Then why the fuck did he put tariffs on the t-shirts? What a fucking dumbass. How is this country so full of stupid that this man was elected twice?!?
this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
163 points (100.0% liked)
News
29603 readers
3059 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I couldn't possibly tell you where it started, or every factor, but in the 90s there was a BIG push, in the msm, to have "both sides" opinions on everything. This was pushed by everyone, but championed by Fox. This is when I started to see people with brain dead takes, being taken as seriously, on msm, as people who have been working/studying the topic for decades. I always associated the start of this bullshit with this movement. This is where I first really started to see the "my ignorant opinion is as legitimate as your professional expertise" garbage being mainstreamed.
Someone nee got into his ear and just like that his direction changed…
Didn't the military specifically ask for no more tanks
Tanks.
How very Russian.
I love confident people explaining how a supply chain works in an advanced economy, especially when they have no clue how any of this stuff is made.
Can't read a book, but are experts on everything from medicine to macroeconomics.
Amazing what they think they can learn from memes.
God damn… we’re back to being on about obsolete tanks again? Fuck. Stop.
I remember seeing a lot of new tanks sitting unused and unwanted in some flyover state. The governor kept people making tanks because it would’ve killed jobs in his state.
JFC, the US was already doing that. How does anyone, let alone 150 million Americans, take this idiot seriously?
Well, it’s only about 70 million Americans that support this shit.
And another 30 million that didn't take him seriously and didn't vote like a bunch of fucking idiots.
How does anyone, let alone 150 million Americans, take this idiot seriously?
Well then why are you slapping tariffs on shoes and t-shirts Donnie? You fucking knob
Who you gonna sell tanks and ships to when no one trusts you to shut it off if you've filled your diaper?
No one. They're not planning to sell them, they're planning to use them.
Nazi Germany made a lot of tanks too, and they weren't exactly looking to be the world's arms dealer.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
So why are there tariffs on clothes? Why have you shown the US to be an unreliable military partner and spurred other countries to invest in their own domestic (or semi-domestic in case of EU partnerships) arms industry?
So if you put crazy tariffs on clothing and don't want to have clothing made in the US, do you expect people to run around naked on the long run?
That works better in Florida than it does in Minnesota.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ah yes a tank for every home and a technology in every pot.
I don't want to pay to maintain an Abrams, but am quite happy with my insulated electric kettle that has a temperature readout. Can we just skip the tank?
One drone can take out a tank these days. Granted those are Russian designed tanks. But just thinking how my thought of what a tank could do has evaporated watching probably 100 YouTube videos of this happening.
They are taking out some US-made ones, harder, but still not justifying the cost of a tank even remotely.
Tanks are obsolete in the old sense.
This isn't true. Tanks role in doctrine has changed. How the US would fight with drones on the field is completely different than how Ukraine or Russia are fighting.
"How the US would" would be subject to rapid change in real conditions before it adapts its doctrine to modern warfare. Since it's the US with plenty of money in the defense and powerful companies that desperately want to test new and more efficient ways at solving problems, yeah it would.
However right now what's known of US drones and approaches seems to be kinda expensive garbage. Good thing is that such relatively close engagements are secondary for its doctrine.
Current US doctrine relies on controlling the skies. Still right now there's no credible threat to US air dominance. If the US has air dominance, drones in their current form are a bug attacking a tractor. Look up videos on how the US air campaign worked during Gulf War 1 and see the sheer number of assets that were on station for months waiting for the order to attack. Any enemy would be utterly exhausted by the time any attack started and the force and speed of violence would keep drones down to local threats.
That's also not counting any drone countermeasures the US currently has and could mass deploy.
I think the US use of expensive drones is just different to what we're seeing in Ukraine. They're fitting into a different space than FPV drones, which isn't bad, it's just different.
Gulf War 1 is either just as relevant as yesterday or not relevant at all. It was a bit of a demonstrative beating.
I know, but the recent India-Pakistan contact seems to have shown that modern ways to reach those expensive assets are available to many more countries than when this doctrine was adopted. Which means that very expensive planes might sometimes be shot down, and the system disrupted.
Ukraine reaches Moscow suburbs with drones. It has almost become realistic for a hypothetical Muslim country with oil to reach something like Austin, Texas with drones. With some stages involved, maybe with recharging\refueling drones, maybe using fixed-wing drones that can glide will make more sense for such, maybe even launched from naval drones as small carriers. The point is, this has become possible. Not bug attacking a tractor, more like a host of termites attacking a tractor and it's not good for its driver if they reach him.
Gulf War 1 is either just as relevant as yesterday or not relevant at all.
The long-term outcome of Gulf War 2 demonstrated the limitations of Gulf War 1. If you don't have any idea of what the desired end state should be, military superiority does you very little good.
In other words, the Powell doctrine still applies, and the cost of ignoring it (as in GW2) can be hundreds of thousands of people's lives.
I think that's a bit far fetched. You don't need to have something fly from Tripoli to hit the US, just send operatives here, and have them launch the attacks from the US. You could be a mile away and never get caught, hypothetically speaking.
I still think US doctrine from GW1 applies, simply because drone use is already being implemented into the current chain of command. I have a few friends that are on the RnD side of things and the non classified drone stuff they've talked about to me is exceptionally impressive, and augments current doctrine rather than upending it.
OK, admittedly I don't really know a thing other than what I read, and it would make sense.
BTW, yes, launches from Russian territory much closer to targets Ukrainians do too.
You wouldn't even need something that big, man.
I was in college during GWOT and part of the political science club. We had a 'games theory' session with the DHS rep in our state, where part of the class was reps for the government and part were a terrorist cell.
I was part of the latter, and our goal was 'disrupt the state' and half the people wanted a big 9-11 attack to happen. My suggestion was small teams and car bombs over the course of 3 days along the major highways in the state and intra city traffic would grind to a halt. That was what kept him up at night.
The same thing could be done at an even more effective scale with FPVs hypothetically.
Yes, but also now there are networked cameras everywhere.
Sure, pointing at streets. Your normal not super cheap FPV has a range of like a mile. Even adjacent to an urban center you could find places to launch a drone and send it to do evil shit and not be spotted.
Mostly yes and they do that. The future surely is fun. Both hitting bad people has become easier, and for bad people to go really bad has become too.
I'm starting to think Game of Thrones atmosphere of "why are they doing this crap, are they that stupid, how can a bloody duke be so naive while being described and wise and responsible, how can another bloody duke, supposedly very smart and cunning, run around ruining his own power base just to get a bit more of it, how can yet another bloody duchy known for intrigue and poison just lose its heir in a duel and not have backup paths" and so on was on spot.
The actual Middle Ages, if you read about it, were a bit more interesting, and deposed enemies were often not killed, but given replacement property someplace close to the victor's center of power, minimizing both their reasons to raise the question and their opportunities to do so with one action.
But! The actual Middle Ages didn't have quite the scale achievable now.
Interesting parallel! I'm not super versed on the middle ages/medieval history. I love the concept of learning more about it but for me finding the time to properly do so just isn't there.
I also miss like... college style lectures on those kind of topics. I should just squat some history classes at the universities by me.
Tanks end up at the police station. The military doesn’t want them.
Those are generally APCs, thank god. I can only imagine the shit US cops would get up to with an actual tank
russian tanks are designed for the ease of use and survivabulity of the tank, they are fast, weakly armored, big gun, have only 3 people (gunner, commander and driver) operating with an auto-loader for ammo, which means that all the loaded munition sits right under the people, and that's why you see russian tanks go boom the instant something hits them
western tanks are designed for the survivability of the personnel, they are slower but with much more anti-tank defense, balistic shields, and have 4 people (gunner, loader, commander and driver), one more then the soviet tanks, because the extra man is the loader, which brings the ammo from the shielded munitions compartment to the gun, making it so that in the event of the tank blowing up, it just stops and breaks down but the troops inside are safe
For example:
Russian tank getting hit by a drone (watch the whole video, it has the drone's pov as well)
That's a bit of a simplification. IRL a western tank being hit often still means that the crew is dead. Especially now.
Also Soviet tanks' auto-loader, I think, was there for better loading times, not ease of use. Soviet tanks were part of a doctrine where survivability wasn't that important for either crew or tank, what mattered was achievable scale of production and deployment and firepower and speed. That's initially, and later, well, better loading times still look good at maneuvers and the Soviet Union didn't have much war until Afghanistan and its dissolution.
Anyway. Said western tank with its surviving crew will just be taken care of a bit later. Its crew won't be able to get away, cause some drone will drop a grenade at them. It won't be able to just sit in the tank, because enemy infantry will likely retrieve them, and breathing smoke is not good.
While the fact remains that a cheap drone kills an expensive tank.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Cheers
Please give him back his pacifier, and for christ sake stop taking it away from him!
Does the US import military hardware? I thought it was one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world.
I do know it doesn’t produce as much steel as other countries these days.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"Bro we need just one more Abrams I promise" -> Not something US generals say as far I know.
view more: next ›