tal

joined 1 year ago
[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

If China wants a war with the US -- which I doubt, seeing as they haven't started one by now and Taiwan would be a better reason for them to do so -- they don't need a treaty to have one. They can just go kick one off. The treaty just means that:

  • They have an obligation to act.

  • It provides grounds under the UN rules to act legally. But, end of the day, that only really matters to the degree that it affects what other countries do. And in this context, that probably mostly means the US anyway.

If you look at Hong Kong, China just told the UK to get out or they'd take it. They didn't have a legal basis for that. I don't expect that a piece of paper would be a huge obstacle to involving themselves in Korea if they were willing to have a war over it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

During talks with Thatcher, China planned to seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like".

There’s a reason they are constantly provoking Filipino ships and the like

I don't think that that indicates a desire for war. China has had outright hostilities over the islands before, with Vietnam, and China didn't aim to convert it into broader war. I think -- though I don't follow the South China Sea situation much -- that China's aim in the South China Sea is to maintain a level of friction high enough that it's painful for the countries to maintain a claim over those islands. At some point, the country either de facto or de jure cedes the territory and China keeps it.

EDIT: There's the Vietnam instance, where they brought friction up to a level of conflict, grabbed de facto control, but didn't initiate a broader war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

Article 6 of the treaty requires North Korea to commit to only peaceful reunification with South Korea. They're in violation of the treaty if they try to forcibly annex South Korea, and China doesn't then hold obligation to aid them against attack.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 6 points 6 hours ago

Honestly, if there were a simpler way to sell their personal data to retailers for people who want to do so, that probably would be more appealing for the users.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 8 points 6 hours ago

I don't think that it'll go away. I think that there will be a longshoreman.

It'll just do something different than in 2024.

Same way a longshoreman a hundred years ago, pre-containerization, would have been wrestling boxes around instead of moving containers on a crane.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Your realistic choices are Harris or Trump.

I'm pretty sure that you're not going to be happier with Trump in office if your objection is US support for Israel, and especially US-Iran conflict, seeing both past policy and that Iran got caught in the act of trying to off Trump several months back.

But, your vote.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

They already sold a fair bit of munitions from their stockpile to Russia. At least some of which Ukraine then blew up in their recent ammo depot attacks.

I don't know how much they have left, but my guess is that North Korea is probably in a worse place to attack South Korea than they have been for a while.

Also, while North Korea does hold a strong deterrence ability over South Korea in that they can cause a lot of damage with artillery to Seoul, the flip side of that is that they'd be starting a war that they'd lose.

From past reading, I believe that estimates are that it'd take us and South Korea days, but less than a week, to knock out North Korean artillery near the border. In that time, they'd cause horrendous damage. But then they're in a really bad place. They don't really have a route to militarily take over South Korea. All it'd mean is a horribly-damaging war for them.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/dockworkers-union-reach-tentative-agreement-wages-suspend-strike-talks-rcna173963

The union also sought limits on automation at ports. The joint statement only mentions wages.

So I'm guessing -- though we'll see what further articles talk about -- that they probably got concessions on wages, but not on automation.

 

SEOUL, Oct 2 (Reuters) - South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol ordered on Wednesday military aircraft to be deployed immediately to evacuate its citizens from Israel and other parts of the Middle East amid escalating tension, his office said.

Earlier on Wednesday, South Korea's foreign ministry urged its citizens in Israel and Lebanon to immediately leave by any means available.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 12 hours ago

If there'd been Chicken Big Macs available at that point in time, probably each of them would have been individually several times bigger than Jesus.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

We apparently just started refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-buys-6-million-barrels-oil-strategic-petroleum-reserve-2024-09-30/

WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. has bought 6 million barrels of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for delivery through May 2025, the Department of Energy said on Monday.

The purchases are part of an effort to replenish stockpiles after President Joe Biden ordered the largest ever sale from the reserve in 2022 of 180 million barrels in an effort to control fuel prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 12 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm currently looking at two Wall Street Journal articles on Kagi's news results. One is from yesterday, and has Saudi Arabia warning of a price collapse to $50/barrel oil. The other is from today and asking whether oil is about to skyrocket to $100/barrel.

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/saudi-minister-warns-of-50-oil-as-opec-members-flout-production-curbs-216dc070

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-sp500-nasdaq-live-10-03-2024/card/will-oil-prices-surge-to-100-a-barrel--n3mmknym7wNJeDidlnFz?mod=lctimeline_finance

I guess that pretty much covers all the bases...

 

The price of oil has jumped 5% after US President Joe Biden said the US was discussing possible strikes by Israel on Iran’s oil industry.

Asked on a visit if he would support Israel striking Iran’s oil facilities, Biden said: “We’re discussing that”, according to Bloomberg.

 

This is merely a bullet point on the main article, but seems more-significant to me than the article's main title, and has now been cited on a number of other news sites:

Iranian source tells Al Jazeera Iran sent a message to the US via Qatar saying that it does not seek regional war but adding that “the phase of unilateral self-restraint has ended”. It also warned any Israeli attack would be met with an “unconventional response” that includes targeting Israeli infrastructure.

 

Quick summary: an analysis of the Iranian ballistic missiles used in the attack in April showed them to demonstrate dramatically worse performance than had been expected of them.

9
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by tal@lemmy.today to c/world@lemmy.world
view more: next ›