Don’t mess with Americas boats

How did something that only killed 10 targets injure thousands, especially when you are considering explosives.

I don’t think I could injure 1000s of civilians with only 10 targets killed with an explosive hidden on their person if I tried.

Close - you’re looking at letter, not action and intentions.

Booby traps are banned for use in ways that are likely to be used by civilians and remove protections on the civilian population. Things like placing explosives on public transport, the side of the road, in marketplaces or protected places. Targeted strikes, like on a piece of civilian equipment that is likely to only be used by the target (cellphone, personal vehicle, laptop) are permitted as they are unlikely to be set off by a random civilian.

What is a question, however, is if the targets were actually combatants.

That’s a warcrime

Correct.

Killing civilians isn’t a war crime. Deliberately killing civilians, or not taking reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties is a war crime.

“Small” explosive that is embedded in something passed to and likely worn by the target is unlikely to be a war crime. If they somehow snuck a 1000lb bomb into one it absolutely would be however.

Fat electrician had a great video on this.

Soo accurate that if the target is in a car you need to know what seat.

How do you have less votes than the wrong person?

How nice of them

If we go down that path you’re also forgetting the energy costs of manufacturing, distribution, installation and maintenance of the renewable producers. Definitely haven’t forgotten the need for a snarky comment though.

You can say “this is better, forget everything else” or you can look at the wider systematic concerns and solutions and actually succeed.

To start with I fully agree with your last paragraph- no arguement here.

You’re right on recyclability, the problem is that they aren’t because the infrastructure isn’t in place or profitable. There is also the fact the earth doesn’t actually contain enough of the rare earth minerals to give everyone an EV (This is off memory, cant place the source).

That’s a very weird comment - first part is really hard to read and you’ve accused me of not arguing in good faith without anything to suggest as much. If im reading this correctly

• Evs are comparable in manufacturing carbon. I don’t have the numbers but believe Evs are much higher due to rare earth mining, and that is before considering the environmental damage due to mining, social costs involved and considering the lack of standards where they are mined. Make no mistake, fossil fuel mining isn’t much better in this regard but it is a well known beast.

You then have the whole argument on how that power is actually generated. Mass power generation is much more efficient than small ICE, but it does still add up if its not using renewable sources.

Regarding battery efficiency- yes I agree they will get better the same way ICE did.

The other point is that the EV swap delays other advances - walkable cities, car centric infrastructure, mass transportation. If we cut carbon by 50% but it delays 0% by decades did we actually achieve anything?

Yes, if you are only considering the individual’s carbon cost and power is generated via 100% renewable means.

Something like 80% of China power is fossil fuels. Admittedly large scale power generation is more fuel efficient, and I don’t have the full numbers of carbon cost of manufacturing, but its important to keep in mind that carbon costs didn’t just disappear overnight.

Another consideration is that Evs still drove car centric culture. If each EV saved 50% of a vehicles lifetime carbon, but it doubled the time for mass transport to be more widely adopted, lengthened the time for cities to prioritize other means of transport and city design, and means we as a society made 50% more vehicles did we actually save anything?

Genocide includes deliberately manipulating birth rates - killing isn’t actually required.

I wouldn’t take it too strongly yet.

Actually fueling a car is only something like 60 - 80% of the total carbon cost. Rest is manufacturing and disposal. Evs hold considerable costs (carbon, waste, human suffering) in terms of manufacturing and disposal, and only really pay off if their power is created in sustainable ways - otherwise you’re just pushing the problems out of sight.

One commits it, one supplies arms to a third being investigated for it (we at confirmed yet?). Its murder vs manslaughter or association to murder.

Maori here

Don’t think like European monarch - couldn’t point this guy out or name him.

Not entirely sure why we have one, what he does or even where he is. Probably something to do with our co-governance requirements.

Course its right back - they won.

First of all, yes.

The post is a line from the article. Discussed in context its the next step up in drills they have been conducting - rather than drilling sections they are covering the wider range of skills, assets and learning opportunities that would be utalised in a small scale war.

No, with twin engine bombers, tanks, diesel trucks and radios after Napoleon failed.

Don’t ever assume your tech is what makes old issues non-existent, can guarantee they thought the same as their cutting edge tech. Mud still sucks, logistics and supply are still vulnerable, and forces can get spread out.

Fucked either way