Genuine question here: What's the cost-exchange ratio here? Naval mines are cheap, dumb, and can be deployed in enormous quantities. Mine-clearing USVs and drones are comparatively expensive, slow, and bottlenecked on operator attention even when they're autonomous-ish. If one side can lay mines an order of magnitude faster than the other side can clear them, this "drones solve it" narrative falls apart pretty quickly.
Also, stepping back, I'd love to see the strategic objective for this war that aren't Zionist talking points. Every public justification I've seen either assumes a regime-change end state that historically hasn't worked in the region, or quietly relies on the premise that the costs for the war are someone else's problem.
For minesweepers (and air defense missiles too for that matter) the cost-benefit isn't just "cost of minesweeper over cost of mine", it's "cost of minesweeper over cost of mine plus cost of ships that run into mines". Also, minesweepers have an advantage in terms of concentration: you have to mine an entire area for mines to be fully effective, but you only need to proof one mine-free lane for the minesweepers to get their cargo through. (That being said, the best use of minefields is to canalize targets so they show up in areas you're expecting and are prepared for, which can shift the balance back the other way too.)
Too afraid to be yourself for fear of being fired. I have an “American corporate personality” now too. Ultra PC etc. I don’t even use regular pronouns anymore by default o use they/them. I try hard to avoid saying “guys”.
I’ve worked in Asia and Europe and America has a special culture where you have to be nice and positive all the time or else…because there is basically no worker protection laws against that discriminate firing, you can’t do much about it either.
Nobody sane hates you, personally or collectively.
But we can definitely dislike certain aspects of certain cultures, especially since in this case that culture is the most massively exported culture in the history of mankind.
Of course the gp comment is out of place and taste.
Because Europeans and Australians and the rest of the world despite their "super advanced and non-bizarre" ways can't seem to develop advanced technologies of their own to use instead so they just use American ones and then complain about them?
At least you have coal, and killing the Great Barrier Reef I guess?
Not sure if you think training LLMs is carbon neutral, but if so I have some news about the barrier reef that you're not going to be that pleased to hear
Allegedly the major governments participate in a cooperative spying exchange dubbed Five Eyes. Since it's illegal for Country A to spy on their own citizens, they instead have Country B do it and vice-versa. Then participants exchange info in a quid-pro-quo fashion.
Ffs why do we need arbiters of truth on the internet. We didn't trust in back in the day, why are we under a notion that we can and should trust it today?! Where are people's critical thinking skills?
Back in the day there wasn’t much value in convincing people on the internet that arbiters of truth were needed because there weren’t enough people on the internet to determine political power contests.
There were enough people watching television back in the day to determine political power contests, and hey would you look at that there were arbiters of truth there back in the day.
When there are nations working on manipulating people, with presumably significant budgets, you can't really fault people for getting fooled occasionally.
Also, stepping back, I'd love to see the strategic objective for this war that aren't Zionist talking points. Every public justification I've seen either assumes a regime-change end state that historically hasn't worked in the region, or quietly relies on the premise that the costs for the war are someone else's problem.