The gamble just doesn’t really seem worth it.

China is not invading Taiwan. However if it comes to a war with the US, then it really has to take out Taiwan. It is just too close to the mainland, allowing for easy bombing and missile attacks, while als being able to cut off shipping from the mainland. Obviously the US likes that a lot, as it makes war against the US much more costly for China.

At the same time leaders often make horrible decisions. Just look at the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan or Russia invading Ukraine. Clearly not good wars for the countries invading, but they still did it.

Dolph is vegan and seems to not care about religion, but mostly stays out of politics.

Probably more important is the next paragraph:

There are a few alternative timelines. Some scholars extend the end date of the golden age to around 1350, including the Timurid Renaissance within it,[6][7] while others place the end of the Islamic Golden Age as late as the end of 15th to 16th centuries, including the rise of the Islamic gunpowder empires.

The Ottomans managed to siege Vienna centuries after the end of the Golden Age. They were not that behind in technology. Really the big change happened with the industrial revolution, which the islamic world mostly failed to implement. However at least the Ottomans managed to do a good enough job, to stand the ground against the Brits. Of the none Western world only Japan and depending on how you look at it Russia was better at adopting Western science and technology.

Iran and Moghul India did much worse though.

Russia could not even prevent Assad from falling to some militia with some training from Turkey, while Iran was also helping. What do you believe is going to happen, if they would try to fight another professional military? They are not even winning in Ukraine, which gets some support from Europe, while Russia has a full on war economy.

Right now nearly all aid to Ukraine comes from Europe and Russia is not able to win that war. At least not easily. That is with Russia in a war economy, whereas Europe half asses deliveries for the most part and obviously there are over a million professional European soldiers with some really good kit around as well.

Why do you believe Rutte pushed through the 5% military spending target? It is needed to replace the US in Europe and be a working deterrent to both Russia and the US.

It also is a bad move to leave NATO, as this makes the EU the logical center to coordinate the defense of democracies.

The German government sold 60% of the company in 1960. So another 12 years.

Just look up the Musk followers on Xitter.

Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?

See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.

I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.

First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.

It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.

Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?

Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:

How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.

And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:

So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.

Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.

EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.

Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.

Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27

Nope, right wing bullshit repackaged to be attractive to young men, who want sex. Basically the idea is to naturalize hierachy in male groups, while at the same time isolating them socialy. When you try to dominate others, they usually do not like that and lets be clear most guys want to be the dominant kind in that kind of system. The funny part being that women also usually do not like it. There is a reason half the influencers in these sort of communities end up having to pay for women or just rape.

It is a modified version of Mastodon, with a Soapbox front end. It does not have ActivityPub enabled and lacks a bunch of features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social#Software

Thankfully only DDos. Truth Social is Mastodon so a security flaw could have been a real problem.

For your average Trump support they are the same thing.

The tools are roughly the same, however the key difference is the position. With the fall of the Soviet Union Russia became nearly a regional power, which is trying to become a great power and hopes to be a super power again. The US ended up being the remaining super power and mostly controlled the world. So the US does not have a massive plan for world domination, because it already is pretty much in that position.

You can see that with China. The US was very interested of integrating China in its global economic system. However now it is starting to take over, so we see trade wars and things like the Muslims.

Similar situation in the Middle East. The US used to import a lot of oil, so low oil prices were important. At the same time oil is traded in dollars, which as everybody needs oil, creates a lot of demand for the dollar. The US can just print more, which is pretty much free money. However the Middle East is the clear main source of oil, so to make sure those countries do not sell in another currency, the US has to show strength. Hence taking out Iraq. Nowadays the US is an oil exporter. So it is much happier to take out the competition. That happened in Venezuela, Russia and now Iran. Keeps up the oil price, which helps the US economy.

However those are all reactions to events, rather then some grand strategy. The US just wants to keep its position in the world.