sysgen

Chinese shipbuilding is very overwhelmingly civilian.

The difference between MAD and the Samson option, is that in the former you're only attacking whoever attacked you, while in the former you're attacking bystanders that refused to intervene on your behalf.

Yes, it is, but until the fireball is smaller than a pixel, you will see a reduction in the number of pixels illuminated, and then a reduction in exposure. And I'd wager that for a sizeable bomb it will take a while for that reduction in exposure to mean you stop clipping the sensor, especially at night with the ISO dialed up.

Nah you can't, they'll be bright enough to saturate the sensor.

Because it's not true. Israel decides what comes in and out, otherwise they threaten either airstrikes or to reinvade the border region. The one thing Israel doesn't object to is to allow all Gazans to leave, but that's because they want Gaza to repopulate so they can seize it.

The condition for Israel pulling out of the border was that they would decide what gets in or out. When Egypt yesterday wanted to provide fuel and supplies, Israel threatened an airstrike.

If your goal is independence, two sources are always better than one.

Reducing fossil fuel use by increasing costs and funneling profits to America is a neoliberal approach to climate change and doesn't work. All it's going to do is make people poorer and move production of petrochemical-derived and energy-intensice products elsewhere. This is because the market is not able to make a sustainable change away from fossil fuels, especially not for a temporary wars, as these investments have to be amortized over decades. If you want to actually reduce fossil fuel use for heating and electrcity, you need governmental investment into nuclear and renewable energy and programs to install heat pumps. Becoming dependent on American gas is not actually going to help, and neither will changes in prices because it's a non-market solution.

Unless of course you think America is inherently more ethical than Russia and should be preferred - I'll let you make that argument.

There is another Nazi symbol there, the Sonnenrad.

If your goal is to hurt high finance then anticapitalist theories are correct, not salafism.

And of course it didn't mean nothing, it was a terrorist attack. It just wasn't any kind of remotely effective attack against finance or some bullshit like that, it was just an attack against the tallest building because what else would you attack with a plane. I'm not the one giving it meaning that the authors of the attack never gave it.

The entire point of financial capital is that attacks against things like their headquarters mean nothing. That's not where they get their power. All you're going to do is murder replaceable cogs for no reason.

I never said working class. I said PMC. Ie, not bourgeois. Being a glorified excel formula or a janitor for a parasitic industry does not make you guilty and it's not equivalent to being a cop or a soldier. The class interests of those respectively are PMC and working class.

95-97% of the people in a typical high finance office are working class or PMC people. The reason why finance is so lucrative is because it concentrated wealth so effectively. I know this because I was an IT guy in a very very high finance firm a long time ago - the vast majority of people are paper pushing schmucks and excel/PowerPoint contortionists and, like, 3-4 guys are partners or whatever and take the dough. And most of the times they're going to be at home or on a trip sipping martinis, possibly with clients. Another 4-12 people are going to be sharing a bit of the profits in exchange for overworking the rabble. It's a bit different nowadays since the quantitative finance people took over a lot of it and they only employ people that could work in tech but yeah traditional finance is mostly a PMC trap. The bourgeoisie is too smart to spend their life in a cubicle. At most there would maybe be the replaceable CEO.