What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

The wartime destruction of Russia's coercive instrument is secondary to Germany's own self-inflicted wound.

Blue Origin won't replace ULA on that contract, but will compete head to head with SpaceX and ULA to win launch task orders.

The Germans are in the situation they're in because they did not take U.S. advice on the entirely predictable Russian bad behavior.

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...

* https://hbr.org/2013/07/mens-arm-strength-affects-thei

* https://www.psypost.org/strong-men-come-across-as-more-conse...

* Senior Staff Python Engineer * Staff Front-End Engineer

Astra is a rocket company that designs its launch system for mass manufacture - the "Model T" of the space industry. Astra is the fastest company to go from founding to delivering satellites to their mission orbit — only five years, years faster than SpaceX, RocketLab, Firefly, and Virgin Orbit. It's hard to work in a more exciting field than rocketry.

Take a look at our open roles: https://astra.com/careers/#open-roles

However, finding a place where you can build a pilot of an automated port is very hard.

SpaceX didn't build new spaceports to achieve its success, it used Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, both of which are old legacy spaceports that weren't designed for SpaceX's cadence or cost structure (they were designed for the Atlas and Delta and ICBM tests etc).

If you wanted to be the SpaceX of ports, you'd need to find a location that could accommodate large cargo ships, and I guarantee that every potential natural harbor location for scalable traffic in cargo ships along both seaboards was figured out centuries ago. Where are you going to set up that doesn't have existing infrastructure sitting there as either a path-dependent sunk cost or expensive tear-down operation? Where are you going to set up that doesn't already have the port work controlled by union labor?

This makes some assumptions about how nuclear weapons would be targeted and detonated, assumptions which may not be correct.

Countervalue vs counterthreat targeting has been a back-and-forth for a long time in nuclear strategy discussions. The Nature paper relies on an assumption that there would be significant countervalue targeting—i.e. targeting cities and population centers rather than strictly military targets. This may not be a correct assumption about how U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons are targeted.

Second, the way that nuclear weapons are detonated has implications for the amount of burning and ash. Detonating weapons at ground level would limit the radius of destruction and increase the longer lasting fires burning the cities and projecting ash upwards into the atmosphere. But this isn't how nuclear weapons detonation has been modeled, pretty much since the Manhattan Project, because scientists realized that the shock of the detonation would destroy a greater radius if the nuclear weapon has detonated in the air above the target. This increases the radius of destruction, but decreases the long-lasting fires and ash projection upwards. Obviously it's not eliminated, but there is a significant difference depending on the manner in which the nuclear weapons are detonated. Both the U.S. and USSR have understood this.

While an all-out nuclear exchange that employs countervalue targeting against cities and detonates nuclear weapons at the ground level could result in what the Nature article models, that is an unlikely scenario given what we know about U.S. and Russian thinking/targeting/strategy. More likely is 1) not a full exchange, 2) counterthreat targeting, 3) detonation above targets. This will still result in ash, and fires, and destruction, but will be substantially different in overall outcomes.

War has existed since the dawn of humanity, thousands of years prior to the advent of capitalism, and has been fought by societies with every kind of socioeconomic and political configuration. War is a human institution and not contingent upon a particular economic arrangement.

Having worked in the White House, this is 110% wrong. The Presidency is an extraordinarily demanding job. The cognitive demands and the and physical toll it takes on you is tremendous.

Encyclopedias – including Wikipedia – are not acceptable sources for college-level work certainly. They are tertiary literature, which can provide an overview to someone trying to get a toehold into a subject, and which can hopefully point them toward primary and secondary sources. But tertiary sources are not typically allowable citations for college research.