Currently conflict is a really good sales pitch for buying more interceptors.
You could expect order books to get so thick that production increases.
I mean looking from the side lines, I could see why many countries might want to have a few interceptors on hand. Just in case, it's certainly a nice way to buy some time.
Might there be microscopic layer lines? Or other unknowns you're not familiar with? Making 3d prints that can be cleaned is non-trivial, maybe there is a surface finish involved, etc.
Also how do you know your design is correct? Won't cause your teeth to move? A 3d scan doesn't mean you know what a mouth guard should look like.
All of a sudden, having a product that's made with a vetted process is pretty attractive -- and 600 USD seems like a bargain.
What's the cost of having your teeth fixed, if they accidentally move? (Not to mention the discomfort, which can be considerable)
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to convince me of. I did pay the $600, I even said that it's probably a cheap price to pay to treat the apnea.
That doesn't really change the fact that it feels kind of viscerally wrong to pay $600 to pay for two glorified pieces of plastic, and a part of me still does feel I could clone it competently. I haven't bothered for the aforementioned safe resin, and also because I already have it and I have enough money to just eat the cost and complain about it.
It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.
There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.
Not really. What we're seeing today is similar to what was being discussed in 2010 [0]. Heck, this failed missile attempt confirms capabilities that were being discussed in 2010 [1].
> This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation
The Japanese and Al Qaeda framed their attacks defensively. An attack on the homeland is an attack on the homeland. I wouldn’t put it past Iran. But you’d rapidly see political consensus to ensure the regime is destroyed at all costs, including and up to leaving a power vacuum and humanitarian crisis.
the war is wildly unpopular in the US (rightfully so) - attacking US would rally the country (rightfully so) and regime would fall within a week (with significant casulties on our side)
Well, I already don't travel to countries where police are regularly not paid... not to mention countries where people are jailed for memes and what I consider free speech issues... so UK has been out for a few years as far as I'm concerned.
You could expect order books to get so thick that production increases.
I mean looking from the side lines, I could see why many countries might want to have a few interceptors on hand. Just in case, it's certainly a nice way to buy some time.
reply