tal

It looks like Hamas has 40k members, so I guess maybe at least two non-Hamas dead for each Hamas dead.

IIRC from reading an few earlier articles, the limiting factor is that Iran's nuclear weapons facilities are underground and can potentially only be penetrated with very large weapons. According to what I read, Israel apparently doesn't have conventional weapons that can penetrate, which would mean that the US, with heavier bombers, would have to do the strike (and Biden said that he didn't support hitting the nuclear facilities).

That being said, I haven't seen anything about using multiple weapons to impact the same spot, and I'm suspicious that with the accuracy of weapons today, it may be possible to just repeatedly hit a single spot and break through.

EDIT:

https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-not-able-to-take-down-iran-nuclear-sites-own-2024-10

https://archive.ph/nk1KB#selection-2009.126-2017.96

"Israel can damage Iran's nuclear program without US assistance, but it is unclear if it can by itself carry out the type of sustained and penetrating conventional attack that would seriously set back the program," Farzan Sabet, senior research associate at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told Business Insider.

And I guess that it's not impossible that Israel could have -- knowing that Iran has underground facilities -- built something that they've kept quiet specifically aimed at penetration.

I don't know how hard building a tandem-charge weapon is, but Israel has produced the tandem-charge Spike, and I imagine that they could have some kind of heavier tandem-charge weapon that they've quietly tucked away for this sort of situation.

I mean, the article said that Israel didn't give a commitment. You can't exactly lie in not giving a commitment to do something.

The one who said that they wouldn't support a strike on Iran's nuclear program strike was Biden, not Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Dong_(hacker)

Wang Dong, aka Jack Wang

d pump the digital accelerator on native companies expanding their electric lines.

If I remember correctly from recent articles, existing European production capacity is producing more EVs than people want at the price point that they're going for.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/09/19/eu-car-industry-calls-for-urgent-action-as-ev-new-car-sales-tumble

EU car industry calls for urgent action as EV new car sales tumble

New car registrations fell sharply by 18.3% in August across the EU, as the four biggest markets all showed plummeting sales, with double-digit losses in Germany (-27.8%), France (-24.3%), Italy (-13.4%) and Spain (-6.5%).

The market share of electric vehicles fell even more dramatically, by 43.9% compared with the same time last year. Their market share counted for 14.4% in the EU compared with 21% a year ago.

Well, if I remember correctly, Milei's thing is reining in the budget or something, right? I guess that's one way to save money!

Nothing but hand-waiving for our Haitian neighbors who would actually benefit from that “stabilizing” presence

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/14/what-is-the-history-of-foreign-interventions-in-haiti

Since the early 1900s, there have been at least three direct interventions in Haiti, including a decades-long occupation by US forces.

Given its pockmarked history of Haitian intervention, the US has expressed wariness towards leading a new international mission to Haiti. Many are calling for solutions to be Haitian-led, instead of foreign-led.

“We need to give the Haitians time and space to get this right,” former US special envoy to Haiti, Daniel Foote, said in a recent interview with NPR.

“Let’s let the Haitians have a chance to mess up Haiti for once. The international community has messed it up beyond recognition countless times. I guarantee the Haitians mess it up less than the Americans,” he added.

Thanks!

while Russia is only 10-20% or so.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-hikes-national-defence-spending-by-23-2025-2024-09-30/

Russia hikes 2025 defence spending by 25% to a new post-Soviet high

Russia to spend 6.3% of GDP on national defence

Defence spending at $145 billion, budget shows

I mean, Russia has a benefit going away in the form of the Soviet weapons inventory, but we sent something like $62 billion to Ukraine in 2024. IIRC US-originating aid is on the order of half of what Ukraine got. Note that not all of this is grants, either...on the EU side, I believe that a considerable amount is loans on generous terms. I don't know whether those might be forgiven or something, whether doing it as a "loan" might be to help make it more-palatable to EU voters, but point is, it may be less than the up-front number. Also, a lot of US aid is in military aid, which may not be in a form as ideal to Ukraine as simply cash; cash could be used to purchase anything, which may-or-may-not be exactly the military hardware that's provided. Russia's getting cash that can be used to purchase whatever (well, okay, within the constraints imposed by sanctions).

But my broader point is, if Russia's putting more resources into the conflict, we may well need to be willing to counter that.

Also, keep in mind that some of those funds need to go to things like dealing with economic impact. Russia mostly has electrical power. Ukraine has lost something like 80% of their electrical output. That shuts down some of what Ukraine could be doing. If Ukraine cannot build something they need because an industry lacks electricity, then they need to import it, and that requires funds. Like, we can send a shit-ton of small generators and fuel to help offset that, but that costs something.

And that a fair amount of what Ukraine is doing is air defense, and at least as things stand -- a point that I saw just raised with the Israel/Iran missile issue -- it's generally cheaper to build something to throw something that explodes at the other guy than it is to build something that stops it before it hits.

considers

If it gets a federal subsidy, that subsidy is going to really primarily benefit Pennsylvania, yes?

I mean, yes, power from it maybe -- if Microsoft isn't schlorping all of it up -- help support the grid in the region a bit. But if Microsoft's building a datacenter in Pennsylvania and this is subsidizing a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, the benefit's really principally going to Pennsylvania alone, other than in the limited sense that it reduces carbon dioxide emissions.

California or Nevada, say, isn't going to benefit from that either way.

Like, if there's some sort of federal subsidy accessible to any state that wants to do nuclear power build-out and that this is just how Pennsylvania chooses to make use of it, that might be one thing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241004011824/https://www.businessinsider.com/irans-ineffective-strike-on-israel-intended-to-cause-massive-damage-2024-10

Do you actually want out of it or are you just hoping that if it passes, you get a second go as prime minister, like last time?