It’s like when you put a corvette car cover on your impala. Tricks the boomers every time

The g stands for global my fellow scholar

Imagine WW3 kicking off from TikTok. Not even a cool battle or anything, just massive misinformation campaigns to incite violence and false flag attacks

AoE2 is the sequel to Age of Empires. Never heard of Age of Empires II though.

Also

The devices set to be prohibited include all types of smartwatches and wearable devices as well.

I’m surprised they weren’t already restricting most personal electronics in sensitive spaces. That’s pretty basic stuff

Shadow the hedgehog is badass though. He has guns and rides a motorcycle.

It’s not as purpose-built, but its replacing a ton of airframes which are decidedly not as stealthy as an F22. Think of all of the F16s, F18s, and AV-8s being replaced by F35s

Brazil claiming its rightful place as leader of the free world

Yes. This is generally agreed upon as being a terminal escalation.

Attacking diplomatic missions very quickly turns into no diplomacy between the two countries. This doesn’t leave many options other than military actions on the table.

https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/57650

Nuclear deterrent because it’s submarine-borne. If a country makes a first strike on the UK, their submarines, which are ideally hidden and steaming around in oceans somewhere, can make a retaliation strike. They’re still equipped with nuclear warheads but aren’t necessarily intended for a first strike.

You can destroy the UK, but you won’t escape unscathed.

I remember reading about nuclear powered shipping vessels being pitched a few years ago.

The article is 8 sentences. Doesn’t seem like a great source

That’s already happening.

Any interest in having a discussion on alternative methods to address dissent?

It’s kind of shitty for the only solution to be to walk away. That can leave apathetic or otherwise undesirable people left in positions that are still important for society.

Anybody know if there’s some sort of conscientious objector clause for the State Department?

On one hand, anybody working for the DoS is acting in an official government capacity. That is to say it’s not about an individual’s thoughts or feelings - anybody in the job is supposed to be acting in the interests of the United States. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t like what you do. It might matter if you’re morally opposed to your tasking, but the solution to that is usually to bring it up and have somebody else to the work.

On the other hand, the United States government, and DoS by extension, is supposed to work for the people. Here, the DoS should be taking a stance that works in the best interests of the country and its citizens. If popular opinion says that there’s a misalignment, then we need a way to fix the issues so that the organization can run in a manner consistent with the people chartering it. I’m not sure individual employees are the right people to take on this role, as there’s no consistent way to act across an organization like this.

I’m not an expert here, but I can see reasonable arguments on both sides of this