Señor Mono

What a joke.

Jip. Had to share it 😌

Well, military equipment has a much higher rate of wear and maintenance, than you would expect. Things can become obsolete and unusable in a time span of month rather than years. But sure. Let’s simply compare them to personal computers.

All this backdoor fantasies. Why make it harder than needed? USA can easily deny spare parts, new rockets or software updates… or weight in other weapon systems like the Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters Poland has. They could be grounded easily.

I would propose a deal. USA can pay for SAMP/T, NASAMs, IRIS-T (and get the Patriot battery when it gets freed from duty, maybe 2030ish).

I was under the impression that he just echoed, what Ahmed al-Sharaa said (well knowing he would say something similar or worse without anyone else taking the lead)

If you adhere to the strict definition of “A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle intended as a primary offensive weapon in front-line ground combat.” you are right.

Still. While we see less tank on tank combat, we see a lot of tanks shooting at fixed positions. Same goes with IFVs as they unload troops or enable tactical advances. They are far from being obsolete but they’re using smaller windows of opportunity. And sometime it takes a lot of anti tank drones before a tank had a mission kill. They’re still valuable tactical assets.

Edit: found the image which explains the definition problem at reddit.

Difference is the above mentioned are armored.

An army is not only tanks with big fat guns. All the mentioned assets lay the groundwork for any meaningful operation. What good are drones, if you cannot get a foothold and bring in forces to occupy landscapes?

I mean, tanks and IFVs with infantry take and hold ground.

Drones are use to harass units, saturate AD and basically deny ground taking advances.

These are different tactical issues with their own importance.

A nuthead will still tell you that wind is no equivalent because of missing winds.

You might have to factor PV and batteries in to make a even better point.

🍿

Usually they prefer other platforms.

It is illegal but common practice.

Depends on the business. We’ve got a ridiculous minimum wage of 13,90€ . Most honest restaurant collect the tips and split them, so even the cooking staff receives something.

For employees the tip is tax free. Businesses owner have to pay taxes.

With the most tips being payed via card (10-25% preselectable), I doubt that the staff sees any of it.

Every European country has its own valid culture of tipping. Some consider tipping unfriendly or even hostile.

In Germany you used to gratify a special service or outstanding servers.

Sadly this gets americanized already.

Yea, imagine the outcome. I mean: our chancellor already called people basically “leftist, deranged lunatic” wirhout any consequences (“Linke Spinner, die nicht alle Tassen im Schrank haben”).

Thereby he set the tone for the campaign and further communication.

Yea, I pretty much expect you to clearly separate between “die Linke” as party with an official program and spokesperson and party members.

Otherwise we will discuss opinions and hearsay instead of official stances, which were criticized.

Edit: and just to be clear, I don’t share their viewpoints.

That is a problematic advice, as “the left” (whatever that means) already gets framed as unhinged, delusional and radical.

Oversimplification, but I get the gist.

(if you search for die Linke and EU, or die Linke and russia you can actually find their official stance on those topics, which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. Their stance on nato is also more nuanced as they argue for a complete different type of security architecture - no matter how realistic that is).

The core difference here is: if we speed things up we can increase wind and solar and battery storage in the blink of an eye. Take a look at China’s new capacity.

Nuclear not so much. Combined with the follow up questions of end storage or even getting the cheap uranium (Russia) there is no real reason to debate.