@xlocostkiler@grok@Double759@YuvrajS9258@tumbletuffy The most common option was "do what the hijacker says and the plane will go somewhere else without anyone dying" there were 1000s hijacks before 9/11 where the plane was just diverted to Cuba or somewhere like that. They were pioneers in suicide hijack tbh
@AntigoLiberal E se eu te contar que 5% das receitas de cobrança coerciva da AT vão para um fundo para ser dividido pelos funcionários e que em 2025 foram distribuídos pelos funcionários 65 milhões de euros que pertencem aos portugueses em impostos que não foram pagos?
@StateDept So according to your own logic Iran has access to a "nuclear weapon" but they have never used it and the only time the leveraged that was when the US was treating their sovereignty. I think this is the standard nuclear policy of all nuclear countries no?
@richsra@StarboySAR That's clearly not the point. If Israel launched an attack on Pakistani planes, Pakistan would join the war on the Iranian side. Do you think Israel wants to pick a fight with a nuclear armed country?
@gajodagabardine Eu acho que 154k pessoas merecem no mínimo 4x mais orçamento que 23k pessoas. Mas é engraçado que para ti ninguém é mais útil que ninguém, mas no entendo foste comparar o orçamento de dois "departamentos" que nada têm em comum
@gajodagabardine Servem a população na teoria, mas mesmo assim continuo a achar que o SNS é mais útil para a população, pelo menos são mais úteis e mais visíveis
@Boom_Bam_Bow@adamscochran That's just not how that works is it? Iran buys 10 American flags, puts them in 10 rowing boats and torpedoes them. "Wow Iran just sank 10 American ships with torpedos". That's how stupid you sound btw
@Geopoliticupdat@fahume@jll525@Telegraph If the US opens the door to use nukes without getting nuked first Russia would have a justification to nuke Ukraine back into the stone age for example
@A_Damned_mk2@kwakuasanteb I mean idk why you were arguing with me, I was literally saying that UK nuclear deterrent is not independent from the US and they should have their own, but sure
@A_Damned_mk2@kwakuasanteb And the US could out wait you? In the mean time you would only have one set of missiles for all the submarines to share, and engineers that don't know how to maintain their delivery system. Once again, that's why the gov wants to fix this. They are not independent of the US
@A_Damned_mk2@kwakuasanteb Yes. But what if the US says it's not gonna provide more missiles? Do you think the missiles don't need maintenance? The UK has no capabilities to keep their nuclear deterrent going without the US that's the whole point of the government to fix it.
@A_Damned_mk2@kwakuasanteb Once the submarine stops it's patrol it goes to the UK to take the warheads out and then heads to the US to take the missiles out for maintenance and then heads back to the UK for maintenance. The missiles are stored in the US. The sub needs to go to the US to get the missiles.
@A_Damned_mk2@kwakuasanteb The UK has submarines and warheads, but it doesn't have missiles to be launched from the submarines with the warhead on the tip. The UK rents American missiles, if the us wanted to block the UK after 6 months there would be no nuclear deterrent. That's what the article is about
@The_Dudg@CraigMurrayOrg@cem_uk_ They didn't physically put the British sailors inside the UB 😂, they would surface, give them supplies and a compass and indicate the nearest shipping line and sometimes broadcast their position to any ally countries. But then the US came along and ruined that honor
@AG46353940@southevropa@HVGN00@rpcorzo Sure and article 5 is restricted geographically by article 6 :
North America, Europe, Turkey, and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
The middle east is fair game just like the Falklands were