Trump admin seizes US$120,000,000 owned by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as stake in an offshore wind project, demands that it be invested in fossil fuel development instead.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

First of all, NATO is not a defensive alliance by any stretch of imagination. This alliance has a long history of invading and destroying countries and it's responsible for killing and displacing millions of people. NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Second, it's kind of weird that you don't understand why weapons production is a key part of a military alliance. Who produces the military strength is, in fact, the key question. And read what I actually wrote. What I said was that replacing the US role would take decades. I said there's no magic way to shortcut that.

We can also see how this investment of yours works out in practice already. Europeans pledged to produce 1.5 mil artillery shells for Ukraine. A bunch of money was allocated to various slush funds, and the shells never materialized. That's what NATO is actually good at, sucking money out of productive economy and driving austerity to line the pockets of the oligarchs.

And not sure which capabilities you claim already exist. Given how NATO weapons performed in Ukraine and Iran, it's pretty clear that there is no meaningful capability here.

And why would it matter whether China is a NATO ally or not. China is the only major world power that can contest the US. Why would anybody be imbecilic enough to want to turn China into a potential adversary? What sort of absolute idiocy would that be. Also, what military technology could China possibly steal from countries that are far behind it technologically in every way. What fantasy world do live in? Chinese universities dominate world rankings right now. China has more scientists than all of the west combined. They're at the bleeding edge of pretty much every technological field.

These new results reveal the stunning shift in research leadership over the past two decades towards large economies in the Indo-Pacific, led by China’s exceptional gains. The US led in 60 of 64 technologies in the five years from 2003 to 2007, but in the most recent five years (2019–2023) is leading in seven. China led in just three of 64 technologies in 2003–20074 but is now the lead country in 57 of 64 technologies in 2019–2023, increasing its lead from our rankings last year (2018–2022), where it was leading in 52 technologies.

If anything, it's NATO countries who would be stealing Chinese tech and not the other way around.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wait. You think it would take "decades" for some of the most industrialized countries on the planet to start making weapons...that they already know how to make? I don't think you realize how many of the highly specialised machines that are required for making those weapons, are actually manufactured in Europe already.

Europeans pledged to produce 1.5 mil artillery shells for Ukraine. A bunch of money was allocated to various slush funds, and the shells never materialized.

Are you talking about this? If so, it seems you are getting your information from questionable sources.

And yes, NATO is a defensive alliance. If you want to get technical about that list of countries that "NATO" attacked...that was actually the United Nations, in every case except for Iraq. And most NATO nations didn't participate in that invasion. That was the US and Great Britain acting alone, very similar to the current situation with the US and Israel attacking Iran. All the other campaigns you mentioned were UN sanctioned. I agree that some of those should never have happened...but at least place the responsibility where it belongs.

And why would it matter whether China is a NATO ally or not. China is the only major world power that can contest the US. Why would anybody be imbecilic enough to want to turn China into a potential adversary?

You need to go back and read what I wrote. China cannot be trusted with proprietary military designs. They would be sold to the highest bidder as soon as China was able to replicate the manufacturing process. There is a reason why most of NATO's weapons are produced in the US, and the rest are produced by NATO allies. You don't just outsource your highly classified military tech, to people you know will steal it.

And not sure which capabilities you claim already exist. Given how NATO weapons performed in Ukraine and Iran, it's pretty clear that there is no meaningful capability here.

I don't know, man. Ukraine has done pretty well, holding off Russia for the last few years, using NATO's surplus. Again, I think you're getting bad information when it comes to the specifics of your argument.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Wait. You think it would take “decades” for some of the most industrialized countries on the planet to start making weapons…that they already know how to make? I don’t think you realize how many of the highly specialised machines that are required for making those weapons, are actually manufactured in Europe already.

Go read up on the state of industrialization in the west. Seems like you're living in a fantasy universe here. Even in the US, which is the most industrialized western country, industry accounts roughly for 11% of the economy now. The west literally cannot produce many critical components on its own nowadays, and has to import them from China. The west has no way to refine rare earth for example.

Europe can't even produce something as basic as artillery shells in any meaningful scale. It cannot produce drones because those need Chinese components. It cannot produce hypersonic weapons because it doesn't have the technology.

Seems like you're the one getting your info from questionable sources https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-will-only-supply-half-promised-shells-ukraine-by-march-borrell-2024-01-31/

And on top of that, many of the shells delivered were of low quality and didn't work properly. The fact that Europe has severe problems with production is a pretty well known fact. https://www.setav.org/en/europes-struggle-cheap-weapons-at-scale

And yes, NATO is a defensive alliance.

And no, calling yourself a defensive alliance doesn't make you one. NATO invades countries, and that makes it an offensive alliance. United Nations never authorized attacks on Yugoslavia. I don't know if you're just ignorant or intentionally spreading misinformation here.

You need to go back and read what I wrote. China cannot be trusted with proprietary military designs.

You need to go back and read what I wrote. China is far ahead of the west technologically, and actually produces modern weapons like drones and hypersonics which the west is not able to.

There is a reason why most of NATO’s weapons are produced in the US, and the rest are produced by NATO allies.

Yeah, that reason is that other western countries are vassals who are technologically behind the US, and the US will not share their tech.

You don’t just outsource your highly classified military tech, to people you know will steal it.

I literally linked a study showing that China is ahead in practically every key technology. We'd be the ones doing the stealing. I also love how you chose not to engage with that since it doesn't fit your fantasy narrative.

I don’t know, man. Ukraine has done pretty well, holding off Russia for the last few years, using NATO’s surplus. Again, I think you’re getting bad information when it comes to the specifics of your argument.

Hmm, yeah let's just see how well NATO weapons are performing there https://youtu.be/c5FqxA-KjkM

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

JFC. Buddy, you are living in a bubble. You're making such easily disproven assertions, that it makes me wonder if you're not just trolling with this shit. Everything you've said, is such a broad generalization, that it effectively nullifies any conclusion you come to. None of it is accurate.

Maybe I could recommend actually learning something about the world instead of just running all your questions through ChatGPT?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Amazing counterpoint kiddo.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Seriously. I'm not going to go through that whole screed, point by point. If you're going to use AI to make your arguments, you need to ask the right questions. You clearly have a bias here, which is making your queries biased. That's why your answers aren't accurate.

You aren't even responding to my points directly...you're just going off on a tangent because you think it "sounds right"...but it misses the entire point I was making.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like you're projecting there kiddo. You've shown yourself to be clueless and dishonest throughout this discussion. You're unable to engage with anything being said yo you. I assume you frantically looked up your arguments on grok or whatever it is you use. Now you're accusing me of the same. It's sad and pathetic and you should go outside. You're not fooling anybody here. Bye.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's funny how most people who claim "projection" are the ones doing the projecting.

Ok. Without going into every point you made Individually, I'll cover the most important mistake you made...the difference between "capability" and "scale".

You keep claiming that NATO isn't "capable" of doing 'x' or 'y', because (insert false reasoning here). All of that is easily disproven by the fact that in the EU alone, all the things you claim it can't do...are already being done. Just not at the same scale as say, China.

The source of your misunderstanding comes from not being able to tell the difference between "capability" and "scale". Most of the articles you are scraping for your argument, are making that distinction...albeit using subtle language. That's why you're missing it. You have to actually read the whole article and understand what they are saying, in order to see where you are getting things wrong.

Your entire assertion that Europe isn't "capable" of producing artillery shells is also...on its face... completely false. I have no idea why you think that, when a basic Google search will return hundreds of results that contradict you. That, I can only assume, is based on your own bias. You are either skipping those sources because you disagree with them...or you are literally just relying on AI to give you the answers you are looking for, and you're framing your queries in such a way that it is ignoring the answers you don't want to hear.

So, back to "scale". That's where China has the advantage over Europe. Not on "capabilities". "Scale".

The thing with scale is, it's easy to achieve as long as you already have the capabilities. Capabilities are the hard part. Those take "decades" to produce. That's why it's taken China so long to get to where they are now. But, scale? That just takes investment and a relatively short amount of time.

It also requires incentive. Something Europe hasn't had until recently. Why invest in scaling up your production when you can just buy the product from a reliable source? Except now, that source has become unreliable. Now, they need to scale up production on their own. So, they take all the knowledge and experience they already have, and scale it up to meet demand. It's all about replication and mass production. Not R&D. That part's easy, when you already have the capability.

And at the end of all this...you still don't understand the original point I was making. An alliance is not made or broken based on weapons sales. It's based on intent, politics and necessity. 1st and foremost, NATO is a defense alliance. The idea is that the member states are stronger together, than they are separately. That's just basic common sense. So, dissolving the alliance just because your biggest partner leaves the group, is fundamentally the stupidest conclusion that you could come to, based on the entire purpose of having that alliance. It makes literally NO sense. None of the reasons you've provided even come close to addressing that basic premise. It's all just word salad in response to a very simple concept.

You are flailing around, just looking for a reason to be right, without actually thinking about any of it long enough to grasp why you're wrong.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh I thought you were done, but here we have another word salad. Weird how you haven't actually added anything of substance to the discussion or made any new points I haven't already addressed. Pretty clear who's actually flailing around here. Sad.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Lol! You would do much better in conversations like these, if you took the time to read what people write. Not just my comments, but even the subject matter that you claim to know about. Because, as someone who actually does know this topic very well...your confidence only highlights your ignorance.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I literally provided you with sources, which you clearly did not read, and here you are still pretending you're right. You're like a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. Thank you for providing some levity in these hard times.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

OMG. Ok, now you're once again admitting exactly what I've been saying to you for the last several comments. You have no actual idea what I'm talking about, and clearly no idea what you're talking about, either.

I addressed the articles you posted. In fact, I specifically responded to what was in those articles, that you seemed to be misinterpreting. It's obvious that you either didn't read what was in them yourself...or you simply didn't understand the content. That's the entire reason why I talked about the difference between "capabilities" (what you keep talking about), and "scale" (what those articles were talking about).

Those articles clearly support my position...not yours. All I'm doing is trying to help you understand what they're saying...because you obviously don't get it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I love how you just don't know when to shut up. You just need to have the last word in every conversation because your parents never loved you, don't you?

p.s. if you had any reading comprehension then you'd realize the articles do not, in fact, support your position for the reasons I clearly explained to you repeatedly in this thread. Simply stomping your feet and repeating that you're right won't make it so I'm afraid. I'll let other people read through this and decide for themselves. Enjoy having the last word that you so desperately need.