It would have been discovered later on, perhaps by another power first.
We would still have all the atrocities that happened after Hiroshima and Nagasaki but people in the West would not suffer the anxiety that they could be possibly get hurt as well.
Not saying that’s not a great idea, but just think of what it would entail - for starters, who would be the commander in chief of a European army?
Not a foreign adversary, probably France
The EU needs to remove all us military from it’s territory, replicate any NATO structures as EU ones and even make sure there are no people in our armies with confused loyalties. This needed to happen before Trump even became a candidate for 2016.
Even if all the ice melts (when there are going to be real problems) Russia doesn’t have anywhere near the capacity to launch an amphibious attack against Canada.
Taking into account how their invasion of Ukraine, with massive land borders, was botched, there is no chance they ll succeed.
There is a moon mission and a starship variant is supposed to get people on and off the moon in 2027. Probably wants that cancelled and changed to a manned Mars mission with new, further away deadlines. Such a mission would be probably be cancelled anyways due to the much higher difficulty allowing him to save face by blaming regulators etc and promising SpaceX will colonize Mars “in the next 5 years”™.
As if Israel would let the US take what it (wrongly) considers theirs.
Sure attacking Denmark is insane (and will not happen) but the US has a long history of meddling in Panama.
In regards to Panama it’s more of an issue of Trump saying the quit parts loud than a radical departure from normalcy.
It was a combination of some infrastructure being offline (a VOR beacon) thus requiring a different procedure that was not followed correctly.
I don’t believe the pilots ever considered they had crossed into Soviet airspace, they were probably unaware of any deviation from their flight plan.
Nor was there any contact with Soviet forces. Were they ordered to leave the airspace would significantly change the share of blame making the pilots criminal and letting the Soviets off easily.
The intercept claims to have tried to have fired warning shots but admits they were not really visible in the night. I think that if he flown directly in front of them, they would notice if not visually the turbulence. But the decision seems to have been taken that it was not a civilian plane at a higher level and the identification part of the intercept a formality. Apparently they had actually missed intercepting some actual spy planes recently and they had to save face.
What about them? They were there while South Korea was a dictatorship, weren’t they?
Firstly act of wars do not necessarily, in fact usually, do no lead to full blown war. Iran and Israel launched missiles at each other recently and they did not go to full blown war, does that mean that both of those acts were not in-fact act of wars but perfectly normal behavior?
I presume you are referring to KAL-007 (as when MH-17 happened the Russian proxies were already at war with Ukraine). It was the Soviet Union and it didn’t shoot it down for violating an imaginary ADIZ but after twice overflying Soviet territory. It’s disputed whether the plane did manage to exit Soviet airspace after the second overfly but it not relevant, the SU justification was always that it crossed in their territory not that it entered a unilaterally declared ADIZ.
Why? China also has an ADIZ which just like S.Korea’s and every ADIZ is based on bullshit not on international law. China will also “intercept” aka fly planes alongside and whine about Korean “aggression”.
ADIZ violations are not real. Actually trying to enforce one by shooting down planes would be an unprovoked act of war.
There are legitimate uses like health information campaigns (vaccination campaigns, anti smoking campaigns) and other informatio campaigns.
Advertising is probably a misnaming.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
OP’s claim was that official call anti-zionist Jews ‘allegedly Jewish’ (ostensibly actually, a synonym) and that they decided if they are “bad” or “good” Jews. It seems obvious to me from the choice of words as well as the punctuation he is not referring to official acts but bias of the official. Which may well affect their official decisions.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
Are the communities not the ones referred to by the commissioner in his defense? That makes them relevant. If the article is wrong that you have to be part of such a community to be “officially” Jewish it’s irrelevant, the issue is that the commissioner tried to defend his position by appealing to them.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
You could perhaps read the first part as that, a matter of % of Jewish people in an organization rather than one of ‘true’ Jewishness of the members identifying as Jews. Your reading is very generous to him.
But from the second commend it’s obvious it’s the latter. He is attacking the Jewishness of Jewish members of that organization. That he does it en mass does not make it better.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion. It is not relevant that it is wrong. The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Blume was embroiled in a small scandal after he referred to Jüdische Stimme as “ostensibly Jewish” on Twitter
Blume demurred, claiming that, while he was happy to accept anyone’s self-definition as Jewish as a matter of personal religious freedom, he was not sure whether the group’s members counted as members of the Jewish religious communities that are legal partners of the German state
In Germany, membership in religious communities is regulated by state-designated institutions, meaning that to be officially Jewish, one must join the Jüdische Gemeinde, the state-affiliated Jewish community
A Russian defeat would again deprive NATO of purpose.
But they are. Its been settled decades ago.
It’s not really me that needs it.
Yes but what is Wikipedia going to actually do about it? Just create another article? We should dismantle Wikipedia!
What exactly will they have to deal with if Harris gets elected?
Does this include the Russian military?
What about indirect stuff such as “The Ukrainians should crush the Russian invaders” ?