JB stan account

We've got plenty of things we can prosecute these guys for. "A warship sank another warship during a war" isn't one of them, and doesn't have to be

We haven't had a declared war since Korea. In general LOAC does not hinge on whatever domestic process a country goes to war by, but whether a state of war clearly exists

The younger Ellison, at least one Murdoch, Bill Ackman, Steve Wynn, Joe Ricketts, the Adelson wife, and Robert Mercer. There are a lot more honestly, but pick the worst ten.

Anyway, for all of Iran's multitudinous faults, it's the US and Israel that launched an unnecessary war that will kill thousands and make life worse for millions, possibly billions, of people. They are the "bad guys", which is to say they are responsible and need to stop.

We kind of just went through this with Israel and Palestine, so I'm not really sure why people are still struggling with it so much

It's possible to have a more complex understanding of geopolitics than "these are the good guys who share my values and these are the bad guys who don't". Sometimes neither side shares your values!

I have an electric car and solar panels. Turned out to be good decisions.

I'd accept 1LT because 2LT to 1LT is effectively an automatic promotion anyway after about 2 years. But skipping all the way to Captain is nuts. Captains have real responsibility!

All these motherfuckers from trump on down being like "well erm hrm hrm we never said it was gonna be a bed of roses!!" as though we were all begging for a big beautiful war and just didn't understand the consequences are making me lose my mind. We told you! WE told YOU, you shitbags!

Probably some media people too. Anyway, the list is really not very long and I'm not convinced they would be automatically replaced with equally ghoulish people because of whatever structural forces.

It's like 10 particularly awful billionaires and another 40 people in government? Something like that.

This is the sort of thing I'm *highly* primed to believe, and yet... I really don't think it's true. I'm pretty sure there's a list of maybe 50 people in this country you could guillotine and basically fix everything, at least in the short term.

And even if write the law to make it unpardonable, you can't guarantee that the law will be upheld or left in place. A death sentence, on the other hand, is always unpardonable after it is carried out.

Well, if we're talking about serious legal reform, we can limit death penalty cases to the above and, simultaneously, limit the ability to appeal.

Like: all death penalty cases should be argued in front of a special tribunal and the sentence should be final.

What I've been saying lately is that there basically are crimes that are disproportionately civilizationally destabilizing and things like J6 or everything this admin is doing fall under that category.

And that's good, because you don't want guys like Hegseth coming back. They've made it clear who they are and what they will do if they are ever allowed to have power again. And as past members of government, they are obvious rallying points.

There's a reason they always killed pretenders.

And there are very real advantages to the death penalty in that context that are not typically present. Like a future administration can potentially pardon* (say) Hegseth. But not if we execute him.

* Even with pardon power reform, there will probably be some sort of pardon mechanism.

I used to think the death penalty is bad, but I've revised my opinion. It's bad when it's applied to the common people for "common" crimes because of the very real possibility of false conviction. But there's no risk of that when you are prosecuting a public official for something they did publicly.

The death penalty is bad, which is why it should be limited to political actors

I mean the point I'm getting at is that you just need lots of anti-aircraft guns, instead of missiles, all over the place so that you can shoot down whatever comes near.

Flak would work too. These are all systems that were considered obsolete.

You could also just intercept with cheap aircraft.

Sort of a similar problem I guess, in that the Bismarck's AA had sights that were designs to lead the target depending on its speed, but the Swordfish flew too slow for the sights to be effective

Yeah, to deal with drones cost effectively we just need more AA guns

I just googled it, and the shahed cruises at about the same speed as a Sopwith camel lol

Shaheds should be easier to shoot down than World War II aircraft (because no actual pilot), right? Why wouldn't VADS be good at that?

If we're talking about shaheds and the like, I can't imagine why manual aiming would be a problem. Those things are very slow

VADS works against drones. I don't know if we still have any M42 Dusters mothballed, but those would work.

Drones are just slow fixed wing prop aircraft, shooting them down isn't rocket science, the only problem is that "slow fixed wing" hasn't been a big part of the threat environment for decades.

Phalanx would be overkill, but would absolutely work.

Basically what happened is that after the 80s most western countries decommissioned AA guns in favor of missile systems because guns were largely obsolete against aircraft. They work great against drones though

Well, in Grok's case, they'll cross reference it to Stormfront

It's either not in there at all or it's in one of the kooky self-reports that probably aren't true

Doubt it