Here’s the thing: I’m with you. I agree as an American that the only thing that can stop this train is a wholehearted, full-throated rejection of everything this administration represents. That comes with a couple of issues, though, and the first is that the body politic here is intensely complacent; much too comfortable to be driven to action. The fact of the matter is that disapproval of Trump is the majority view, and even at the beginning of his second term that was still about a dead even split, but not even Trump’s atrocious performance in his first term was enough to galvanize a large portion of the US voter base in the 2024 election, despite it clearly being a critical inflection point. Unfortunately, if it doesn’t affect their life immediately and directly, a large portion of America simply doesn’t give a shit. Overcoming that apathy is likely going to require something large, noticeable, bombastic, demonstrably wrong, and personally painful, and by that point there’s a good chance it’ll be too late. Additionally, any revolution or unrest is likely to be heavily suppressed by the second issue: the US police state and its willingness to use deadly force, regardless of the severity of the situation. Between police forces, riot police, swat teams, the national guard, domestic surveillance, and now the might of the US military turned on its own populace, the Trump administration has all the tools to make any true resistance deeply costly and incredibly painful. Talk of resistance, of revolution, of taking up arms against this fascist takeover is easy, but the feasibility of a clean revolution in the face of the US police, military, and intelligence apparatus is doubtful. More likely we would end up with either civil war or insurgency, fighting an asymmetric campaign against an overwhelming force. We know that the US is vulnerable to such tactics (see: US expeditionary wars in Vietnam and the Middle East), but we also know that those tactics are incredibly costly, and require a populace that is highly motivated by what they perceive to be an existential threat.

The key here, in my opinion, is the military. Historically, he who controls the military, controls the state. The victors of coups and revolutions practically always have the military on their side, and for good reason; very few things are as persuasive as the threat of a bullet. Morale in the US military right now seems to be low, and if we can manage to break the trained obedience to hierarchy, we might just have a chance, but without them, I don’t see a way forward. Even every citizen striking and causing a complete shutdown of the US economy would just be likely to lead to threats being made to and examples being made of them, and getting people onboard for that is unlikely to be feasible from a fundamental level, given that the majority of America lives paycheck to paycheck.

I don’t want to be fatalistic or claim that this can’t be done or that we shouldn’t be doing anything about it; we should, and have a moral obligation to act, but the reality of the situation is that the time to act while avoiding discomfort was last November, and the viable options available to us now are going to hurt, and will likely only get more painful as time goes on. That makes people hesitant to act, and until such a time as they have more to lose from inaction than they do from action, I don’t expect that to change.

God, do I hope I’m wrong, though.

Is that more or less powerful than god and anime?

Good. We saw what happens when you give those fuckers an inch in 2014; they take a mile in 2022. Especially because Crimea is a bit more than an inch, and the claimed/annexed/occupied regions are a hell of a lot more than a mile.

Anyone who thinks that Ukraine ceding any of their sovereign territory is a strategy to buy long-term peace is either a Russian asset or fucking stupid. Full stop.

Uhh… yeah. I know? That’s why I said the US’s actions are indefensible? I feel like you’re shadowboxing a point that I’ve never made here lol

If you believe I am “both-sidesing” this, then you have missed the point. I’m not going to defend the actions of the US because, frankly, they are indefensible, but that doesn’t mean that China or Russia as regional hegemons would be a good outcome either, because their actions are also indefensible. I’m advocating for Taiwanese autonomy here, because their right to self-determination is something that is worth preserving, just as is the case for any self-governing nation.

And even Russia’s is only 5th gen if you really squint.

Surprise! The world is complex and all three can be not good for anyone, with room for more bad actors besides. Plus, while China isn’t at war with anyone (and hasn’t, as you said, been at war for fifty years), it doesn’t mean that they haven’t signaled their intention to take Taiwan - militarily, if needed, nor that they aren’t abhorrent in just the same way their international peers are (See: Uyghurs, the Chinese surveillance state, excessive force response to protests, etc.). This isn’t a defense of the US, but rather to say that acknowledging the shortcomings of China and Russia (which frankly should not be in the same category as the US and China) is not a way of blaming them for the shortcomings of the US, it’s just being realistic.

All cops are bastards, especially the one you know

Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

Jfc they really keep finding ways to outdo themselves here

Interesting question! I hadn’t heard about the royal navy looking into this recently! The last I was aware they had discussed retrofitting the QE carriers around 2011-2012, but the project cost estimation at that time was ~£2b, two thirds of the approximate procurement cost of one carrier at ~£3b.

I wasn’t able to find anything definitive about if this more recent proposed retrofit will go forward, but I will say that the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defense Review white paper specifies in section 7.2 they will be using F-35B for their carrier air wings. The full section is as follows:

“The Royal Navy must continue to move towards a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet, developing a ‘high-low’ mix of equipment and weapons that exploits autonomy and digital integration. Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.”

My guess is that they found similar results to the previous time they looked into retrofitting the carriers. The language here makes me think they’re moving toward more drone integration (manned-unmanned teaming is all the rage right now) in order to offload extra munitions and capabilities to autonomous platforms which compliment and counterbalance the weight limitation weaknesses of F-35B rather than broadening the scope of their available air wing, but it’s hard to say as I didn’t see any mention for or against the retrofits in that whitepaper. Definitely something to keep an eye on, though, as I doubt they would have reconsidered the retrofits in the first place without some reason to make it potentially more viable. Good looking out!

I suppose you could but it would be both incredibly time consuming and incredibly expensive, and you’d be more likely to end up with a worse carrier than if you’d just built in those launch capabilities in the first place.

You’d need to rip out the deck, and then retrofit it and the internals to accommodate the rail and launch system. You’d also need to reinforce the deck and remove the ski jump as the jets you’re flying will now be heavier and the jump will just get in the way of the launch system. The system itself could either be electromagnetic (like the EMALS system) but that would require several times the current energy output of a Queen Elizabeth class carrier, so would involve extensive engine upgrades. You could use steam instead, but you have a similar problem in that a whole bunch of infrastructure that you didn’t design space for now has to fit. You’d also probably have to overhaul the fueling, munitions, and maintenance facilities to accommodate the new jets. I’m sure there are other things that would have to be adapted but this is just from the top of my head.

All told, you’d probably be spending a similar amount or more to building a new carrier in order to take one of your own carriers offline for years and at the end of it you’d be left with an incredibly expensive carrier which would likely still be subpar to something custom built for this purpose.

TLDR: You could, but it’d involve a lot of work, a lot of money, a lot of trade offs, and would be unlikely to yield something better than if you’d just put that money into building a new carrier.

I mean, they’re not forced to, it’s just a problem that requires tradeoffs. For example, France operates the CATOBAR-capable carrier Charles de Gaulle and specifically doesn’t fly F-35, choosing instead to fly the 4th gen Rafale for the express purpose of maintaining strategic autonomy.

Plus, unless you’re an island nation or doing expeditionary operations (i.e. the power projection game) you probably have little need for a carrier in the first place.

If you’ll only settle for a 5th gen jet that’s carrier capable, though, yeah you’re kinda out of luck. Su-57 is hardly even a 5th gen jet in the first place, and even if the Admiral Kuznetsov wasn’t continuously catching fire in dry dock, the jet still couldn’t launch from it for a variety of design reasons. Same story with China’s J-20. China IS developing J-35 for carrier operations, though, and the jet has launched from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers in tests from what I understand, but I don’t imagine they’ll export those for a VERY long time.

You would think, right? They actually originally planned to include CATOBAR capabilities in their new build carriers, but budget cuts due to the cost of it forced them to scrap the idea, and then the rest of the purchase decisions followed as a result.

The thing to remember is that the UK doesn’t have any CATOBAR capable carriers, so the only F-35 variant they can fly from their carriers is the VTOL capable one.

True. And there is nothing more dangerous to an autocrat than a competent military leader, especially as military victories tend to deliver public support as well. Either way, he’s got a fine line to walk, but if Xi’s time in power has taught us anything, it’s that he’s very good at walking that line.

This is the first I’m hearing of this, so take this with a grain of salt, but Im skeptical of the idea that the dismissal of ‘Xi loyalists’ indicates a weakening of Xi’s position. The thing to remember is that autocrats during peacetime are forced to pick people for top positions who won’t upset the balance of power; loyalty is the primary factor in selection, especially so in this case because the person who controls the military is by far the most dangerous from a coup perspective. Notably, this means that no requirement is made for competence at their given role. Putin faced the consequences of this exact problem in Ukraine, as several of his top brass (see: Shoigu and Gerasimov) were both deeply corrupt and deeply incompetent, and it led to massive issues in the initial invasion in 2022. This could instead be read as a preparation for war, with Xi learning from Putin’s mistakes and clearing out the loyal but not completely competent members of his military command apparatus.

“Third Way said it was concerned about Mamdani’s affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America and highlighted what they said were “extreme” policy proposals embraced by the DSA”

> looks at so called ‘extreme’ proposals

> “give everyone water, education, and healthcare.”

God I fucking hate centrists lol.

There were definitely red flags before, it’s just that people ignored them because he was better than Dr. Oz. There’s a good Some More News video that goes into it.