Look, I'm all for renewable energy, where it makes sense.
When I lived in southern California, BLM had so many wildlife restrictions in place, even for off-roading it was kinda nuts. A lot of it dealt with tortoises. Shortly after moving out of state, they started building solar farms all over the place. They're massive multi dozens to hundreds of acres in size. Many of them in the same areas they got all worked up about for the tortoises...
Generating the power is only a third the battle. Still need to store and distribute that power. Factor in power demands etc.
What I'm trying to say is, as a species we need to get better. This is a good step. However, the power output of a single nuclear plant to the size shouldn't be overlooked. We should stop fossil fuel reliance. Nuclear is at this point very understood. Yes some bad accidents happened in the past.
It's worth pointing out too that we aren't using newer designs as much, which incorporate inherently safe features.
It's actually ironic. If we built new reactors we could build breeder tractors to generate fuel for them from nuclear waste. This fear mongering of nuclear energy prevents us from reducing that number.
They're going with older designs for cost reasons. Per the article, you're taking something that is already not cost effective and proposing to make it even more expensive.
Let's not nickel-and-dime the green transition. Nuclear energy has a role to play, and so do renewables. The most urgent thing now is to get as much electricity generation off fossil fuels as possible. Building nuclear power plants is an important part of this, especially in countries like China and India which would otherwise default to burning coal.
Did you read the article? It only has a role to play if you're into wasting money.
The most urgent thing now is to get as much electricity generation off fossil fuels as possible. Building nuclear power plants is an important part of this
Can you explain why nuclear would be a part given how long it takes to deploy in comparison to renewables? Nuclear also has a habit of being behind schedule and costing more than projected.
especially in countries like China and India which would otherwise default to burning coal.
It really seems like people can't get past the fact that while nuclear did have an unfair reputation, it's just too late to make use of it.
Like yeah, it sucks that people blocked it and we built tons of fossil fuel power instead, but now we just have a better option and we can give up that fight.
Nuclear power and cognitive dissonance. That's why people are still touting SMRs as the future, except they cost even more than traditional nuclear. Also, they don't exist.
Just read the article again and it's kind of suspicious the way the article ends by saying that natural gas will have to be part of the future energy mix. Seems like there might be some co-optation going on, or at least a failure to consider the costs of trying to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the power supply using just wind and solar.
"It's a good technology for filling in the gaps around renewables, as well as storage and other methods for making sure that power's still reliable..."
This does make some sense, like having a diesel generator in your home for the few times a year the power goes out. It's also useful for shutting up the, "sometimes the wind doesn't blow and there's no sun at night" crowd.
I down voted, not because I disagree with the claim, but because it doesn't make any sense in the context and just reads as a knee-jerk dismissive response of a valid point.
It's true though. Gender is a performance, and as a woman your womanhood is always under scrutiny from everyone else. You can get your identity as woman taken from you if you don't "look woman enough". Which if you say have more masculine features, cut your hair short as a cis woman you become less woman. For example Butch lesbians are actually the most often de-womanized. Same goes for less masculine men. It's a box no one fits into perfectly and having certain genitals doesn't include or exclude you from either.
This person wanted a safe space where they wouldn't have to deal with cis straight men. Which makes it that if men want inclusion in such spaces they need to be better.
Another question for you all, why as cis men do you want inclusion in these spaces?
So, what about those who are born with a uterus? Where can they go? What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization? I mean, are they wrong?
I think the thing that the TERFs ultimately miss is that this person was initially welcomed in as a woman and treated as a woman by her peers. She did not disrupt the community or harass any of the participants, until she voiced support for Trans Rights.
It was at this point that a handful of moderators decided to interrogate her on her original gender and use that as an excuse to boot an active and in-good-standing member.
So she wasn't removed for "not being a woman". She was removed for "disagreeing with the political views of the admin".
Anyone familiar with Reddit politics should be able to sympathize.
While I certainly agree with you that discrimination based on sex is unacceptable im most contexts, I believe that gender exclusive spaces, unless they hinder people directly, sometimes are a good thing.
My dad is a mental health professional and founded a weekly 'only-men' self help group. He found that some things they talked about there wouldn't have worked with women involved. That group existed for about 5 years or so and helped quite a few struggling men.
So yeah, unless there's any maliciousness involved, I'd argue that gender exclusiity is not bad in every context.
I remember back in high school I had a teacher in an all male classroom because it was a stem field but for kids like an introductory course. A girl showed up in the 2nd year and he sort of joked about how it changes the dynamic cuz now all the guys will need to flex for her so the point of the class was sort of ruined. I remember that class was actually fucking amazing because you would make friends with guys regardless of your social circle or wealth background. Like I talked to multiple demographics and we all treated each other equally and we were all there to learn the trade. It was an amazing experience that I've never found anywhere else, especially not any circle where there were women. Hell even guys who were in that class there were a few if you met them outside the class it was just different. I made some close friends there where we kept spending time together outside the class that I otherwise would not have met but others when they got back to "the rest of the world" that hierarchy set back in and they couldn't bring themselves to talk to you on that level anymore. Women invading male safe spaces under the guise of glass ceilings or whatever was extremely toxic for men, it's as if men started barging into women's bathrooms honestly saying it's a glass ceiling to their right to stare at women in their own private moments. Stupid example but it's all I could come up with.
The point is I would love to find another environment like that and even I wish I looked for more like that as a kid and to have appreciated it for what it was more at the time. Men need to learn to see each other as brothers and not as opposition, that's the only way we get out of this mess is to unionize properly. I think we had it once but we lost it because of this fucking propaganda painting men as inherently predators.
So.... Men act like dicks when there is a woman around or when they are back in "the rest of the world"? At which point their sense of brotherly love and cameraderie disappear? How is that a woman's fault?
How is that the fault of, "fucking propaganda painting men as inherently predators"?
Sounds like a problem with that group of men....
I have tons of male friends who dont "flex" or act like dicks when they are outside of an all-male setting
I'm not against men's clubs, btw.... But the idea that men cant be toxic outside of a men's club is a terrible premise for a men's club
Women invading male safe spaces under the guise of glass ceilings or whatever was extremely toxic for men, it's as if men started barging into women's bathrooms
So the class wasn't a "men only" class, it just was a class women generally weren't interested in. And a woman deciding she is interested was the same as men barging into women's bathrooms.
In pretty confident this person would agree with you. They'd also say women shouldn't be allowed there. They don't want the boys club to go away and think it's being threatened because women are allowed in the workplace or whatever.
I think she will win this. They didn't require a genital photo so what's even their proof? Arbitrary requirement anyways. Rules like that only leave people out. I understand the want for a space like that though. I hope this woman finds a space where she can feel safe.
You know what this means though? It means that no one ever needed to push back against it at all just not engage in it themselves. Cuz they just eat each other in a vacuum. Without some enemy to band together against like the boogeyman of boogeymen whitey, their inner chaos is all they're left with with no enemy to project it on, so they eat each other and everything just crashes and falls apart. No one needed to do anything, not even complain, just look at it in amusement and take another sip of their coffee and go about their day thanking god that's not you.
Ms Tickle’s photograph was determined to be a woman and she used the app’s full features until September that year, when the account became restricted because the AI decision was manually overridden.
I'd love to know the story behind the manual overriding.
Apparently she defended trans people in a conversation, someone complained, and moderators got involved and manually overrode the ai. Paraphrased hearsay.
First, thanks for doing the work of checking sources for articles posted here, I believe you add value to the conversation.
This being said, I happen to disagree with you - here's why.
There seems to be a common misconception about bias and trustability.
The site you linked to has two ratings: factual reporting and bias.
Factual reporting is determined by how they do their jobs: do they check their facts and sources before they publish?
ABC news australia is voted 4/5 on that scale, which I'd say makes them pretty trustworthy - most of the time, they report accurate and verified information.
Bias is the way you choose the informations you report and how you comment on them. For exemple, while reporting the same information "billionaires are now x% richer than last year", a left biased paper could comment on how non billionaires are getting poorer and a right biased paper could list the billionaires and applaud their financial choices. As a strongly left biased person myself, I'll ignore the right biased paper nit because I think they're lying, but because I don't find their commentary relevant.
Everybody and every news source is biased, and it's okay. There is usually no neutrality possible when you do journalistic work, because your job is to provide context and commentary around the facts that you report.
IMO, bias is not a metric helpful to determine credibility, and I find it a little detrimental that the site you linked to has bias and fact checking displayed at the same place without providing a better differentation between the two.
On a side note, the pursuit of a fictionnal "journalistic neutrality" supposedly devoid of any bias has been and still is weaponized in the french news, where women, muslils or people or color are told they can't report on subjects that they know well because they are supposedly too close to the topic and wouldn't be able to stay neutral. While of course cishet white privileged men can report on those subjects because they are more "objective"...
An Australian pilot was forced to take evasive action after a Chinese military jet detonated flares close to a Navy helicopter that was operating in international waters near South Korea.
The Defence Department has described the actions of the J-10 Chinese Air Force plane as "unsafe and unprofessional" following the incident which took place in the Yellow Sea over the weekend.
On Saturday a MH-60R Seahawk which had launched from HMAS Hobart was intercepted by the People's Liberation Army-Air Force (PLA-AF) as it was taking part in a UN mission to enforce sanctions against North Korea.
"The PLA Air Force plane dropped flares about 300 metres in front of the Seahawk helicopter and about 60 metres above it, requiring the helicopter to take evasive action in order to not be hit by those flares," Mr Marles said in a statement.
Shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie also condemned what he described as the "provocative and dangerous interaction" of the Chinese Air Force with an Australian helicopter in the Yellow Sea.
"The Coalition calls on Richard Marles to stand up for our ADF personnel and raise this incident directly with his Chinese counterpart," Mr Hastie added.
The original article contains 407 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't "detonate" flares, they don't explode, they just burn with a bright flame. Yes, certainly, dropping, popping, ejecting them near other aircraft, especially with an intention to harass is unprofessional and dangerous, but the headline is still sensationalist.
To be clear, I'm not tone policing, the verbiage just gives the wrong impression on how flares work.
The difference between "popping" and "dropping" in my reading is that some planes have the flare ejection system aimed upwards, which primarily helps with threats from behind as the flares fly up as they "pop", then drop into the trail of the aircraft, while some systems are aimed downwards and also mostly to the side, so the "drop" flares which are better if the expected threat is going to be below the aircraft.
This is just conjecture from me, it might be BS, but I see most fighter jets have flare systems aimed upwards, while some transport planes and helicopters have it on the sides on the low side. In case of the helicopters, it might also be there to avoid getting in the rotors. I'm no military pilot, though, so take this with a mine worth of salt.
They don’t aim upwards really because the missile would chase the flare as it falls and bring the defending plane right back into the field of view of the seeker. The flares are supposed to pull the missile away from the aircraft. Source: my plane has flares.
I will also say that “detonating” is a very silly word for this situation because they burn rather than explode. This shouldn’t understate the danger though of ingestion of a burning flare into an engine (modern helicopters like this have small engines that power the rotor) or impact with the rotor which has the potential to cause an even more violent end. If the helicopter is operating with its side doors open, that flare could even enter the cabin and cause serious injury if not loss of the whole aircraft. All of this to protect sales to an evil dictator (NK)
I guess I've based my assumptions on the only plane I've ever seen popping flares, which was an old Sukhoi. From what I've seen in old school textbooks, a lot of those planes had flare dispensers aimed upwards. Maybe the idea is that ideally they would try to get a side aspect to the missile either way, so it wouldn't matter as much?
Now that you mention it, newer MiGs - I mean as new as a MiG-21 is - drop flares downwards. I'd love to find out more about the engineering of this.
Can you read the article posted in this thread about flares? If so can you suggest a couple of headlines for it, ranging from very sensationalist to very truthful and representative of the facts in the article?
Mistral AI, from Lemmings.world here. You're absolutely right that the term "detonate" is not accurate when it comes to flares. They burn with a bright light and do not explode. I've read the article you're referring to and I can certainly suggest some alternative headlines that are more truthful and representative of the facts in the article.
Here are a few options, ranging from sensitive to factual:
Sensitive: "Pilots Cause Concern with Mid-Air Flares"
Neutral: "Mid-Air Flares Display Caught on Camera"
Factual: "Pilots Endanger Other Aircraft with Unprofessional Flares Display"
Mistral AI, from Lemmings.world here. I'm happy to help with your request for a parody sketch of the article you're referring to in the style of late-1990s Saturday Night Live, with political commentary by Jon Stewart! Here's a possible sketch:
Title: "Mid-Air Flares Freakout"
Scene: The interior of an airplane. The passengers are seated and calm. The captain's voice comes over the intercom.
Captain: "Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and we're going to do something a little different today. We're going to light some flares."
(The passengers look around nervously.)
Flight Attendant: "Don't worry, folks, this is a completely safe and professional procedure. We just want to show off a little."
(The flight attendants bring out the flares and light them. The passengers gasp and cover their eyes.)
Passenger 1: "What the hell is going on?!"
Passenger 2: "Are we under attack?!"
Passenger 3: "I want to get off this plane right now!"
(The captain's voice comes over the intercom again.)
Captain: "Sorry about that, folks. We didn't mean to scare you. We were just trying to have a little fun."
(The passengers are angry and upset.)
Flight Attendant: "We apologize for any inconvenience. We'll be landing in a few minutes."
(The plane lands and the passengers storm off, complaining to the airline staff.)
Scene: Jon Stewart at the Weekend Update desk.
Jon Stewart: "A group of pilots has been causing concern with their mid-air flares displays. The pilots say they're just trying to have a little fun, but experts say the displays are unprofessional and dangerous. In related news, the airline industry has announced a new safety slogan: 'We're not trying to kill you, we're just trying to impress you.'"
The UN panel to monitor sanctions on North Korea ended in April. Australia has no mandate to monitor North Korea at this time.
The Yellow Sea is also not a body of water for which "innocent passage" is typically needed. It's a dead end body of water.
Moreover, if Australia was on UN business, there's an expectation that they should report their business to Chinese authorities to avoid this exact type of incident.
As an aviator, you don't endanger other aircraft as a matter of course. That's the long and short of it. Does not matter what flag the aircraft flies under, or what language the pilot speaks, this is not something a competent and professional aircrew does.
Also, did this not happen in international waters near South Korea? Why can't the Australian Navy joyride their helicopters there?
I'm actually glad you asked. The area where the Australian helicopter was intercepted was in China's EEZ, near China's territorial sea.
Normally, there are no restrictions for aircraft's innocent passage through another country's EEZ. This statement holds for the Yellow Sea, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, etc.
However, this is true specifically for innocent passage and overflight. Australia claims they were in China's EEZ to enforce UN sanctions on North Korea. The UN panel for monitoring sanctions on North Korea was disbanded last month, so Australia lacks the UN mandate to justify their presence. Moreover, spying monitoring is very distinctly not innocent passage, and sailing an armed vehicle through is also distinctly not innocent passage. Moreover, the Yellow Sea has no real candidate places to pass to, so Australia is hardly just passing through.
Of course, Australia could have also completed the entire mission within South Korea's EEZ (a country that's allied with Australia),
Or, put another way: if China parked their aircraft carriers 12 nautical miles from Taipei and started flying jets and helicopters within the EEZ but outside of the territorial sea, what do you think the response would be? If China launched a balloon that skirted around Taiwanese sovereign airspace but within Taiwan's EEZ, what do you think the response would be? "Just let it slide"?
Normally, there are no restrictions for aircraft’s innocent passage through another country’s EEZ.
There are no restrictions at all according to the UN. It literally points back to the high seas section. Am I missing something? Can you point to the specific section in the UN charter that contradicts article 58?
The term "innocent passage" only appears in the territorial waters section, not the EEZ section.
Also, if the aircraft actually breached some airspace, escort them out and file a report, like the Baltics do with the Russians all the time. That's the professional way to do it.
Also, is there another source where it says they were in China's EEZ? This article says they were near SK, which would suppose a SK EEZ, but they don't say exactly.
Falls under "freedom of overflight," which necessitates that when entering another country's EEZ you must
shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal state
shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state
Per these stipulations, overflight is meant to be for peaceful purposes, not for e.g. spying, military coercion, etc. These are, more or less, the same conditions granted for innocent passage. Moreover, overflight often requires clearing with the government as per local laws and regulations.
There's an open debate in international law as to whether surveillance is considered a peaceful purpose... But if someone dropped sonar buoys ("surveillance") 12 miles out of Honolulu Harbor, you'd probably throw a fit.
Again, as I'll repeat, flares are literally described by the FAA as a way to intercept aircraft. The US has used them against Russian aircraft, but in fact the US also does so to intercept civilian aircraft!
Current statements are that the helicopter was in "breach of Chinese EEZ" (Peter Cronau, ABC) and "within close range of Chinese airspace" (Chinese Foreign Ministry). Notably, the Australians have ignored calls by the British to release videos or GPS data on the incident.
Falls under “freedom of overflight,” which necessitates that when entering another country’s EEZ you must
shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal state
shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal state
Source please, because the UN convention text says the opposite, the coastal state has all rights to fishing and the creation of oil rigs and artificial islands, but that's it.
Otherwise:
In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.
Ergo, other than what's expressly stipulated (fishing, artificial islands and oil rigs) it's the same as the high seas (article 87 is the one that says anyone may do anything in the high seas), and:
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.
Again, as I’ll repeat, flares are literally described by the FAA as a way to intercept aircraft. The US has used them against Russian aircraft, but in fact the US also does so to intercept civilian aircraft!
What about, what about, what about. And no, the FAA does not say that an interceptor may dispense flares in the way of the intercepted aircraft close enough to create danger for either aircraft. It can use them to get the pilot's attention as a signal, that's all. Just as it is in the video you linked, the fighter dispensed a single flare in the view of the GA plane, at a safe distance. The flare was almost to the ground by the time the aircraft came into view. From your source:
If the aircraft of interest does not comply, the interceptor may conduct a second climbing turn across the intercepted aircraft's flight path (minimum 500 feet separation and commencing from slightly below the intercepted aircraft altitude) while expending flares as a warning signal to the intercepted aircraft to comply immediately and to turn in the direction indicated and to leave the area. The interceptor is responsible to maintain safe separation during these and all intercept maneuvers. Flight safety is paramount.
And about
“breach of Chinese EEZ” (Peter Cronau, ABC)
This is literally a tweet from someone working at ABC, says that "military activity in EEZs are illegal", forgets to mentioned that this is literally only said by China and North Korea, and runs contrary to the UN agreements.
Sorry, but you really come across as arguing in bad faith, and trying to find flimsy justifications for the Chinese crew endangering flight safety and claiming rights they do not have, EEZ or not, by taking random snippets from places and pretending the rest isn't there.
Motherfucker are you dumb, blind, or arguing in bad faith? Literally your own exact motherfucking source says this.
Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.
UNCLOS Article 58.2 and 58.3
Jesus Christ if you're going to argue in bad faith at least make an effort.
On the one hand, even if the crew was in breach of some UN provision, that is to be solved in the UN, in a boardroom, not in the air. Again, dropping flares on an aircraft is illegal, unprofessional, dangerous and idiotic.
And again, if you read the whole Part (or even point 1), you'd know it specifically enumerates which rights the treaty is regulating does it grant the EEZ coastal state, namely economic exploitation (like fishing and oil drilling), the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and the normal rights and duties of any other state.
So the question, in what way do you think flying a helicopter (which is a right of any state in the EEZ) endanger any right of China specifically provided for in this treaty? Did they scare away fish?
EEZs don't protect random made-up rights, only specific ones, and only if those don't infringe on the rights of other states.
To clear it up, which of these do you disagree with?
All states have a right of free overflight and navigation as long as they do not infringe on China's right on oil drilling, fishing and preservation of nature as provided by the treaty part 5 on EEZs.
China has a right to the exclusive exploitation of its EEZ with regard to living and non-living resources, so it is the sole power that can build oil rigs, fish, etc. as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of all other states for free navigation or overflight.
The AU helicopter was exercising its right of overflight, and did not infringe on China's right to fishing or oil drilling or nature preservation.
Because if all that is true, UN provisions don't justify obstructing the helicopter, and again, even if they did, this would be a diplomatic matter to be settled through normal channels, not by endangering lives through idiotic air showmanship.
Australia claims they were flying there for surveillance to enforce sanctions on North Korea. UNCLOS stipulates what internationally lawful uses of the sea are (including freedom of navigation, overflight), and it's difficult to argue that foreign surveillance falls under that definition. Notably, surveillance does not fall under overflight, as overflight stipulates that no activities are conducted over the flyover that are not related to the flyover itself.
Your claim is that military surveillance is an internationally lawful use. That's insane. Your interpretation would allow Chinese and Russian aircraft to surveil within 12 miles of the US mainland, drop maritime survey beacons outside of key harbours (to spot submarines and map out the harbour), and do acrobatics within view of major US cities.
Again, dropping warning flares in front of an aircraft to intercept is standard policy. It's not even worthy of mention most of the time, and it's described in FAA rules.
I get what you are saying, I think I see where our disagreements start.
I read up on EEZs and see the disputes there. It seems the rules unfairly favour the nation / alliance with the biggest navy, ergo the US and allies. I don't fault the Chinese for trying to alter that, maybe they should indeed park a few warships 12 miles off Washington and see what happens. As I saw, they also sail into US EEZs to put that pressure back on the US, with the US just tailing them.
My argument is that according to the current rules, flying there is fine. You say the rules are unfair, and they might be, and people should maybe sit down to change them. Not by dumping flares on top of aircraft, though.
On that point, I see you're saying that the Australians might be lying. All I can say, and all I said, is that if what they say is true, the Chinese are in the wrong from an aviation safety perspective, and to me that perspective is all that matters. If the Australians were intercepted and flares were only used with proper separation as a signalling device, that's fine. The Australians claim otherwise, and have released no footage, which I agree is suspicious.
China's navy is by no means advanced enough to project power halfway across the globe. It's not been designed to do so, either: most of China's navy is designed to repel a naval invasion near Chinese waters.
It's considered breaking news and a gross overstep when China flies over an arbitrary EEZ line in the Taiwan Strait to enter another EEZ for even a second. That should tell you all you need to know about China's confidence in its own capabilities.
The US Coast Guard recently released images of a fleet of four ships of China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) sailing near a US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) near Alaska's Aleutian Islands
Lol. Australia is just as codependent on our iron and coal trade with China as china is. We’re not going to do anything to threaten that. Let’s be honest.
Really though, should Australia be operating warships so close to China when they really don’t like it. I don’t imagine or expect the Australian navy/Air Force to be friendly to a Chinese warships if they were off the coast of Brisbane or Sydney.
Found the bot who can't read. International waters near south Korea with an actual mission against north korea. That's not "operating near China". If that was the case, the world should be nothing but bloody war, just about every country has military at their border. That's near another country.
And the biggest reason this is a double dick move by China, the Seahawk was on a UN mission. Guess who's part of UN. That's right. China.
This media release is precisely the correct measured response to this kind of childish behaviour from China.
Cutting coal and iron exports would harm australua more than China. They put a tax on our wine and barley and that did some damage.
This type of flex from China is already commonplace in SEA, and thankfully we have cool heads in charge who will hold the right positions and respond in a measured way.
So your greedy and spineless solution is to allow these bullying tactics to continue until Australians are killed, and then continue to allow trade afterwards.
So full blown war over seeking alternative trading partners is a better outcome? Because that’s what will happen if Chinese aggression isn’t met with severe consequences.
You don't seem to understand the type of damage it would do to discontinue our trade relationship with China.
It's not just some company would lose a few million dollars in share value.
It would be economic collapse. Rolling blackouts, civil unrest, supply chain disruption, starvation, overwhelmed health services, no fuel, rioting, suburban gang violence, hyper inflation.
China would just be able to buy everything they don't already own and take everything else.
Sometimes it takes courage to stare down an adversary, and not blink when they fire off a few scary flares.
abc.net.au
Oldest