Artemis certainly seems safer at least in launch. It has an escape system that could be triggered throughout launch. In comparison shuttle could not abort at all until srb separation and after that could have needed risk aerodynamic manoeuvres.
Israel are unwilling or unable to hold to agreements and that makes them an unreliable partner. The same has been true of America with Iran.
Both Iran and America also have a maximalist approach in terms of use of remote weapons and reluctance to accept casualties. That limits the effectiveness of "might makes right". Massively more so in the larger Iran.
And whilst Gaza might seem like a collosal defeat it could be seen in a more positive light in a culture that views sacrifice as noble. Again same could be true of Iran.
The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice.
Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change.
Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium.
The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.
We have policies that are good in principal but when they interact with other policy become unworkable for a reasonable cost. But then you focus on one individual area of policy rather than the system as a whole.
Also, in my experience the green initiatives generally have terrible publicity and these kind of articles are just pointing out some positives in a sea of negatives. What we endlessly miss is that the British public generally wants Co2 reduced and have got that.
Surely gas prices would spike if the UK needed to import enough to generate an extra 125TWh. And whilst we are waiting for nuclear to come online you still need to generate energy.
Surely they would have terrestrial connections to the North. And this could encourage Iran to cut all the other fibre links that run through the region.
Non CfD offshore wind farms probably can be economical without CfD if they had access to very cheap capital. But without CfD the risk is higher and so is the profit margin on the debt which ultimately makes it more expensive to generate the electricity which in turns increases risk of low wholesale prices.
Also, for years CfD rates were actually lower than wholesale price and are currently generating at lower strike prices than average wholesale prices. The problem now is more inflation, capital costs, and commodity prices for materials. But then a lot of other things are more expensive also.
reply