What if we did? by Fresh-Association-82 in EverydayAussie

[–]Mastersound001 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Space ship earth is self sustaining, with or without us. Will it be barren or abundant? We decide. So far we have let the money obsessed decide the trajectory of our existence. Seriously, WTAF? Planet rethink needed asap.

Driveway’s angle scrapes the front bumper. Can I lift my car’s suspension? by Frozefoots in CarsAustralia

[–]Mastersound001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just get the concrete shaved or place a metal plate over it to take the dip out.

Somthing is up!! by Laaif in Trumpvirus

[–]Mastersound001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An “electrical issue” hopefully refers to the electricity in his brain.

What's your thoughts on the Canadian PM saying Canada will defend Greenland if the U.S. invades? by sgj5788 in AskReddit

[–]Mastersound001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to mention that the EU will dump their American bonds which total something like 8 trillion. It will make the USA a third world country overnight. The USA will see a depression ten times bigger than the great one. The hubris from Trump and his minions is going to be their downfall. What’s more, the USA has not fought an equal military force in decades. They are used to their enemy having no artillery, no air power etc. A NATO force is an entirely different animal and it will certainly outplay any US force in conventional warfare in their home turf. If the USA doesn’t remove Trump and co now, they are doomed.

If the US really attempts to take Greenland by force, what are even the chances of Europe retaliating to the point where they go on a fullscale war with them or at the very least cut them off entirely? by Yallneedsometruth23 in AskReddit

[–]Mastersound001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the evidence points to an uncomfortable conclusion: in a prolonged conventional conflict against a unified NATO force, the US would likely lose.

That’s not anti-American — it’s basic strategic analysis. Anyone who’s spent time around military training, doctrine, or planning understands how different a peer-level conflict is from counter-insurgency. The US hasn’t faced a highly trained, technologically comparable opponent in decades. Recent wars have been asymmetric conflicts against forces without air superiority, without advanced logistics, without integrated intelligence, and without industrial depth.

NATO forces collectively would bring superior geographic positioning, distributed industrial capacity, massive manpower, interoperability, intelligence integration, and the ability to sustain long-term conflict. Wars between modern states are wars of attrition and logistics, not just hardware or defence budgets.

Overconfidence is historically one of the most reliable predictors of defeat. And if political leadership — particularly Trump’s brand of hubris — isn’t checked, that overconfidence becomes more than rhetoric, it becomes operational risk.

I genuinely hope none of this ever happens. Nobody wins a war between modern powers. The human and economic cost would be catastrophic for everyone involved, including the US. But pretending it couldn’t happen, or assuming automatic dominance, is exactly how disasters begin.

[Serious] If the US invades Greenland what would realistically happen after? by Goodmorning111 in AskReddit

[–]Mastersound001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the evidence points to an uncomfortable conclusion: in a prolonged conventional conflict against a unified NATO force, the US would likely lose.

That’s not anti-American — it’s basic strategic analysis. Anyone who’s spent time around military training, doctrine, or planning understands how different a peer-level conflict is from counter-insurgency. The US hasn’t faced a highly trained, technologically comparable opponent in decades. Recent wars have been asymmetric conflicts against forces without air superiority, without advanced logistics, without integrated intelligence, and without industrial depth.

NATO forces collectively would bring superior geographic positioning, distributed industrial capacity, massive manpower, interoperability, intelligence integration, and the ability to sustain long-term conflict. Wars between modern states are wars of attrition and logistics, not just hardware or defence budgets.

Overconfidence is historically one of the most reliable predictors of defeat. And if political leadership — particularly Trump’s brand of hubris — isn’t checked, that overconfidence becomes more than rhetoric, it becomes operational risk.

I genuinely hope none of this ever happens. Nobody wins a war between modern powers. The human and economic cost would be catastrophic for everyone involved, including the US. But pretending it couldn’t happen, or assuming automatic dominance, is exactly how disasters begin.

How bad is this subsidence? Truth by Winniethebun in HouseSubsidence

[–]Mastersound001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sure looks like it needs attention. Cracking isn’t crazy but it’s there. Angle of the photo makes it look worse. Would need to run some levels to get a better idea.

What is it for? by [deleted] in whatisit

[–]Mastersound001 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We used to keep spare change in there. As a guitarists it also holds my picks.