The pier will become functional when Gaza is emptied out, and will serve British Petroleum operations involving the offshore Gazan gas which Israel recently sold to BP. Then the EVA (European Vassals of America) will be reliant on Israeli gas instead of Russian.
Like I said before, is this lack of respect by these stooges that is making China accelerate their nuclear programs even collaborating with Russia and one day under Western pressure China will build nuclear weapons at an industrial scale, at a cheaper price than Western powers can afford. For every nuke they will point to China they will have two pointed at them.
Considering how much the US has generally underestimated China, and then being shocked how the Chinese were able to do x y z, the real danger here would be the US acting on false intelligence of Chinese nuclear capabilities. Of course, China should reply in kind, but I fear the Americans may be deluded enough to have convinced themselves that China cannot reciprocate equally (or in greater proportion).This reminds me of a conversation a few years back in this forum arguing that "low" yield or tactical nukes are not the same as using strategic nukes and don't give the country attacked the right to nuclear retaliation. Who says...? This is the kind of bull mumbo-jumbo Westerners think up because a nuke is a nuke and they don't want China to retaliate with nukes. What are they going to do when China makes thousands of low-yield nukes in response? Americans believe they get to nuke a Chinese city if China conventionally sinks one of their aircraft carriers. Yet somehow China is not allowed to respond in kind to a nuclear attack...? Frankly it's time the West starts to fear a nuclear holocaust again. If they're talking about winning a nuclear war or thinking China is too scared to fight a war, the West needs to know they'll suffer the consequences.
What counts as a "low yield" in terms retaliation? If the US drop a 20 Kt nuke over a Chinese port will that be a "low yield" tactical attack that doesn't deserve retaliation? Then if China drop a 40 Kt nuke over a Hawaiian port does that give the US freedom to use 80 Kt nukes over Chinese military targets? After that, does China also have the freedom to drop 120 Kt nukes over US military targets? Is bombing "tactical cities" with megaton nukes a valid target? There are even rules in nuclear war?This reminds me of a conversation a few years back in this forum arguing that "low" yield or tactical nukes are not the same as using strategic nukes and don't give the country attacked the right to nuclear retaliation. Who says...? This is the kind of bull mumbo-jumbo Westerners think up because a nuke is a nuke and they don't want China to retaliate with nukes. What are they going to do when China makes thousands of low-yield nukes in response? Americans believe they get to nuke a Chinese city if China conventionally sinks one of their aircraft carriers. Yet somehow China is not allowed to respond in kind to a nuclear attack...? Frankly it's time the West starts to fear a nuclear holocaust again. If they're talking about winning a nuclear war or thinking China is too scared to fight a war, the West needs to know they'll suffer the consequences.
What counts as a "low yield" in terms retaliation? If the US drop a 20 Kt nuke over a Chinese port will that be a "low yield" tactical attack that doesn't deserve retaliation? Then if China drop a 40 Kt nuke over a Hawaiian port does that give the US freedom to use 80 Kt nukes over Chinese military targets? After that, does China also have the freedom to drop 120 Kt nukes over US military targets? Is bombing "tactical cities" with megaton nukes a valid target? There are even rules in nuclear war?