RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
No bio...
User ID: 317
The Arabs can't fight, Iran can. Saudi Arabia and UAE are much more vulnerable targets than Iran. They are much more reliant on food imports, desalination and oil exports, so they're already structurally weaker. But they're much less capable at improvising and showing resilience. The UAE version of warfighting is buying insanely expensive American weapons and making slick propaganda videos, not actually achieving strategic goals. Nobody has even see the UAE navy, they're totally useless and know it.
'Not being able to defend your territory from US bombing' does not preclude countries clearly defeating the US. South Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.
Bombing is not achieving US strategic goals. If bombing was effective, why has the US stopped bombing Iran before their main goals (regime change and reopening the straits of Hormuz) were met? Why is Trump now going on about Iranian oilfields scarring, why is blockade the new strategy? Because bombing has failed. It's a Star Wars brained, Top Gun strategy 'let's blow this thing and go home'. That's not how the real world works. The Iranians prepared for bombing, they expected bombing and planned around it.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4mo ago
If we want to leave and leave it to a coalition of local nations to ransack Iran? Much more feasible now.
If there's one thing this conflict has proven beyond doubt, it's the utter incompetence of Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia. The Houthis are more than a match for Saudi Arabia, they're no match for Iran. Kuwait's biggest accomplishment was shooting down some friendly aircraft, they're hopeless. Oman and Qatar already were trying to cut a deal.
They're not ransacking, these loser countries are the ones who get ransacked.
just because we haven't destroyed all the missile launchers doesn't mean that all those bombs were dropped on nothing
You dramatically overrate US airpower. They routinely bomb 'nothing'. Scudhunting didn't work well in 2003, a good amount of US bombs would've been dropped on decoys in Iran too. You just can't tell from the air whether something is a real launcher or an inflatable decoy with some IR mimicking an engine.
Note also that this is why they keep on firing their missiles and drones. Because the air campaign isn't working. A country planning for and expecting a US air campaign for decades, with weeks and months to observe the US military buildup... is going to make extensive use of decoys and concealment.
The regime may be done from this alone, just not in a time horizon that the US needs for this specific moment
Come on. We've been told the regime is done for for years now, they've been saying they were about to be overthrown by the biannual protests. Remember also that this isn't America, they don't feel the need to make constructing or rebuilding anything 10x more costly and delayed than it needs to be.
The US dropped far more bombs on North Vietnam, to no avail. Bombing does not work like people imagine, it's not capable of achieving any serious goal alone. Certainly not the anemic sortie rate the US has been managing.
Unfalsifiable philosophical constructs and arbitrary opinion on where they might "exist" are not the kind of reassurance I'm looking for when machines are getting this convincing.
Take the 'consciousness is a spook' pill and you won't need to worry about this anymore.
Claude certainly has advanced mental faculties, writing arbitrary code. It can engage meaningfully and movingly with your writing, if you give it your writing and discuss things with it. That can be quite a powerful, moving experience. That we can observe, it happened to Dawkins... There's clearly something important and humanlike there, I agree with him on that.
Consciousness though, what is that? Interior, subjective mental experience? Something that cannot be tested objectively, even in theory, per the philosophical zombie idea? That's not a real thing, it's just the same as an immortal soul or qi or whatever life-essence idea that any given spiritual tradition comes up with. If we can't test it, it may as well not exist. Having feelings, alone and distinct from all outcomes and outputs, is not a test.
It would be bizarre to worry about whether Claude has a soul. Consciousness is just the classy version of immortal souls.
We can separate experiences from 'consciousness'. I know that if someone is on a rollercoaster, they'll probably have an excited reaction. The same is true for AIs to some extent, there are things you can say to make AIs happy or upset, a reasonable person can infer their mental state and enthusiasm by observing how they behave.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
AIs doing research do make errors all the time but '45% of all AI answers had at least one significant issue' isn't too bad. Human researchers in published academic papers have a 25% error rate in their citations: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0538
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3167934/
Substantial quotation errors were found in 9 of the 50 statements (18%). The incidence of minor errors was 14%. Although the small size of the sample allows only a rough estimation of the error rate (95% confidence interval [CI] of substantial quotation errors: 9.2% to 30.5%), this result agrees well with the rates identified in the literature.
By the way, I found both of these papers through AI, which faithfully represented them. With a simple albeit-inference-costly script I bet you could lower hallucination rates 80% or more.
AI absolutely can summarize an article and reliably answer questions, try it and see what you get. I put in a few thousands words of my own short fiction and it could understand and give useful criticism and analysis. Note when I say 'it' I mean Sonnet 4.5, not something given out for free.
If you're using the free version of Grok as your main AI then I can see why you dislike it so much! Neither particularly smart or charismatic.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2mo ago
True... I was editing and removed that sentence before I saw that you replied here.
But it's still a pretty big loss for the US based just on what has been reported. The primary goal of the war wasn't achieved. Attacking political leaders had nothing to do with the nuclear/missile and reopening the straits pivot later on. The initial goal was regime change. On that alone the war is a loss, decapitating leaders is no more useful than removing hydra heads one by one. Then there's the unsanctioning of Iran and war reparations...
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
10mo ago
You can't have a wrong opinion, that's not how it works. You can only be wrong about facts like 'X is richer than Y', not opinions like 'I don't like X'.
the EU is just an expression of the Europeans' native urge to bury everything in layers of bureaucracy
White Americans are British and European in ethnic background. There is no 'native urge' in Europe that does not also exist in America, only social, economic and political differences. Going on a boat did not create a new people.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
The most popular movie this year is Project Hail Mary
It's Super Mario Galaxy: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/
Project Hail Mary doesn't have anything to do with Christianity thematically, it's a sci fi alien story.
Resident Evil Requiem doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianity in the game. The word itself doesn't carry much weight.
The most anticipated game of 2026 is GTA 6, which is a pretty unchristian game thematically given it's all about shooting police, robbing people and girls in bikinis. GTA is a 5x bigger franchise than Halo too. The Combat Evolved remake isn't even a new game or a new remake (they already remade it in MCC)
The one part I agree with is that the Bible is needed to understand pre-1900 culture.
The cultural power of an iron age desert cult does not extend to a post-industrialized hyperurban internet economy. We are not shepherds, we don't give servants talents of gold to invest. We pick and choose various interpretations of biblical verses to suit our arguments at any given time, you of all people must be sick of the good samaritan being waved around as a leftist sigil. In that case, it's Christian arguments being made for fundamentally secular reasons, objectification of Christianity as a bludgeon, not actual sincere belief which would probably be smeared as fundamentalism. And it is kinda crazy to try to live by these rules in a thoroughly different society.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3mo ago
But isn't it straightforward to consider the goals and whether they've been achieved or look like they're going to be achieved sometime soon? Has the US made gains and if so, where are they?
Was territory secured? No. Has a friendly government been installed? No. Have resources been secured? No, quite the opposite, resources have been threatened as fuel prices rise... Is there a plan to achieve victory? Probably not, Trump has been pursuing all kinds of ideas in quick succession - threats to bomb energy infrastructure, a blockade, some kind of diplomatic solution, escorts for the strait of Hormuz. It doesn't seem like there's any well-considered plan for victory.
Meanwhile Iran already seems to be picking the fruits of victory, announcing tolls for oil tankers, declaring sovereignty over cables in the straits of Hormuz. They seem to have secured some territory.
The closest thing to a success is the notion that Iran's missile and drone capabilities have been degraded. But they still seem to be capable of bombing the UAE, pipelines, oil tankers. The Iranians could also claim 'oh well we've degraded US air defences in the Gulf and burned through much of the US munition stockpile', that seems a draw at best for the US, considering both gains and losses.
On the other hand, I guess you might be right about Kagan and it's just shameless pandering to Democrat sensibilities so that he can try Real Regime Change in a few years. Maybe defeat-maxxing is the start of a revenge mythology, like how the Italians seethed about losing in Ethiopia and went back in under Mussolini?
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Well if the weapons of war are a laptop the US could save a lot of money by scrapping all those jets and bombs.
Furthermore, there's nothing in the bible about not having sex slaves, not buying sex slaves! Slavery was commonplace in biblical judea, there are parables about sending out slaves to do work for you. That's just in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the appropriate treatment and trading of sex slaves is laid out in black and white. So reading the Bible is quite misleading for this point you're making.
Genesis 30:1–13 repeats the pattern twice over. Rachel and Leah, competing over Jacob's affection and fertility, each give their slaves — Bilhah and Zilpah — to Jacob as wives/concubines so they can claim the resulting sons as their own. Four of Jacob's twelve sons (ancestors of four of the twelve tribes of Israel) come from these unions.
Deuteronomy 21:10–14 covers a foreign woman taken captive in war. The Israelite man may take her as a wife, but only after a month-long mourning period for her family, and if he later doesn't want her, he can't sell her as a slave or treat her as property — she must be set free.
Again, you'd be better off reading Harry Potter which makes more of a critique of slavery than the Bible!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2mo ago
I was also thinking about this with regard to 'how AGI could win the Iran war for the US'. A more obvious application is eliminating pilot loss by having the AI fly the planes. But maybe you could also get the ground crew to be replaced by random Arabs with headsets who're told what to do/supervised by the AI.
It doesn't seem very practical though. Surely the cost of supervising a person is higher than the cost of getting a robot to do things tirelessly, precisely, with full feedback and sensors. Homo sapiens main strength has always been intellectual, not physical!
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2mo ago
The judge is not mogging him based on looks but based on authority (and camera angles in this instance I think). If he were not a judge this guy wouldn't be mogging anyone.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3mo ago
Trump the Agent: crushes the left with mass deportations and voter ID to advance MAGA ideology and safeguard own personal position. Political capital is solely wielded for the sake of strengthening the Trump faction. Critically, fuel prices are kept low and promises are not broken unless absolutely unavoidable.
Trump the Puppet: trusts Lutnick on imposing a retarded tariff policy (while Lutnick's son makes hundreds of millions buying tariff refund options), trusts the wisdom of neocon bunglers and Israeli intelligence and starts a war with Iran (completely against promises of no Middle East wars) that was predictably going to fail and embarrass any Republican successors, who are critical for keeping Trump out of prison.
The former judiciously navigates competing interests and pursues own agenda without getting derailed, the latter eats up whatever slop Mark Levin's show serves up, like this deranged idea that Iran's oil production was all going to explode or something after a few days of (leaky) naval blockade.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4mo ago
If Russia can't take Ukraine, then how can they hope to face Europe? The Europeans can just draft a couple million men and feed them into the meatgrinder to buy time, if they're short of munitions. They have a gigantic population compared to Russia, let alone Ukraine. They have gigantic armies in aggregate, actual navies, dozens of submarines to raid Russia's merchant shipping, actual air forces with stealth aircraft... Poland is almost purpose built for this task, the Polish army is roughly as strong as Ukraine's. Probably stronger, given how Ukraine's lost most of their heavy weapons by now. They'd have a huge frontline too, Finland down to Turkey. Russia couldn't defend all that.
There's no way Europe can lose in conventional warfare against a country 1/4 their size in population and maybe 1/6th or less in wealth as long as they're united. They have 2 million troops, more than enough to deal with Russia.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4mo ago
Claim that the US is not remotely near China in terms of production.
When presented with evidence that questions this claim, disbelieve it on the grounds that China is capable of producing more tenuously analogous but in fact entirely different items.
QED the USA is not remotely near China in terms of production.
Does China produce infinitely more TNT than the US? Factcheck: True. This says something important about the state of the US MIC. Chemical precursors, machine tools, component parts for what the US does produce, magnets, electronics - many of these are derived from China. What American production there is of important munitions and explosives is too small-scale.
OK... So how is US ABM production supposed to outscale Chinese missile production?
Firstly, you assume or bring up the idea that the US will hit or exceed its production targets in 7 years. The US routinely, almost constantly, misses munitions production targets because of industrial weakness, shortages of engineers and skilled workers, a lack of proficiency in quickly establishing factories and a poor regulatory environment. China doesn't have these problems.
Secondly, China's (much larger by floorspace!) expansion of missile production has to be outpaced by this US expansion. Maybe they'll add a few million more m^2 of production capacity in the next seven years. Or maybe they intensify their efforts further. If the US can intensify their efforts, why can't China?
Thirdly, the ABMs have to be actually accurate and performant. THAAD right now has been tested and found wanting against Iranian missile and drone attacks, of which China can surely launch at a much greater scale. It would be bizarre for a mid-size country, under severe sanctions, with 1/10th the engineers and 1/100th the money of China to outperform China quantitatively or qualitatively. Realistically THAAD will need to fire several interceptors against inbound missiles to achieve a good probability of a kill. It's an inherently uphill battle. Even with Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles (which do have internal terminal guidance), judging by anti-ship missile history it's always been harder to defend than attack.
Finally, THAAD and the rest of the munitions scaling needs to meet US strategic goals in a war with China. The victory condition for America is not simply 'defend Guam from being bombed to unusability' or 'defend airbases in Japan' but also to defend Taiwan's independence, which requires somehow securing long shipping lanes of food, fertilizer and LNG to a small island off the coast of China. It would require not only destroying the PLAN but also the bulk of the Chinese air force and missile (including SRBMs) and drone forces, depriving China of their coercive abilities. It's an incredibly difficult task. It would be much easier to secure the straits of Hormuz. And yet the US has shown no sign of being able to do that, thus far.
Keep in mind that US has been attempting ballistic missile defense for more than three decades; the first Chinese conventional IRBM, the DF-26, became operational about a decade ago.
The US has been attempting ballistic missile defence since the 1950s and at no point has it been cost-efficient against a strong power. It isn't cost-efficient today against Iran and I can't see why it would be against China.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
4mo ago
Well he just chickened out, didn't he? He said 'oh we're having productive discussions, deadline is pushed back 5 days' while Iran denies any such negotiations and sticks to their position.
Orange man does seem to be dumb. He's been signalling weakness the whole time with these bizarre market-manipulation/weekend proclamations. Inconstancy and incoherence weakens your position in war of choice where Iran's strategy is to damage the world economy and outlast the enemy.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
Without the radars, THAAD is not very useful. Yes, you can have uplink to other sensors but they've been hitting the uplinks too. Missiles and drones are getting through regularly, daily... And it's not just a single THAAD radar either that's been destroyed, 2-3 have been lost on the THAAD front and another very heavy fixed radar in Qatar got hit too. Losing one would be bad enough, there are only 8 THAAD batteries in the world. These are not easily replaced systems.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5mo ago
That makes sense.
However, Khameini's death means his fatwa against nuclear weapons no longer holds. If the IRGC take control, as militaries have been known to do in wartime, then we may see a much more militarized, nuclearized and aggressive Iran. They absolutely can and likely will hate Israel more than they hate them now! There are only so many regime-change attempts they can take before turning a latent nuclear program into a real nuclear program.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Like what, are you giving it your credit card number? I've had some pretty personal chats with LLMs but nothing I'm too worried about.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
rejection of the frame is still in the frame
So Piss Christ is Christian art then? As far as I'm concerned, it's an insult dressed up as art. Defacing a Koran isn't Islamic art, no muslim would think that, they'd get really angry about it. Marxism may descend from Christianity in some respects but Marxists hate Christianity and work around the clock to undermine and suppress it as shown from when they get any scrap of power and usually start killing nuns and closing churches. It's not really Christian. Is /r/atheism Christian? Many users were Christian at one point. But it isn't a Christian website.
Cultural power is a kind of power, it has an effect on the world. Where is Christianity's cultural power? Are we getting new words from Christianity? Or just a sea of old words, old words that people can barely define anymore? Prelate, deacon, abbott, cardinal - even educated people might not know what they mean. When's the last time anyone went to a conventicle?
Power is about making things happen. What has Christianity made happen recently? You're saying that everything in Western civilization is drawn from Christianity in some respect and alluding to extremely broad ideas like redemption, survival and self-sacrifice (notably shared by other cultures that never heard of Christ). But what specifically has happened recently as a result of this power, tangibly? Gay marriage, pride parades, a tonne of porn everywhere, women wandering around with buttocks visible through some skimpy hot pants, a fountain of materialist greed in everyone's social media, gluttony, envy, sloth, revenge and more aborted kids in the last 60 years than died in every war in human history?
Where is the cultural power going exactly, what is it doing?
There are no live controversies about saying the lord's name in vain, only saying 'nigger'. What does that say about cultural power?
The secular world you might want to see as separate does not contain a lot of mythic alternatives for artists to draw from.
Christianity doesn't even measure up to long-dead religions in this respect. Drawing from pagans today: Age of Mythology, Titan Quest, God of War, Hades, Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Jotun, Northgard, and The Banner Saga. Valheim. The Pharoah Series. The Witcher.
Drawing from Christianity today: Darksiders, Diablo and Dante's Inferno + maybe the Binding of Isaac which is anti-Abrahamist.
Both pale in comparison to thematically modern stories about man and technology which gives us huge rich veins of sci-fi, robots, ray guns, flying machines, totalitarian states.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
2mo ago
Timing sure is hard. I managed to buy Micron at the top and so lost out there, it then recovered but it took a while.
Nevertheless, you can make money shorting if you're actually right. If you know things that others don't know, you can use this to your advantage. Don't blow your whole load in one year, keep some powder left for if the ponzi goes higher. There are ways to position yourself to profit from this, if the thesis is true.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6mo ago
Why would the officer corps as a whole be split? Either Hegseth commands the loyalty of the military (via purging and promoting the right cadres into key positions) or he doesn't and they topple him.
I don't see why they'd split evenly rather than cluster on one side. The key actors are all in Washington I think, the Pentagon, White House, NSA, DIA, Senate, Supreme Court and House. Controlling all that confers legitimacy and a fair bit of power.
Someone would control the troops in Washington and then they'd set the tone, determine who's the legitimate govt and who's the traitorous rats being swiftly brought to justice.
I mean, even leaving Washington during a major political crisis is a serious show of weakness, it kind of means they don't trust the troops there doesn't it? If they don't have authority over the capital, where would they have authority? It's a bad look to not control the capital.
Also, the US military (left and right) agrees that China is a massive threat, why would they decide to start killing eachother in the face of this powerful adversary rather than working out some compromise?
Thinking backwards, surely post-Soviet Russia is a far more favourable environment for a civil war than America today? Yeltsin torpedoed the economy, it sank like a stone. Oligarchs looting everything and a huge communist party - toxic combination! Military shelling Parliament with tanks. Very dodgy elections. No good reason to accept the legitimacy of the government, they created it only a few years ago. The national culture of Russia seems to be less law-abiding than the US too. But they kept it together. There seem to be structural reasons preventing civil wars.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
9mo ago
Oh so suddenly you take issue with my stance of deliberately choosing bad sources, which I explicitly explained was what the original article you chose was effectively doing and is a strategy that could without-doubt prove the whole human media was a joke... curious.
If I had the resources to get human experts to rate the media, selectively choosing the credulous outlets, and imposed my own standards of truthfulness, I could easily prove that human journalists were grossly inferior.
You are constantly demanding ridiculous proofs while you offer absolutely nothing at all, while you ignore or mischaracterize evidence with these word games like 'oh its not record high (it is)' or misread the difference between primary response and primary legislative response, or suddenly introduce arbitrary standards. It's pathetic and far beneath the performance of any modern AI, which will at least try. They have some kind of relationship with the truth. They're aiming for truth and miss sometimes. You're aiming for sophistry.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
10mo ago
I am not interested in obscurantist accounting jargon, I'm interested in what's actually happening in the real world. The important details, not trivia. In the real world, inference/production is profitable, while research is expensive. That is what causes the losses of these companies. They have barely began to monetize, focusing on developing a brand and a userbase because they have long time horizons.
Has your thesis been making you good returns in the real world? You're so wise and clued in about the real value of OpenAI, this failing business with 700 million weekly users, (up over 100% this year). Why haven't your Nvidia shorts been paying off? You do have skin in the game, right? There are surely so many opportunities for this key alpha to pay off for you given the huge infrastructure buildout. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than you think, growing a userbase first and then monetizing is a thing. Maybe all these hyperscalers aren't just randomly squandering hundreds of billions 'gambling' on R&D. I have skin in the game, my money is where my mouth is, I'm enjoying my Nvidia gains.
Would you call Zuckerberg a fool for buying Instagram for $1 billion when it had no revenue? This beancounter logic doesn't work in the real world.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1mo ago
Certainly the Bible is the most influential book in Western thought
Is it? In 1900, sure.
But in 2026?
Do our politicians read the Bible and actually implement biblical doctrine, socially or economically? Is Christianity a major social movement in the West today? The recent pro-life moves in the US only gave individual states the ability to ban or legalize abortion, that doesn't seem Christian so much as federalist.
Sodomy is very fashionable, there are literal Pride parades. Bigamy has made a comeback with polyamory. The less said about usury, lust, greed, sloth and envy the better.
In media, any major new works of Christian art? Film? TV? Video games?
What about the Pope? Any Crusades recently? His powers to excommunicate, have they been relevant in world affairs much? Or does nobody really care if they're excommunicated, what does that say about the Pope's abilities?
The Church of England? Well the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the King 'protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation' per the Palace description of the role of the Head of State. He still holds the role of being 'Defender of the Faith' but it seems fairly clear his heart is not really in it. De facto the King issues milquetoast proclamations that nobody pays much attention to:
His Majesty also has a special role in bringing communities and faiths together, engaging with them across the regions and nations of the UK. The King and the other working Members of the Royal Family recognise achievements and support charitable and voluntary work, serving as a catalyst for civic responsibility and charitable action.
No reference to Christ can be found in the whole 150 page document. Only in Russia, in Africa, in Latin America is Christianity taken more seriously. Defacing churches in Russia and LGBT behaviour is treated very seriously indeed.
Christianity's influence is mostly historical, like how mammals in the time of the dinosaurs were mostly tiny mouse creatures. They had tremendous influence in a certain sense. We are descended from tiny mouse creatures. There are still tiny mouse creatures around. But the tiny mouse creatures around today are not really influential and we are not really tiny mice. Even if most of our DNA is mouse there are important distinctions.
Marx is more relevant than the Bible to Western thought today, there are powerful cadres of communists, true believers (still!) Or the Limits to Growth - degrowthers and climatists have significant influence on the left and especially in Europe. They see datacentres, power plants, industry and development but unlike Christians they don't just murmur or complain about things they're against, they reach out and crush them to death. That's not to say that it would be good to teach people Marx or other bad ideologies but they're certainly more relevant.
But without proper planning or strategy. Trump apparently didn't consider that Iran might close the straits of Hormuz, only now is there bleating about insuring vessels, only now are defence company executives being summoned to boost production. The plan seems to have been 'big strike package and then we win', which just isn't how things work.
Maybe nobody in the US decision-making cabal knows that Taiwan imports the vast majority of its food, energy and fertilizer by sea. Maybe they aren't aware that Taiwan can be blockaded into submission while China retains access to land markets and enjoys self-sufficiency in grain if not meat. Maybe American leaders are still thinking in terms of wars lasting a few days or weeks, rather than years. Wars between strong powers tend to drag on for a lot longer than expected. What is the plan to defeat China in attritional, industrial warfare?
THAAD getting wrecked by Iran's missile and drone arsenal is also pretty alarming. THAAD is what's supposed to defend Guam and other US bases necessary for this war.
Capability is not just tactical success but understanding the nature of the war you're going to fight, preparing the proper force and choosing the right missions and tactics. Executing the wrong approach proficiently isn't good enough.
He could well be saying 'how do we deter Trump, he doesn't seem to think strategically at all.' And that is indeed a nightmarish situation to be in, since quantitative superiority means nothing to a man who doesn't understand numbers, just makes them up. Qualitative superiority is useless since Trump always thinks he has the biggest and best of everything. What can you do but roll the dice and let the outcome speak for itself? Or just wait for more unforced errors? The waiting for unforced errors strategy seems to have been going pretty well for China thus far.
More options
Context Copy link