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.
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.
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.
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.
Context:
Claims Swirl Around Israeli Strikes Very Near Russia’s Air Base In Syria
Targeting weapons bound for Hezbollah, Israel appears to have struck very close or within Russia’s Khmeimim Air Base in Syria.
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.
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.
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.
We apparently just started refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
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.
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.
I guess that pretty much covers all the bases…
You’re probably thinking of this like the US, which has a presidential system, where the president has a veto and Congress can override.
Georgia has a parliamentary system, and typically there – don’t know about Georgia in particular – the president, if one exists, has a more symbolic role. Like, maybe he’s supposed to formally authorize legislation, but doesn’t really have a veto.
EDIT: In the UK, the monarch – the head of state in the UK, like the president in a parliamentary system – sometimes has to do something, but on the “advice” of the elected government, which in practice means that in 2024, they don’t really have the option to not do it.
Buckingham Palace insists that the monarch’s role is “purely formal”. Declassified files show that from time to time the palace has complained that the Queen has not been given enough time to respond, or that the government has treated the procedure too casually.
If consent is withheld, parliament is in effect blocked from completing its scrutiny of the law. “If Queen’s or prince’s consent is not signified (in a case where it is required), the question on third reading of the bill … cannot be put,” parliamentary guidance states.
Robert Blackburn, a professor of constitutional law at King’s College London, warned of “an inherent danger that a misguided future monarch or prince of Wales, holding strong moral views on the subject matter of a bill covered by the royal consent procedure, might believe he or she is entitled to impose his opinion on the matter”.
While I’m generally sympathetic to the idea that the EU should strive to be more economically-competitive, I’m also skeptical that economic competitiveness represents an existential threat for the EU.
I’d also point out that the devil is in the details of what specific changes one plans to make. France has a lot of EU regulation and economic restrictions that they like. I suspect that a lot of people might point to the Common Agricultural Policy as something to reduce in size, though it’s generally benefitted France at the expense of some other members.
That may have broader implications than just for Israel. My understanding from past reading is that the Iranian ballistic missile stockpile was of concern to other countries too, like Turkey, and why Turkey was pushing hard for having anti-ballistic-missile capability.
But if Iran’s ballistic missiles can’t reliably impact much closer to their target than this, absent nuclear warheads, it may mean that Iran has much less military capability against other countries in the region than expected.
U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters, told the AP they assessed that 50% of the Iranian missiles failed at launch or crashed before reaching their target.
Assuming Iran targeted the hangars, the James Martin analysts measured the distance between the hangars and the impact zones of the missiles. That gave an average of about 1.2 kilometers (0.75 miles) for the “circular error probable” — a measurement used by experts to determine a weapon’s accuracy based on the radius of a circle that encompasses 50% of where the missiles landed.
That’s far worse than a 500-meter (1,640-foot) error circle first estimated by experts for the Emad. After a U.N. weapons ban on Iran ended in 2020, Iran separately advertised the Emad to potential international buyers as having a 50-meter (164-foot) circle — a figure that is in line with top missile specifications for systems deployed elsewhere, said Hinz, the IISS missile expert.
One of the more-hawkish takes I’ve read.
deleted by creator
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
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