Even in a scenario where the EU massively increases production of tanks and guns and drones, they still have to get those things into the theater of operations. One thing the US military is really, really good at is logistics. The EU up until now has little modern experience at it, because the US did it all for them.
Carriers would provide air superiority to prevent any reinforcements from landing. That’s all. Trump is willing to push a war of attrition on this one, because again, he’s an idiot.
If a nuclear sub did manage to sink a US supercarrier, Trump would likely try to galvanize support in a “Remember the Maine!” fashion. I doubt it would shift actual support much at all. Quite the opposite; without doing the legwork for a paper thin excuse ahead of time and building a media frenzy the way the Bush II admin did, it only highlights how dumb and pointless the whole thing is, and that he’s putting American service members at risk for no gain whatsoever.
Oh, and that nuclear sub would be hunted down and sunk in response. The EU doesn’t have the forces to win a war of attrition.
The only way I see this working out for the EU is if there’s a major purge of the US military beforehand. That would ensure loyalty to Trump, but it would toss competence into a woodchipper. Edit: see the Finish Winter War for how well purges work out. And the Finns technically still lost that one.
The US has more supercarriers than France has nuclear attack submarines. That’s not even counting US “amphibious assault ships”, which would be carriers in anybody else’s navy. It’s pretty unequal.
It’s illegal by international law–UN charter and the ICC both have sections against invading other country’s territory. International law is only as good as anyone is willing to enforce it, which in the case of Iraq, wasn’t very much.
Why would Greenland be different? Iraq was supported by a paper thin excuse of WMDs, and the history of antagonism. The Trump Administration hasn’t done the legwork to even setup a paper thin excuse beyond “they have resources we want”, and there’s no particular history of Greenland invading its own neighbors or even threatening them. In fact, it’s been an important strategic location for the US Navy’s control of the North Atlantic since WWII. Trump hasn’t bothered with even the slightest attempt at this because he’s an idiot.
Does that mean the military will refuse the order? I really have no idea. It’s not something anybody should count on. More likely, you’ll have different units making different decisions. Some outright refusing, others slow walking their orders while appearing to obey, and others eager to do it. However, it’s possible that the military will refuse en masse.
I think the burgeoning protest movements in the US should also be prepared to take direct action against the military. Things like linking hands to block the gates to weapons factories. And to the naysayers of “what are these protests even accomplishing?”, it’s to prepare a mass movement that is capable of doing this sort of thing.
I don’t think there’s a practical ability. The European powers can’t project power outside their boarders without the US helping. Especially with an overseas nation like Greenland.
England and France have a few carriers, but that’s about it. Landing troops would be highly vulnerable to US air superiority. US carriers are larger and more numerous than anything Europe can put up. Based on the local geography, those carriers can stay safe from drone range (a benefit Russia does not have on the Black Sea).
But that also assumes the US military is unified to follow orders into an illegal war, and that may not be the case.
I might start throwing Heinlein in the same bucket as GK Chesterton. Wrong a lot, but wrong in interesting ways, and so close to getting it.
I like the bidet’s we have at home, but I don’t get the ones that are separate from the toilet. Saw this type when visiting San Juan, PR once. Their plumbing system can’t handle toilet paper very well, so it’s all bidets with a stack of washed towels.
Not only do they take up extra space in the bathroom, but are you supposed to waddle over to this thing with a dingleberry hanging out? I don’t get why you’d want that.
The one argument I’ve heard in their favor is from people with vaginas who don’t like the idea of the built-in sprayer catching bits of poop that’ll get in their cootch.
That’s at the federal level. Wisconsin supreme court justices are elected for 10 year terms, and are officially non-partisan. In practice, everyone knows that the candidates are supported by one party or the other.
Yes, but what if we writeup a new one so we can break one more?
I dunno if Franco’s Spain is a good example. Post-WW2, the US and its western allies mostly let him be. He was a reliable anti-communist, after all.
The regime ended when he died.
I think a lot of the reports of high bandwidth/cheap rates around Europe are cherry picked. When I looked a nationwide averages, it doesn’t seem particularly better or worse than much of the US. At least, not in the populated areas of the US. Rural access is another issue.
A router is also an open-by-default device, and knows how to handle routing protocols like OSPF. It’s not something you would usually use at home unless you’re into that sort of thing. Things we tend to call a “router” are all-in-one firewall/switch/access points.
Step 1: Every public business is allowed to keep people from using their bathrooms
Step 2: People don’t like the homeless because they shit on the street
There’s a solution in here somewhere.
TIL what Las Vegas means. But apparently, there was originally some meadows there?
Right, and for another thing, it sounds like they’re actually following procedures to get court orders/warrants. Now, business as usual in the United States wasn’t great as it was, but this doesn’t fit how the Trump federal government has been doing things.
That level of precision in a resistor would literally be thrown off if you breathed on it. If you actually needed that, then you need to build an extremely controlled environment around it. Even then, the heat from the electricity itself would throw it off. Maybe in a liquid nitrogen bath?
It has to function the same. It has to follow the same laws as before.
Bur more likely, they know this and it’s all part of privatizing social security.
Can-Am Spyders don’t roll over easily. You have to put them into reverse while cranking the wheel and pulling the e-brake.
You’re not wrong that the law should change, but there is one thing here. Generally, when we say that 3-wheelers are unstable, we’re talking about one in front/two in back. The opposite configuration, which is what Aptera is using, is generally pretty stable. That one picture of a guy on a recumbent trike is unusual. You almost have to try to do that on purpose.
How weak is weak? Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. That was as much of a curbstomp as you’ll ever see in military history.
There’s some theories out there about just how vulnerable modern carriers are to modern subs. One thing detractors bring up is a Chinese sub popping up in US Navy maneuvers completely undetected in 2007. However, active sonar methods are usually turned off outside of wartime, so it’s not as simple as that.
One theory is that subs are at an inherent disadvantage in a technological arms race. Let’s say a nation produces a sonar that can pick up any sub currently built. Likely, they’ll be able to fit that sonar onto all their existing ships. Conversely, if you wanted to protect your own subs against that new sonar method, you will likely have to rebuild all your subs. Now, even nuclear subs are cheaper to produce than supercarriers, but this still isn’t a favorable technological position in the long run.
Drones and hypersonic missiles are a bigger threat, IMO. More so drones. Hypersonic missiles have some disadvantages of maneuverability that make them a poor choice for a moving target. Drones are limited in range, though, so the US Navy could just keep the carriers away from shore.