nednobbins

Fighter planes are very expensive to develop.

The F-35 program cost something around $1.7 trillion. ~~That's several times the annual GDP of Canada.~~ That's more than half of Canada's annual GDP.

A better bet would be to enter some joint development program with partners in the EU.

From what I understand, those are fine if you're going up against enemies that don't have stealth (and all the ancillary technologies that go with it).

The general military analysis is that the F-35 and J-35 are superior to anything else in the air and are similar in capabilities to each other. Conflicts between them will come down to who can make more of them faster. Conflicts between one of them and an older generation fighter seems to be, they'll blow you up before you can see them.

EU better get cracking and start making stealth planes.

What would they do instead? Get a bunch of J-35s, like Egypt?

Longer than that. China has been promoting battery technology as a strategic initiative since the 90's.

Every major country subsidizes R&D. That's what federal research grants are all about. The NSF, NIH, etc do exactly that.

Other US subsidies on EVs aren't specifically restricted to R&D but US companies could apply it to that, if they want.

edit: typo

It's a combination of issues. In no particular order;

• precursor availability: All the stuff that EVs are made of, is made in China. If you want to build EVs it's easier and cheaper to get all the parts in China than it is in the US
• logistics: China has more modern roads, railroads, ports etc. That makes it much easier to get parts in and finished products out
• government aid: China has prioritized EVs for a long time and has all kinds of policies to encourage EV production
• EV infrastructure: China has more EV charging stations than the US and EU combined
• limited ICE competition: China doesn't have any big ICE vehicle companies. There are no significant groups in China advocating against EVs

Labor costs don't seem to be a factor at all. EVs are made in modern factories that are almost completely automated. The biggest part of "precursor availability" is likely batteries. The main innovation in EVs was the batteries. The electric motors, chassis, computers, etc are all secondary to batteries that can safely hold a lot of charge and discharge reliably. China dominates that market too.

We could keep going; pankration, hoplidromos...

There's a whole section of the Aeneid that talks about their impromptu sporting matches (the description of the boxing gauntlets is particularly spicy).

"Romance of the Three Kingdoms" has multiple instances where generals arrange for games among their troops.

It's almost as if a huge number of sports evolved from military training...

I don't know if any of your predictions are true. They might be, but I don't have nearly enough evidence to be confident in any of them.

If they are, I don't see how the complete collapse of Russia is even remotely feasible. Those predictions add up to saying that none of the necessary pre-conditions have been or will be met. Together, they say that we have no way to coerce Russia into the desired state and we have no way to re-align their interest to get them to do so voluntarily.

China definitely won't swoop in to defend Ukraine against Russia. I think we can agree on that. It's pretty clear the US won't either. I think we can agree on that too.

That's why I'm wondering if you think the EU can get big enough to do so on it's own, and do so quickly.

I can see why this would be a good outcome for Europe.

It essentially turns Russia into a puppet state. If we were to eliminate China and the US, that would make Russia Europe's puppet state. While it has some obvious advantages to Europe, it's clearly not in the interest of either Putin or Russia (the most pessimistic estimates put his approval rating at over 60% among Russians).

Since it's obviously not to their advantage they won't agree to it. That means someone would have to force them to accept that new status quo. The US just dropped all support and China has made it pretty clear that they're not going to participate in any operation like that either.

So that leaves the EU. I'll circle back to my earlier question. Do you think the EU is ready to adopt and ratify a constitution if it came up again? Absent that, do you think the EU can put together a military coalition that's big enough and permanent enough to induce an immediate surrender by Russia? If not, do you think that the EU is willing and able to wage a protracted direct war against Russia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irn-Bru

lol

"Originally selling it as Iron Brew, the drink's makers, A.G. Barr, were forced to change the name of the drink in 1946 following a change in the law that stipulated that the marketing of products be "literally true". As the drink did not contain much iron, nor was it brewed"

"The brand also has its own tartan"

What would be the best way for that to happen? More specifically, how can we pull this off safely?

We have very little historical precedent to go on. The USSR collapsed in 1991. There was some nervousness around what was going to happen with all their nukes. Ultimately, we ended up with Russia, led by Putin.

How would we stop Putin from triggering nuclear retaliation?
If we stop that, how do we make sure some other oligarch doesn't immediately take his place?
If Russia were to completely collapse, what would happen to Russia? Would we be willing to let China take over? If not would we be willing to maintain an indefinite occupation of Russia?

There may be good answers to all of these questions. It seems the more practical solution is to contain Russia. Do you think the EU would be ready to adopt a constitution if it came up again?