I'm still waiting for that ease of mind. I could live 2 years off my savings yet most of my anxiety remains financial.
Opinionhaver
joined 5 months ago
Who said it was “totally annihilated”?
It’s a tunnel system over 70 meters beneath a mountain. To totally annihilate it, you’d need more GBU-57s than exist in the world - or a nuke.
A decent entry-level hardtail.
If there’s a 70 cm tall child standing in front of the vehicle, then in either case the child either would or wouldn’t be visible - there’s effectively no difference. It doesn’t really matter whether you can see 2 or 3 meters more of the road surface from one vehicle or the other. In both cases, the hood height is the same, and that’s what determines the safety in the event of a pedestrian collision.
Also, with a van, the rear visibility is greatly reduced compared to a pickup. You could say that can be compensated for with cameras - but that same argument applies to the front visibility as well.
Let's also keep in mind where this discussion started from: a commenter was taking issue with clean, scuff-free pickups as if a work truck couldn't look like that.
Which points exactly?
What's your point? That thing is bigger than my pickup.
I'm not American either - I'm from Finland. I’ve been to the Netherlands, and I can’t quite imagine owning a truck there either.
However, your criticism was about clean, scuff-free trucks broadly. If you had said that you judge people for owning a truck when they have no practical need for one, I wouldn’t have any issue with that. But that’s not what you said.
I don’t own one of those gigantic American trucks, but a mid-size one - think Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger, Mitsubishi L200, Nissan Navara, or Isuzu D-Max. The external dimensions and hood height on those are comparable to similarly sized work vans. So when someone needs a vehicle capable of hauling cargo, it’s basically a choice between a truck and a van - and there’s not much difference between the two in terms of pedestrian safety.
I’d even argue a truck might be safer, because you generally have better all-around visibility. Vans tend to have very limited rear visibility due to the enclosed cargo area. You could argue that a van is more convenient for hauling certain types of cargo, but that’s a separate discussion about practicality - not safety.
Not desperate enough, apparently. I’ve yet to see any of the people who were absolutely certain yesterday that a nuke was going to be dropped admit they were wrong.
The only voter demographic that saw a decrease in the last election compared to 2016 was white men. If you’re going to cry “rigged election,” then you’re undermining democracy in exactly the same way the MAGA crowd does.
I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.
The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.
The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.
It would help to some extent, but they’d have to keep bombing the facility consistently - and indefinitely - to keep it out of service.
That's one way of putting it.