How many fighter jets would it take for Ukraine to establish air supremacy in this war? Not a rhetorical question; genuinely curious how big a deal this pledge is.
I'm honestly still confused about why Fedorov was fired.
Yes. Large-scale sabotage is, well, large-scale. And it tends to be investigated until the saboteur is found. Whereas a widespread movement of many small individual acts of sabotage can often be harder to detect as having been sabotage at all. For example, clogging a coolant system with adulterants that are plausible to have found their way in through laxity in operation, so that when the machine it cools goes kaput, a post-mortem makes it look like the work of wear-and-tear, operator error and insufficient maintenance. Such a saboteur can go undiscovered and live to sabotage another day.
And the same principle applies to non-mechanical sabotage. As mentioned with "every decision by committee", it can often be done entirely in the open and still be undetectable as sabotage.
If you accept the concept of objective morality, then yes, it's a moral issue. But I've already pointed out that population size is not the cause nor the solution. These are not actual percentages, but if I say "20% of the people cause 80% of the waste", hopefully you'll understand the underlying concept I'm trying to communicate.
The concept that either life must be perfect or else we're all better off having never been born, is a hell of an extreme.
Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China, IIRC
In 1944, the US Office of Strategic Services published the Simple Sabotage Field Manual; a document aimed at the unhappy citizens of fascist nations, to instruct them on how to sabotage the economic and military capacity of their own nation. I'm not saying that Oskar Schindler ever read it, but the movie line "Stern, if this factory ever produces a shell that can actually be fired, I'll be very unhappy" is definitely in the same spirit.
One need not work in weapons manufacturing, either. The manual suggests sabotage techniques for every kind of worker. For example, office workers could help decrease their fascist nation's economic power by insisting that every decision be made by committee, slowing output.
The manual is fascinating in that it's focused on people who are afraid to be "heroes", instead suggesting sabotage methods that entail little to no personal risk.
https://archive.org/details/SimpleSabotageFieldManual/page/n2/mode/1up
I'm worried by the fact that your answer didn't include the simple word "no" (edit: it does NOW, but... you know what I mean), but for now I'm going to assume that you're being cagey because you think I'm trying to trick you with sophistry. I'm not trying to trick you - I'm trying to establish common ground - we are starting from the same premise of not wanting people to die - so that when my line of thinking at some point diverges from yours, you can see my thinking and hopefully my point. And/or perhaps I'll understand yours a little better.
So let's try another semi-rhetorical question (I say semi-rhetorical because while I hope I can already guess what your answer will be, I also genuinely want to know if my guess is wrong).
If Israel can be persuaded to stop attacking Palestinians, to stop trying to push Palestinians out of the land they live in, and even return to the 1949 borders as they recognize a full state of Palestine, that would be good, yes? And the comflict would no longer need to continue, yes?
Not gonna lie: I have no idea what you're talking about.
This is a much better reason, frankly.
"I couldn't bring a child into a world like this" is a bit of mental gymnastics that people use to convince themselves that they're being noble and selfless with this decision, when in reality it's neither noble nor ignoble, neither selfless nor selfish. Every child eventually hits their parents with the classic "I never asked to be born!", and while it's certainly true, NOBODY asks to be born, and life has ALWAYS sucked in some way or another. Should pre-humans have refused to have kids because it would be cruel to bring them into a world where they have to kill to eat? Nonsense.
If people simply don't want to have kids, they should simply say that and own it. They don't OWE it to anybody to have kids - but they don't owe it to anybody to not have kids, either. It's not a moral decision in either direction. It's simply a case that some people don't feel up to the responsibility, and that's fine: not superior, just fine.
And before anyone says that not having kids helps to keep the surplus population down: no problem on Earth is a result of the population being too high. There's enough food for everyone; the problem is distribution. There's enough land for everyone; the problem is that some people are hoarding. If the population starts using renewables and just generally going green, corporations build more data centers and invent other novel ways to waste resources.
So why is the frontline not receding?