iNow

Will you please elaborate a bit on this and explain what you see as the most important ways they differ (in context of this discussion)?

Incredulity and lack of rational counter argument it is, then. You're not being persecuted by a bandwagon, Koti. You're being called out for lacking a quality counter argument and insisting your view is the only correct one without good reason behind it. The point is you have failed to make a decent argument to an audience willing to listen to it. That's on you, buddy.

Help me understand your thinking here. You have one group called "Male." You have a second group called "Female." You acknowledge that some people then don't have a sex when we use your own definition. So, by default, doesn't this mean there's now a third group inclusive of "Other," or "no sex" to use your verbiage? I'm not an expert mathematician, but I DO have fingers on both hands... and when I use them like an abacus to find a sum / total of all groups... that leads me to a count of 3 groups, not 2. Is it possible you only have 2 total fingers on your hands and that's why you've stopped counting this last group... a group which YOUR OWN definition and which YOUR OWN logic dictates must exist... must exist since YOU YOURSELF claim they fit into neither male nor female? You say they have no sex. Okay, I'm fine with that, but they still exist and consequently they compose at least a 3rd category.

On their own? No, we agree. Seems unlikely, but following a US lead and operating in more of a supporting role? I see this as not only possible, but likely. A very poignant observation, especially as we head into winter. It’s difficult prioritizing principles over petroleum; doing the right thing over staying quiet because it’s the needed thing.

Biden laid out how he’d respond if Russia goes into Ukraine when he met with Putin today. It was mostly sanctions and economic restrictions, preventing Russia from being able to use certain banks and move their oil. He also explained that the US and NATO allies will be pushing troops for “training exercises” up against Ukraine as a sort of backstop to halt Russia’s aggression. Leaders from England, Germany, France, and Italy all came out to reinforce these commitments soon after. Biden also made comments that the US is prepared to respond today in ways they were not in 2014 when Russia did this same sort of thing. Now, will it be enough to prevent this? I’m doubtful.

My god. It’s full of stars.

Something else

Actually, military spending in the US continues to increase, not get cut. This is also not the topic of this thread. The question is how we might wind up using that spending which has already been approved and allocated and debited. I tend to agree, but the Ukraine thread is more proximal. Ukraine is also a key area in protecting the NATO alliance and keeping oil flowing throughout Europe. Biden and Putin speak today. My hope is much of this troop movement from Russia to Ukraine is little more than a shrewd negotiating tactic from Putin, but that seems hopelessly optimistic and a bit like fairy dust thinking to me.

I’m taking as a given that aggressive acts have already occurred, that they’ll include standard troop deployments and kinetic assaults over borders plus more modern cyber attack vectors, and that the US will be forced to either sit back and watch or respond. It’s the US response (or whether the US should even respond at all) where I feel most uncertain.

Water cuts through rock not because of its power, but because of its persistence. /NodsToDimreepr

And it’s this piece I’m hoping to explore further

This probably could be its own topic (how will wars be fought in the future and how will cyber and digital attacks play a role in that). This would be included, but I was thinking more about attacks on hard infrastructure, seizing control of energy grids, locking up banking, disabling food and resource distribute, etc. It's like traditional kinetic attacks from warships and troops and guns, but quicker to deploy and more impactful in many ways. Propaganda and sowing of unrest internally via social media is a separate, but clearly related, aspect of all this. It would also likely be a big part of any US response to China or Russia for such aggressions. Just speculating out loud... War today would look very little like wars yesterday.

It wasn't me, but you need to start considering member posts in context, JCM. This guy was just banned for his nonsense all across the site, in science threads, and in this thread here, too. If you ignore peoples behavior more broadly, of course sometimes it will look personal and like bullying, but that's rather obviously not what happened here. He was just banned for his ridiculous behavior, and frankly comments like these from you are what's too personal and closer to bullying than anything which happened here. Regarding the actual thread topic (now that the troll trying to force us off-topic is gone), you have always had a pretty good perspective on history and world affairs IMO, and I'd like to hear your perspective. Do you think it would be better for the US to sit back and watch if/when these events occur with Russia and China, or do you think we should ignite a new powderkeg with some sort of retaliatory action? Asking because we're already in a bit of a cyber cold war countering and launching attacks on a daily basis, so in some ways the next step could just be an escalation of existing activities.

Digital Cyber in other parlance

So, if China tries to take control of Taiwan… and intelligence suggests it’s more likely to happen now,than it has been for decades… should the US and any country considered an ally respond? How might they respond?

Who’s upset? All I said is I’d prefer realistic responses over pie in the sky horseshit. It seems you have nothing but horseshit and off topic nonsense to add. Again, you’re encouraged to reread the thread title. There’s an actual topic here to explore. Tourism to China is not it. Again, this might be an interesting topic to explore. Consider doing so in another thread. This one has a specific topic. You’re responses suggests you struggle to comprehend this. Then stop posting to this thread, because that’s what it’s about. This is pretty basic. Stop trolling.

Do you think Canada would join the US if the US tried to forcibly stop it?

Your overconfidence in your opinion is staggering. You speak as if your assertions are fact. Do you know next weeks lotto numbers, too? You shared no answers. You explicitly stated you wouldn’t answer me until I answered your total red herring questions back to me. It’s be great if you’d stop trolling the thread. Again, not the topic here. The premise of the thread is that it already happened, what happens next. I hope this clarifies. Perhaps, but AGAIN… not relevant here. See OP and thread title if you remain confused. I appreciate this makes sense academically, but would never happen in reality. Daily life is too dependent on them. Hoping to remain focused on realistic responses that aren’t akin to saying a magical unicorn will solve it.

Open your own thread. That’s not the topic here.

So oil and minerals out of Ukraine and semiconductors out of Taiwan. Any sanctions imposed if either get annexed would only hurt our own pocketbooks and our own economy in the US. So, sanctions as a response seem unlikely. Does NATO declare war to push back if this happens? If the US goes in alone, do other nations follow like in Iraq?

Exactly. This plus the increasing rise of authoritarian tendencies and simple minded support for narrow populist messages across the planet has me wondering what happens next and what a weakened US could even achieve. Another challenge is that people (John Q. Public) are so distracted and occupied by catnip social issues like anti mask and anti vax and abortion and inflation and related topics that they never even bother to engage with the actual big deal issues like hundreds of thousands of troops preparing to invade sovereign countries.

Intelligence suggests Russia is planning to invade Ukraine in January apparently with the intent to take it over. Likewise, China has been stepping up plans to seize Taiwan. Have been talking about it for years, but seem to sense more opportunity in todays global political climate. Should US respond if/when either of those two things happen? If so, how and for how long? Does your answer change if both events happen at the same time? Game it out…

Who are you even talking too, bot?

When it happens (which all available evidence thus far indicates as the most likely outcome), that definitely won’t be the reason.

Is the claim that they make errors sometimes and ideologues often blow those up into pretend scandals, or is the claim that they actively lie and spread disinformation knowingly on purpose? Asking bc you’re only sharing evidence in support of the first.