Unironically could be a legit business model.
Not just for datacenters either - warehouses, refineries, power stations, you could sell to anybody with a building full of expensive stuff.
Not just for datacenters either - warehouses, refineries, power stations, you could sell to anybody with a building full of expensive stuff.
Drone attacks on US soil are (hopefully!) not happening anytime soon.
So...the west if we go by the recent statements of chancellor Merz
Ukraine is left to fend for itself. The Taliban runs Afghanistan. Iraq is still in bits. A new ceasefire with Iran is announced every other week.
No, the current policy is to shout loudly and carry a small stick.
Lots of "surgical" airstrikes, each lasting one media cycle and accompanied by a truckload of bluster and spin.
The current occupant of the White House appears to think foreign wars are principally a communications problem.
This would be incredibly stupid. An attack on American soil could be met with a literally nuclear response against Iran or whoever perpetrated it.
(We did nominally succeed in regime change in the country that didn't attack us, though...)
It wasn't Afghanistan (as a nation) that directly carried out 9/11. The government did have close ties with Al Qaeda and sheltered it though.
> An attack on American soil could be met with a literally nuclear response against Iran or whoever perpetrated it.
Al Qaeda is in the "whoever" category that you claimed would be met with a nuclear response.
Prediction markets are betting on a false flag attack around midterms.
America a super power ran away from the Houthis... who only have toyotas, no army, no navy and no airforce.
The continental USA has not yet been threatened by drones.
The USA is, however, the sovereign power controlling the smouldering ruins of military bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, and the recently evacuated airfield in England. Some might say those constitute US soil.
Why do you think schools ban kids to carry weapons ?
Do you think letting anyone to bring weapons into any country might end well ?
Merchant vessels typically used to carry a variety of artillery and small arms for defense against pirates and hostile navies. That practice largely ended when the UK and then the USA established global hegemony and secured the sea lines of communication for everyone. But now the USA is no longer willing or able to play that role, so either merchant vessels have to be able to defend themselves using deadly force again or else trade will largely cease along routes within range of shithole countries.
They are largely unrelated to the reasons countries might have for being nervous about merchant vessels packing anti aircraft weaponry.
You are I think getting lost in your analogy and in the process conflating two different things:
- the reasons countries might want to prevent people from entering with weapons
Vs
- the reasons countries might have for being nervous about armed merchant vessels in their navigational waters