Readit NewsOne of the design variants of the F-35 is designed to penetrate air support, no?
That means enough propellor powered cruise missiles to guarantee US air defense penetration is (a lot) cheaper than ONE F-35 (and they can still go ~500km/h), jet-powered ones cheaper than 2, maybe 3 and that's not counting equipping the F-35 with something to shoot, and of course there's the suspicions that F-35s have kill switches that Trump half-confirmed (yet another brilliant move there, Mr. Orange President).
How many of those interceptor rockets are available to be loaded into actual equipment in less than the 6 hours it takes jet powered cruise missiles to reach the US? I don't know, but let's go with 10%. In other words: the defense that Israel mounted against Iran is pretty much same effective defense the US would have if Russia started ... The US wouldn't be able to shoot down more of those, even if Russia had 100x more rockets than Iran.
Oh you want to shoot them down using bullets? Ok, halfway we have those cruise missiles switch to a ballistic trajectory. At that point it will be difficult to shoot them down, but that's not really the point. They're ballistic, and the problem with ballistic rockets is that they're like an (explosive) rock. You can shoot it ... but that only causes momentum exchange ... it doesn't actually give the rocket a different trajectory. In other words: it'll still hit it's target, just with less accuracy (and if the guidance remains intact, not even that). You have to hit it hard enough to get it to break up, which means rockets, which the US doesn't have enough of. Which nobody has enough of.
(this is a theme that will come up often once hamas or hezbollah start firing rockets at Israel again. The new laser interceptors have to hit the rockets BEFORE they're ballistic, in other words, what they do is make hamas fired rockets hit Gaza or South Lebanon ... Guess who will be blamed for intercepted rockets hitting houses, hospitals and kindergartens in Gaza and Lebanon?)
On top of that now AC also clashes with general policies in Europe to cut power use, and EVs take priority. Especially on the left AC is seen as very not green.
There were even quite extreme air conditioning designs for the wealthy who had water flow through the walls and floors of entire buildings, even pumped systems that automatically switched from using heated water to cooled water depending on inside temperature. Long tunnels on higher floors with water cooling that got air from specific places to flow into rooms in villas. And, of course, the systems in Rome's palaces are extreme.
So if what you're saying is true, without even passive cooling, your housing is worse than even the standards for Roman slaves.
Beyond that, is there a viable competitor available for an US allied nation to purchase?
Plus every other party has far inferior fighters to "the West" anyway. And then you calculate ... you are not going to successfully defend against the F-35 in a war with the US. Not going to happen. Against Russia/China or anyone else ... every fighter jet will do fine, so take the cheapest.
The US got guaranteed this business because of international treaties ... which Trump has abandoned. But no worries, I'm sure he'll just make a "deal" and fix things again, right? Meanwhile I suggest you invest in EU weapons manufacturers, who are a lot cheaper than the US ones.
Second for the on-board radars to evade detection they need to be reprogrammed with the latest updates regularly. Not so much because the programming has a kill switch but because otherwise "adversaries" could still turn out to have rockets that can home in on an F-35.
And even in the case of the US, you don't have to shoot down that many F-35s to get them all.
> The municipality told her she was “not Greenlandic enough” for the new law banning the tests to apply, despite her being born in Greenland of Greenlandic parents.
> She said her first meeting with her daughter, earlier this week, was cut short early because the baby was believed to be overtired and overstimulated.
> “My heart broke when she [the supervisor] stopped the time. I was so sad, I cried out to the car and in the car. It was so fast that we had to leave,” she said, through tears. “My heart is so broken, I don’t know what to do without her.”
> Brønlund is allowed to see her baby, under supervision, only once a fortnight for two hours at a time. Her appeal will be heard on 16 September.
Horrible and insane. Using some weird psychometric test, which is probably too narrowly defined and culturally tuned to a white Danish population, makes this whole thing not just cruel to both the child and mother but also incredibly racist. And now the municipality won’t comment on it for “confidentiality” reasons after they’ve stolen this mom’s child. It’s a really special time for bonding and development that she and the baby will never get back.
Is this really what Danes want from controlling Greenland?
Not only does the study prove that child well-being would improve (a LOT btw) if we just DOGE-style cancelled all child welfare interventions and ended the agencies entirely. It also proves how interventions should work: the more child protection agencies do, the worse the effect on the child. Every intervention is negative, but especially switching from voluntary care to involuntary destroys children's lives. But, of course, these agencies never do that. Anyone who knows the basics understands: social workers, when asked to leave, should leave and stay gone until asked to come back. This applies EVEN to children who are abused at home. Well, it applies if you want to help.
There's other studies. One particularly bad one shows that children who leave child services by committing a crime (because child services gets to choose ... and refuse any particular child. That means, effectively that if a child commits a violent crime, even if the kid is 10 years old, they get sent home). Those children who attacked their caregivers in child services with violence, had better outcomes than children who left foster/institutional care "normally". Better/more studies. Less crimes (yes, really), ...
Studies also prove that there are positives to be had in child agencies. But exactly in the way these agencies and the justice department hate. The people on the ground in those agencies are bad, as in having people "help" children, trainings, psychology, "support", ... has strong reinforcing negative effects. The more of those given, the stronger the negative effect on children. Even the highest level of support ever given (which is 4 hours weekly with a trained medical professional psychiatrist) had essentially no effect. Although at least trained doctor-psychologists can say that they did no damage. Social workers ... anything they do damages kids.
By contrast, concrete support WITHOUT forcing people onto kids works. Give a roof to parents who become homeless. Give children actual money for doing sports, for healthy food, medical help (even yes, the famous access to medical help without involving parents) ... without doing so much as checking what the money is used for (there is also a study that pointed out that even if they bought a PS1 with it that really helped). There is even a study of giving primary school children a single folder that explains (in over 40 pages) how and why to get to university. That had a big positive effect. A lot of things have positive effects. But "interventions", treatment by social workers or in general has strong, reinforcing, negative effects.
What you see time and again in studies is that people do not help. Psychologists (the non-medical-doctor kind), "nurses" (again the non-medical kind), school advisors, and social workers of every kind have almost universally negative effects on children, that worsen over time instead of improving things.
And it's not even close. VERY bad parents (even seriously abusive parents: e.g. single mom drug addict) are a lot better than the best places in child agencies.
The history of these studies go back far, and it has never really been different. And to that I'll add: treatment of children has improved a lot since WW2 (and the studies before WW2, let's just point out where certain things started [2] [3]). I have not found a single case since 1980 where a parent shot a child on purpose, worldwide, whereas in the 10 years after WW2 ... But you see this improvement across the board. Even extremely bad parents have improved a lot.
Oh and before you ask "what if parents abandon a child?". Well let me inform you: youth services DOES NOT take care of abandoned children. There's a medical service that does that, and until the child agency chooses to take in the child, they are taken care of in hospitals (since hospitals have to deal with long-term-ill children, most if not all countries have facilities to have children have extended stays in hospitals. Schools. Food. Sport activities ...). Of course, in every country I know of, child services agencies have decided that hospitals do not get any kind of compensation from the budget of child services for that. Hence I feel very comfortable saying that child welfare agencies do not, ever, take care of abandoned children.
[a] https://www.gov.scot/policies/girfec/named-person/
[1] https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?PublicationDoc...
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05112-1 (note the URL)
[3] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia... ("the buses", these were child welfare agencies) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am_Spiegelgrund
Let's just say it like it is: in WW2, (Austrian) state child welfare agencies started the holocaust and enthousiastically participated in it (child welfare agencies in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, ... all enthousiastically participated. So frankly, even in WW2, a parent who shot their own children was still giving better care than the state)
Legend’s parents, Jessica and Sameule Jenkins, did.
Two days after the crash, the district attorney charged both with involuntary manslaughter, set bail at $1.5 million each, and took their remaining children into protective custody. Facing the prospect of months in jail and the loss of their children, the Jenkinses took felony plea deals.""
This part.
Do bad things not happen in developed countries related to children? No. But this part would not happen.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8535968/
The entire movie depicts what the state does to the toddler as she grows up, in Germany. You'll have to look up the case. The guilty party ... was fired from her job. Nothing more.
Note: it ends with the child taking her own life because she would be forced to go live in Africa. Needless to say, this has no consequences for anyone at all that (radically failed to) take care of the child.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7704614/
This is, in a way, about a racist cop accusing a sole immigrant father of child abuse, where then a child is left alone as the father is (eventually) forced to leave the country (he now "doesn't have a daughter", so can be deported). That part is barely mentioned. The movie follows the girl. But the problem depicted here goes further than immigrants: the dutch state is regularly accused of separating children to avoid the law. You see dutch law is very strict that families that become homeless must be given suitable accomodations where they live (not somewhere else, citizens and immigrants). To avoid actually doing this, many dutch cities use youth services to, let's just call a spade a spade: abduct the children. Because that has 2 advantages, the children get a new address, and the parents "don't live with children" anymore, (accusation? Well, if parents become homeless they "don't take good care of their children", what an argument). Of course half the reason is to use the children as hostages to force parents to take a job. But if they don't, the city can still get out from under it's financial obligations: then these are no longer families and the parents can be thrown into the street legally. Obviously this practice is illegal, and the Dutch state has been convicted by the European court of Human rights. Needless to say, EXACTLY ONE change to the law was made, and of course nobody experienced any legal consequences whatsoever. The change? When children are abducted by youth services, their address changes (so the parents can still be thrown in the street) BUT not the city (even if the children physically live somewhere else). So cities of origin are forced to pay youth services for these children. My guess is that somewhere between 30% and 50% of all children in residential care in the Netherlands fall in this category, but of course, these numbers are not tracked (this is extrapolating from numbers out of Belgium (well, half of Belgium, Flanders), who do publish the numbers on the causes of "outplacement", depending on the year it's between 30% and 50%). These regions are very close to each other and essentially identical except for the state.
You know, btw, what the #1 cause of placing children in youth services is? Not abiding by family judge's decision, usually the child ("running away", or the legal term "taking a child away from their legal guardian". Note: it is THE CHILD that is doing that is almost all cases). There isn't even any accusation that the parents aren't taking good care of the child in these cases right, it wasn't even investigated. The children are taken away to, if we're frank, use them as hostages to cheaply (without involving police effort) enforce court decisions. Oh, and then one such child was forced to sleep in a police cell for 2 weeks, which made the news. They're still doing it.
In other words: in these countries, for children in residential care for there to be even the accusation that the parents abuse a child is not even 3%. The accusation right, cases where it's legally proven, the numbers are essentially "it happened X years ago". Meaning proven abuse doesn't even happen once per year on average for a population of 5 million. The accusation of abuse (not necessarily by parents), NOT investigated but the accusation is there, is only double digit children per year (meaning less than 30). There are far more orphans (both parents died in accident, no family available), even today, than abused children.
The odds that an entire residential youth services facility has a SINGLE actually abused child (suspected, not proven) is less than 30%. All the other children in residential care are cases where the parents not cooperating (or not able to cooperate) with the state one way or another. #1 reason? Parents not willing to cooperate with courts in divorce cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVBxvXzAIBg
Or a similar story, also Flanders. This is about a school "somehow" failing to prevent rape in school (which they are legally responsible for). Needless to say, the movie immediately moves on. Why? There never was any investigation how this happened (youth services is not allowed to investigate anyone, and certainly not schools). Given the reactions of the girls (yep, plural), obviously they were threatened, so presumably it wasn't classmates. What does the state do? Because obviously it is pretty damn critical to investigate the school, right? If not you're risking potentially a lot of repeats.
Oh here's another beautiful story illustrating how laws really work, from Antwerp. A child ("14 years old" only info given) was placed out of their home. No details on why, and placed in closed youth center after running away. The third day he broke a plastic knife in two, and stuck it into the throat of the caregiver/guard. Missed the artery, but hit the nerve. Did not fully cut it, but that must have HURT for a very long time, months. He was placed in prison for a short while (less than 2 weeks). So far so good, but what happened then is revealing. He was brought back to the same institution, at which point the personnel FOUGHT (yes, literally) with the police (one broken jaw, one broken arm) to keep the kid out. There was "no space" anywhere else (translation: one look at his file and nobody wanted the kid). He was held in a police cell for 2 days ... and sent home.
So you see even the reverse happens: the state refusing to apply law, REFUSING to taking children away, refusing to go after people, because the people that form the state refuse to do it because of violence.
People complain Trump deporting people to CECOT with a straight face is hypocritical and bad. And it is! But let's be straight here: Trump's got nothing on the bunch of genocidal hypocritical war criminals that call themselves "Palestinians" in the UN. Or on the general assembly.
Oh and I've checked Israel's accusations of the UN's IPC department. They're are correct, factually. IPC did indeed change their rules to make this determination against Israel. Under normal circumstances there is no famine according to the IPC unless people die. People are not dying of hunger, according to the IPC's own figures, which is a requirement in every determination ... except this one. In Sudan, by contrast, people ARE dying of hunger (which is ironic because Hamas is part of the muslim brotherhood, who are the side of the Sudan conflict that is CAUSING the very real famine in Sudan (you know, real with people dying en-masse because food is being blocked). For racist reasons, one might add: "arabs" vs black muslims. The black muslims are the ones dying)
I've also checked the second Israeli accusation. That this is effectively a Hamas propaganda claim. The IPC makes a point of denying this 5 times in their press release, stating non-Hamas information sources. Here [1] is their actual report. Page 22 lists their sources of information. In short: they are lying. Where their data comes from: all data comes from Hamas, or through Hamas. This report is very much Hamas propaganda.
Yet another part of the cold war that seems to have returned. I remember, in the 80s, people just couldn't grasp that there were no reporters in the Soviet Union, and that frankly the best information about the Soviet Union came from the CIA. Not a single real reporter in the Soviet Union. That is authoritarianism, and the same is of course true about Gaza. Pravda articles were government propaganda. "Interviews" with anyone were Soviet propaganda. This was the case with famines, with oil pollution, and famously with Chernobyl (where for 2 weeks they piled on interviews with experts, real experts, who were lying, who said nothing had happened and repeated the Kremlin line, that a nuclear accident was not possible in the Soviet Union and this was just not happening)
And EVERY SINGLE TIME so many people fell for it. Swedish scientists famously announced on TV that a large scale radiation leak had occurred in the Soviet Union, first, the scientists refrained from outright saying the Kremlin was lying and people started viciously attacking them (including protests), describing anyone reporting this as evil itself. Oh and the UN was pretty much always on the Soviet side, including even now: the UN still touts Soviet "facts" about Chernobyl as true (such as the "only 50 dead directly linked to the accident" idiocy).
IPC data sources, according to their report [1] (pg. 22)
• Telephone interview survey data from two data providers.
No details. Though of course Hamas monitors all phone calls in Gaza.
• Ministry of Health (MoH) mortality reports – violent deaths, usually reported daily and available at https:// data.techforpalestine.org/.
This, of course, is Hamas.
• Ministry of Health reports – deaths due to malnutrition, usually reported daily from July 2025 onwards https://t.me/s/MOHMediaGaza.
This is Hamas.
• WHO data on inpatient feeding centre mortality
WHO collects it's data "from government sources", in other words, despite the WHO stamp, this is Hamas data.
• MSF staff survey https://www.doctorswithoutborders. ca/palestine-msf-survey-of-staff-and-their-families- in-gaza-shows-almost-half-of-people-killed-in-the- war-are-children/.
These people report to Hamas.
• Household surveys and capture/recapture studies
No details on what this is exactly.
[1] https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/I...