one cares about the cost or efficiency as long as there isn't a replacement that can fullfil their vital role. And so the tactics and some details were adapted instead.

The same is true for drones. It doesn't matter what they can do. They can't fullfill the same role as infantry so they will not replace infantry but will be adapted for more use cases by infantry instead.

PS: I'm obviously speaking about land based warfare here. Air combat is a different thing and much easier to adapt drones to (traversing terrain is one the most obvious issues of a drone -even more so when it has to identify all terrain for autonomous operation- that mostly does not exist in wide open spaces). So you will see a dozen pilots being replaced by 2 and a swarm of drones carrrying weapons and equipment or carrying out objectives. But you will not see the same for infantry for a very long time because somewhat autonomous operation in the chaotic terrain of ground combat is still science fiction. And non-automonous drones will be defeated by infantry using EW, not by anti-drone drones.

Ich würde die frühestens dann wählen (und trotzdem nicht aktiv unterstützen), wenn sie die letzte existierende Partei neben Deutschlands rechtem Schmutz ist. Wobei, wenn ich das so sage: Die Chance existiert, jetzt wo inzwischen stimmenmäßig etwa 2/3 Deutschlands rechtsradikale Kommentare nachplappern. Gott bewahre...

PS: Was dann übrigens auch erklärt, wie ich mich in der Tat persönlich angegriffen fühle. Diese Scheiße kontinuierlicher Narrative statt Fakten und Leute wie du, die liebend gern darauf anspringen auch wenn man ihnen die tatsächlichen Fakten vor die Nase hält, sind eine Gefahr für Deutschland, die Demokratie und letztendlich auch mich persönlich (auch wenn das sicher erst sehr viel später).

Und du hast keine Ahnung, wie sehr ich es hasse den Spinner verteidigen zu müssen. Aber Bullshit bleibt Bullshit. Und das einfach so zu akzepotieren hat uns in diese Situation voller Narrative aber ohne Fakten gebracht.

There are no real game changers, only smaller steps of adaption. You won't suddenly stopping using soldiers because drones are better. You will equip the soldiers with with more capabilities to defend drones.

Drones aren't efficient in Ukraine on both sides because they are more capable but because neither side has much in terms of defenses against drones.

Drones don't conquer areas. Drones don't search for explosives or hidden defenders. So no, this will not change the number of soldiers but just be an andditional wave before them taking over the job that precision-guided artillery is fullfilling now.

Also there are only very few situations where a new type of weapon actually replaced older ones. Not without decades and decades of the existing ones being adapted to new tech and tactics.

Your "we don't need forward deployments other than limited air defense anymore"-argument is the same wrong simplification we heard about the end of tanks after every single bigger engagement since ww1.