sometimes all you need is dollar store junk, but specifically modeled to your needs... which effectively makes it not dollar store junk. also, you don't actually need to go to a dollar store, waste half an hour looking for the right thing in their pile of crap, and possibly interact with their less than mentally stable customers.
in my experience even basic pla or petg prints are way stronger than cheap chinesium crap. because you actually use your brain when you model them, unlike chinese crap designers.
got myself a printer several moths ago and that thing is never idle more than a couple days. either I need some custom crap around the house, or my wife needs some decorative thingy, or my daughter wants a toy(and would you look at that, there's a new pink pla spool to try out).
Peers as in technological peers. Like having access to the logistical capacity (military transports) and weapon technology.
I see your point, but it really sounds like a useless parity measure to me. does access matter if you can't sustain it for a conflict of any reasonable duration?
Put it this way, if the UK turned it's armed forces on the third worlders currently invading it, they more than likely win.
are you sure about this? as you say, half the army would instantly defect to the opposition. what fraction of the others would immediately become pregnant? then theres reserves, how many fighting age non military Brits would actually want to fight this? Not just in some abstract sense but go actually get shot at. For the country and the leaders who created the problem in the first place(among the fuckton of other nasty things).
you'd be in a worse position than Israel today, because no victim trump card, rampant demoralization and no infinite ammo.
they caught that white car you see in the twitter thread 100km from the Ukrainian border.
cause that's just what islamists do when they're done shooting people. rush towards the nearest warzone. martyrdom, 72 virgins and stuff, is so 2010s.
I'm generally against "boardgame-style" rules in politics, like "You can do X, but only up to N times".
Life doesnt have to be "balanced" : either a "move" is "good", and should be used as often as the political situation necessitates, or it is bad and should be disallowed completely. If a rule seems "excessively used", it is usually a symptom of a design problem with the system. Thus restricting "overuse", is attacking a symptom, instead of dealing with the root cause. In other words, a cop-out. Breaking your thermometer at whatever temperature you're comfortable with, will not fix your heating/cooling issues.
As such, conversation about term limits should be viewed as a symptom of a dysfunctional system, where people are looking for a "cheat rule" to get those they don't like out of the power position. But rotating out corrupt stooges(in politics or administration) every X years will not solve the problem of having your system overrun with corrupt stooges. You solve that issue with education and active citizen involvment. Possibly with a touch of firing squads - in some situations(though, obviously, I can't think of any modern real-world country where that last part would apply).
Spending multiple millions on every single senate seat becomes a losing battle for the Uniparty when that seat is vacated every one or two terms.
senators will go for way cheaper without an established brand name.
All term limits do is push the people in power out of the limelight. You cant solve the lack of honest and intelligent decision-makers by rotating the corrupt morons faster in hope those run out. You're never running out or corrupt morons.
why would the regime care? those types never target anyone who matters.