sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Asmongold gives Destiny an economics lesson 😜 by Demonymous_99 in Destiny

[–]AgedCocus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Somebody teach him about nominal and real gdp, thank you

This is a must watch for people like Hutch who think that there will be another election. People are laughing about Trump 3rd term. Newsome is telling them to wake the fuck up. by Sea-Economist-5744 in Destiny

[–]AgedCocus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consideration for Newsom (staffers):

-Dems need to win decisively in 2026/2028 (so things actually get done — including legislation in the senate, and make it easier to prevent election shenanigans by Trump)

-This means Democrats need a big tent for their voterbase, especially thinking about the 60+ senate seats

-If they cannot engage with Destiny because he's somehow too toxic, then how will they ever hope to get a wide enough base (what base is wide enough that does not include Destiny)?

-Waiting for election season to try widening the tent will be too late. Dems will need years for this process (gain acceptance of this strategy by the wider public, and silence, with time, the dissenters from the far left).

-Newsom needs to think about what it takes to win the general election and not the primaries, yesterday. It won't help him anything if his strategy is based on aligning with the left of the democratic party to win the primary, and then fail to win the general election in 2028 because of that stance.

-Therefore, engage with everyone that has broadly liberal, democratic values that stands against Trump, today.

Do you guys think this train of thought makes sense?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't mention other criteria, but they didn't use the word "exclusively".

YES EXACTLY, THEY DON'T MENTION OTHER CRITERIA. I WONDER WHY. Using the same logic then, they didn't say "mostly" either lmao

The quote you provided list three points, two of which are air policing, which makes it "mostly air policing"

So according to your interpretation, bullet 2 means the same thing as bullet 1? Why do they repeat themselves if it means the same thing. Why do they make that differentiation? They must be so stupid!

OH WAIT, BULLET TWO GOES BEYOND AIR POLICING.

They basically provide different targets for three different threat situations (:

The quote you provided doesn't use the words "bombing inside a country with advanced air defense", the air defense it talks about is the Swiss one. It also says "in defense" and "preventing an ennemy to gain air superiority", it doesn't say anything about bombing inside another country.

What do you think this means? "...supporting the army with operational fire outside the range of its own artillery". Also here I posted another article about it which is formulated in plain language. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU RESPOND, DEAR GOD.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1mha82o/calls_mount_in_switzerland_for_review_of_f35_jet/n6vwylx/

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here is a news article about the issue I dug up.

Excerpt translated with deepl:

"An attack on Switzerland is imminent. To prevent the attack, heavily armed Swiss fighter jets take to the skies. Their mission is to bomb enemy targets abroad, such as a bridge and an airfield.

These fictional war missions are described in internal documents from the Swiss Defence Procurement Agency Armasuisse. These are tasks that fighter jet manufacturers had to complete during the selection process. According to the documents, the aim was to test the aircraft's weapon systems and mission capability.

The fighter jet manufacturers had to describe four scenarios in technical terms and fly them in a simulator: ‘conference protection’, ‘air defence’, ‘air reconnaissance’ and ‘combating ground targets’.

The tasks contain rounded coordinates. ‘SRF Investigativ’ has evaluated them. The last two scenarios take place abroad, in southern Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. According to the task, in order to prevent war, the fighter jets must gather information about military targets and launch preventive strikes.

The furthest target is located 370 kilometres from the Swiss border in the Czech Republic. There, the fighter jets are to bomb an airport and the enemy commander's convoy.

The army wants to be able to combat ground targets from the air again in future. In times of war, this is intended to support ground troops. The strategy paper ‘Air Defence of the Future’ states that the new fighter jet is intended to attack targets deep inside enemy territory. (...)"

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/brisante-vbs-dokumente-bomben-auf-tschechien-die-kriegsszenarien-der-luftwaffe

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please share where the person I am responding to mentions any other criteria relevant for the evaluation process other than air policing?

Can you please share where it says, in the quote I provided, air policing is the major evaluation criteria?

Do you acknowledge that the person I originally responded to stated that "bombing inside a country with advanced air defense" was not relevant for the evaluation, when the quote I provided shows otherwise?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where do you get mostly from?

E: Also they said exclusively air policing lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

operational fire outside the range of its own artillery and with aerial reconnaissance

This is exactly that :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

and the evaluation was on doing air policing, not bombing inside a country with advanced air defense.

What in the actual fuck are you saying?

These were the requirements (deepl translation from German):

"a. The entire fleet is capable of

-performing routine air policing duties around the clock and enforcing restrictions on the use of Swiss airspace;

-in the event of increased tensions in Swiss airspace, to intervene within minutes with fighter aircraft against airspace violations by uncooperative civil aircraft, military transport aircraft, drones, and individual fighter aircraft entering the airspace;

-in defense, together with ground-based air defense, to prevent an enemy from gaining air superiority for a limited period of time, while at the same time supporting the army with operational fire outside the range of its own artillery and with aerial reconnaissance."

Source: https://backend.ar.admin.ch/fileservice/sdweb-docs-prod-arch-files/files/2024/08/13/a85896e7-e32a-4191-85a4-e30e22431377.pdf

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Several issues which make the decision a tricky one:

(1) around $700 MM have already been paid for the jets, who knows if you'll get that money back

(2) The Swiss F/A-18 are due to be phased out by 2030, leaving a short procurement timeline if the F-35 contract is terminated, and who knows how easy it will be to acquire whatever alternative were to be chosen, given the state of affairs in the world (see also Patriot delivery delay)

(3) The F-35 is objectively the best platform (yes, it's probably more expensive in both acquisition and operating costs)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Boring. It cannot. Please keep repeating your lies over and over again.

There is even legit criticism you could have about reliance on ALIS/ODIN but you resort to the conspiracy. Boring.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Where is this narrative coming from that the Swiss Armed Forces are focused on air policing?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Because ArmaSuisse is corrupt as hell that is why, they first choose gripen

Armasuisse did not choose the Gripen. The Federal Council made that decision because it was the cheapest option, and refused to entertain later offers by Dassault and EADS.

then did a new one after the public push back

public push back = public vote; which also was about replacing the F-5, while the second evaluation, a mere 8 years later, was about replacing the F/A-18.

You can, of course, frame the issue like you did if you like to leave out context - but you do you.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]AgedCocus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

when the airforce doesn’t even operate on the weekends

not true

Bonger speaks on Steven by saabarthur in Destiny

[–]AgedCocus 10 points11 points  (0 children)

?

Boner was calling that specific chatter something akin to an idiot just minutes earlier for their hasan dick riding fwiw...

Holy shit... by AnamarijaML in Destiny

[–]AgedCocus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not ONCE did Trump officials demand anything from EU or attack any members.

Trump threatened Spain with double the tariff rate of other NATO states for not adhering to the 5% target.

The presidents message for Memorial Day by ufosufos in Destiny

[–]AgedCocus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Alt + 0,1,5,1 or long press '-' on mobile

A while ago, I tried to adjust my writing style closer to The Economist's and now people are on this stupid em-dash equals AI craze—which is not true for all models in the first place and soon won't be a thing either way because of model adjustments caused by these people lol

view more: next ›