Because it is a grand strategy scale of sticking your head in the sand and pretending the things you don't see aren't happening. Sure, in specific scenarios you can make proper national interest arguments as to why certain specific events somewhere are not relevant to you, but that requires far more analysis. Blanket "Isolationism, fuck everything" is just mindless.
>Grand Strategy.
Brizinski, dis U, stay in your coffin, you were a fucking reetard and greedy revanchist inbred moron.Also ur daughter is an ugly hoe leftoid.
Again, consider the circumstances of it. And then consider whether they, with that experience in mind, consider that a great idea they wish they can return to as soon as possible.
See: North Korea as example of partial isolationism forced by enemies.
So would i, but by the logic i've explained above - it's an idea so awesome everyone wants their enemies to adopt it, it's just that no one wants to adopt it themselves, how curious.
And the representatives are not so important, the covert ops, influence ops, and trade are important, it's basically "global outrage sanctions" but on steroids.
Sorry but i did not lend you that kind of real estate in my head.
Fuck off with that childish shit that you always resort to when your preferred baseless assumption about how certain things should work do not get accepted on face value.
Also, speaking of geography knowledge:
en.wikipedia.org
What the fuck did i say? It's made of islands, stop being a mooing lolcow.
Oh wow, it is in the estuary of a few rivers at the tip of the Malay peninsula, such long moat, much wow.
And Russia is a postcommunist\neoimperialist clusterfuck. We are neither Russia nor USA, we have our interests, and we have diplomacy meant to serve them by interacting with other countries. Get it?
Anti-western whining, if USA is so weak how does it get away with half assed efforts everywhere and still get what it wants half the time. As things stand, some of their rivals are also our rivals, and that's a completely traditional and obvious basis for an alliance.
>European interests
FFS besides simping for Russian Empire resurrection attempts you simp for French half assed one too?
Ok then, from now on every time you complain about some stupid EU regulation i will remind you that you want this.
There are no "European interests", there are French interests, there is advertising, and there is EU overreach which should be limited to being a trade union.
Sorry, De Gaulle is dead, and France is not what it used to be in his days.
The french have a proper foreign policy and outlook, they have also made themselves self-sufficeint in energy and had enough deterrence to not need or care about NATO, yeah, I like DeGaulle.
, which does not mean I support the French since the last few administrations there have blown away a lot of what he achieved.
But most importantly, I do not support France, I support France/Gaullist-like policies.
And it is not like you Poles didn't simp for France under Napoleon and later under whoever ran it before zhe Germans went in.
More childish tantrum.
Of course it's classified as of now. But check out the payloads of recon planes and drones that have them known and you will know it's certainly enough.
>Muh top secret stuff...
How much was the actual payload compared to that of a recon drone, you know, when you remove all of the solar panels, batteries and the like, we are listening?
More empty bluster from you.
Also, that balloon flew very, very high, which removes some of the alledged advantage it might have compared to satellites.
>limited
Then why do all the major powers still run recon variants of transports, fighter jets, even some usually old specialized airframes, and a gallery of recon drones of varying performance envelope that are the real thing replacing, and in many ways massively expanding the de facto reconnisance asset fleets? Congratulations on revealing your 16 year old level of smartass understanding of the matter "hahaha no one needs this shit because satellites exist". Drones of course are a popular way to do recon aircraft because you can be cheeky with them and don't need to deal with the matter of dead/captured pilot in case it gets shot down like in certain historical events - and obviously, that balloon was also a kind of a drone.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Recon planes, limited greatly, no one would do that anymore, satellites.
Yeah, perhaps because you do not want to wait for a flyover and need quick, actionable intelligence when you are facing tactical problems.
Like, you know, chasing a terrorist or a drug cartel on the run.
Also:
In 1968, Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara canceled the F-12 interceptor program. The specialized tooling used to manufacture both the YF-12 and the SR-71 was also ordered destroyed.
[24] Production of the SR-71 totaled 32 aircraft with 29 SR-71As, two SR-71Bs, and the single SR-71C.
[25]
So useful apparently McNamara decided to ditch the program and stop production in 1968.
The SR-71, while much more capable than the Lockheed U-2 in terms of range, speed, and survivability,
suffered the lack of a data link, which the U-2 had been upgraded to carry. This meant that much of the SR-71's imagery and radar data could not be used in real time, but had to wait until the aircraft returned to base. This lack of immediate real-time capability was used as one of the justifications to close down the program. The counterargument was that the longer the SR-71 was not upgraded as aggressively as it ought to have been, the more people could say that it was obsolescent, which was in their interest as champions of other programs (a self-fulfilling bias). Attempts to add a datalink to the SR-71 were stymied early on by the same factions in the Pentagon and Congress who were already set on the program's demise, even in the early 1980s. These same factions also forced expensive sensor upgrades to the SR-71, which did little to increase its mission capabilities, but could be used as justification for complaining about the cost of the program.
[27]
In 1988, Congress was convinced to allocate $160,000 to keep six SR-71s and a trainer model in flyable storage that could become flightworthy within 60 days. However, the USAF refused to spend the money.
[27]: 204 While the SR-71 survived attempts to retire it in 1988, partly due to the unmatched ability to provide high-quality coverage of the
Kola Peninsula for the
US Navy,
[120][27]: 194–195 the decision to retire the SR-71 from active duty came in 1989, with the last missions flown in October that year.
[121] Four months after the plane's retirement, General Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., was told that the expedited reconnaissance, which the SR-71 could have provided, was unavailable during Operation Desert Storm.
[122]
Ok, the Kola peninsula bit I can probably understand, since you'd likely need satellites on a polar orbit to spy on it.
However notice the emphasis on expedited and immediate.
The reason why they kept it around was that you did not have to wait for a satellite to fly over a given area to give you actionable Intel, which is good when you are in an actual shooting war and want quick data on enemy movement.
Attribute to others what you do yourself, yeah, we know you love to do that shit.
Implying he doesn't have people to do it for him. And speaking TV managing, the prospect any politically no-no topic appearing on the TV there is at this point somehow handled, so i assume it would work by that route.
They may be legitimate to their simps of course, but i do not give a shit how they feel.
Also whining about murderous assholes and legitimate interests while simping for fucking Russia of all places, come on, you are the avatar of clown world right now.
It's like whining about too much socialism and lack of free markets but also praising the economy of North Korea.
More childish tantrum, i see you lost again.
Costs and capabilities... USA still kept using SR-71 despite having all that stuff.
The SR-71 has been dead for decades, the people in the programme outright said that satellites killed it.
Of course any poll that is not packaged with your favored propaganda is invalid
Celebrate while you can vodkaboo.
>Empty reeing.
And the fuck does it have to do with anything? Qatar is still not selling most of that to Europe, never was, and your cource agreed, so it's an exercise in handwaving.
It also agrees that it's still in the same scale export wise as Norwar (which unlike Qatar sends mostly to Europe) and Russia (ditto).
So yeah, the scheme to get Europe to buy more gas, the country selling little gas to Europe is totally suspicious just because it's there, it has reserves for a long time and you don't like, not the ones who already have set up deals and infrastructure for it (and let's not talk about that little known thingy Norway has with the EU where it can give EU member money by spending them on woke agenda pushing), and certainly not the one that's the largest exporter by far because you simp for it.
The link I provided goes to the very same source, and it says that Quatar is 3rd where PROVEN RESERVES are concerned after Russia and Iran, then comes the USA.
And US shale is farther away and a problem due to the structure of the shale industry.
Then again, if you are hinting that Chevron and Exxon own the Russophobic and bellicose Green party in Germany I am not gonna complain much.
DO I need to repost it again?
notpoliticallycorrect.me
