How could the Orion Project be revived?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) Project Orion was perhaps the most ambitious and exciting scientific/engineering project undertaken, in human history. A geniune effort to build a starship, that actually predated the first Star Trek series! For a variety of reasons, it came to nothing. And this despite the fact that it employed relatively conventional technologies, and almost certainly would have been successful, if adequately funded. The idea was simply to use small H-bombs in deep space, as a form of propulsion. Perfectly feasible. Bear in mind, A-bombs -- which form the core of an H-bomb -- can have yields as low as ten tons of TNT, or less. So, in terms of the energy levels involved in large rocket propulsion systems in space, perfectly practical, and feasible. Now, some sixty years later, we're still muddling with exotic alternatives, and, despite innumerable optimistic predictions, not really getting anywhere with practical controlled nuclear fusion technologies, at all. Isn't it time to go back to Project Orion? And, if we got somewhere with deep space fusion technologies, who knows? Maybe there might be some generalization to practical controlled nuclear fusion technologies for energy production right here on earth. Stranger things have happened, haven't there, in the history of science and technology?

Zelensky and Ukraine are folding

A small point is being missed in all these discussions of Russia violating Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukraine was an integral part of Russia for over 300 years. It's only been an independent country for a generation. It is conceivable that the borders decided on for Ukraine in the 1990's may not be the most appropriate ones. In addition, Ukraine, if it did become closely associated with NATO, would represent an extreme threat to Russian security and independence. While NATO might indeed like the idea that they rule the planet, other nations, like Russia and China, may possibly disagree. While fruitcakes in both the American Republican and Democratic parties have been insisting on the crazed madness of Vladimir Putin, one could argue that his behavior looks a trifle saner than that of either Joe Biden or Lindsey Graham, lately, anyway. While American leaders may talk of the need for "regime change" in Russia and China, it is possible that China and Russia may be in a slightly better position to change the regime in Washington D.C. While the American media has been raving about the "impending revolution" in Russia, they've been unable to show anything much more than Russian policemen chasing pickpockets. So, let's face facts. NATO has just managed to get tens of thousands of people killed in a rather reasonable security operation by the Russians, to secure their borders and their southern front, by providing encouragement and a massive airlift of weapons to unrealistic Ukrainian nationalists. Well done! Nice work! Just further evidence of Plato's thesis, that Dictators are often better leaders than Democrats.

What if Ivan the Terrible marries Elizabeth I, of England?

Actually, at least in Ivan's mind, this does appear to have been a real possibility. Bearing in mind that Ivan had some seven wives, this probably would have reduced Elizabeth's longevity considerably, of course. Actually, Ivan could realistically be described as one of history's great domestic abusers. He is rather famous for bashing his son and only heir's head in, when said son complained about Ivan kicking his pregnant wife in the stomach. What a guy! There's also the issue of converting everyone in England to Russian Orthodoxy. A bit of a problem that. So, on the whole, I think if Elizabeth had come down one day to her Chief Ministers and had cheerfully announced "My Lords, I've decided to marry Tsar Ivan of Russia. Congratulate me!", she would certainly have been in a madhouse by the end of the day. Actually, I suspect Mary Stuart would have looked pretty good, even to English protestants, in comparison with Ivan the Terrible. After all, the worst they could expect from Mary Stuart was a reprise of the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. A mere walk in the park on a sunny day, in comparison with what Ivan's Oprichniki might arrange for their benefit and erudition. From Ivan's point of view, of course, a match with Elizabeth might have seemed the ultimate godsend. Indeed, a further proof, as if any were necessary, of Russia's divine right to rule the entire world. Because, whatever he might have agreed to in order to marry Elizabeth, there was no possibility whatsoever of Russia ever ceasing to rule England, once Russia took over there. And, with Russian control of England, Ivan would be in a position to literally encircle all of Europe. Mother Russia might control the whole world within a century. The divine prophecies would be fulfilled! So, let's suppose a rather stupid Elizabeth, who Ivan can wrap round his little finger. And let's suppose a more aggressive Phillip II, who works out a temporary alliance with France to crush England with a joint Catholic Franco-Spanish Armada, early in her reign. And suppose, Ivan promises the full protection of Russia's military -- bear in mind, Russia was as populous as Spain, during Ivan's reign -- if Elizabeth will marry him. And, Ivan says he will allow full religious freedom to the people of England, and will surrender the crown on Elizabeth's death. In other words, he lies his head off, but, the people of England believe him. I suppose it might be rather difficult to actually transport large numbers of Russian troops to England, but, suppose this is managed, somehow. And, the marriage occurs, to save England from invasion. Now, what happens?

Gravitational effects on microchips

Has there been any attempt to study the gravitational effects on microchips? After all, the GPS data "verifying" relativity are 99.99% based on predicted gravitational effects on atomic clocks. How do we know these aren't simply gravitational effects on the underlying electronic construction of the clock, rather than relativistic effects? Seems like a perfect confound, doesn't it? Of course the gravitational effects on microchips would be extremely small, but so are the predicted relativistic effects -- just microseconds on the hour. Seems like a bit of a coincidence, doesn't it?

Project Orion, Project Daedalus,Project Pacer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PACER

A cut to the chase approach to controlled nuclear fusion.

OK, we all know how impossibly complex electromagnetic confinement and electrostatic confinement approaches to controlled nuclear fusion are. Good steady work, of course, because the problems never get solved. But, we've had H-bombs since 1952. And, the core of the H-bomb is a small A-bomb. Now, actually, we have had quite small A-bombs since the late 1950's, as well. Indeed, we can build an A-bomb with a yield of just 10 tons of TNT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 This would suggest the possibility of an H-bomb with a yield of perhaps a single kiloton, or so. Would there be any possibility, whatsoever, of "harnassing", in any way whatsoever, that wasn't purely destructive, a bomb yield of a thousand tons of TNT? That is, could a spacecraft employ such an explosive yield as a form of thrust, for example?

Russia is winning

Even if the most "optimistic" reports are accepted, the Russian forces in Ukraine, which only represent 20% of the total Russian Army currently available, have only suffered about 10% casualties in a month of heavy fighting, in which they have taken control of a full 20% of Ukrainian territory, and, are continuing to steadily advance. There is no reason whatsoever for them to stop. They have the backing of China, and of India. The majority of the world's population is on their side. And, their demands are relatively modest, all things considered. The Russians want a neutral Ukraine, along the same lines as Finland. Is this really so unreasonable? How would the U.S. react to Mexico forming a military alliance with China? That's really the issue, isn't it? NATO should stop encouraging and backing this pointless war against Vladimir Putin. The whole world will not be the lapdogs of NATO and the U.S., and, they'll simply have to get used to that fact, I'm afraid. One way, or the other.

The perpetual holy war in the field of physics

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/ Relativity versus Absolutism There is a great holy war that has been going on for thousands of years, that is never publicly discussed. It has lasted longer than any other such holy war, and has probably had more far reaching effects than the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, or between Christians and Muslims. The believers on either side have been as fanatical and irrational as any believers in any religious sect on the planet, and as intolerant of those having other views. This is the war between Relativists and Absolutists in Physics. Or, one could say, between those who believe the universe can be completely understood and controlled, and those who believe God is in control, and puts his own chosen rules to mandate the universe, and changes them at his will. The Absolutists, like Isaac Newton, maintained that whatever laws of Physics exist can be fully understood and controlled by Man. The Relativists, like Leibniz and Einstein, believed that the Universe was subject to massive and uncontrollable limitations that constrained our ability to function within it, in ways that transcend our ability to fully understand or control them. For centuries, probably from the time of Copernicus, the Absolutists ruled. Prior to that, the Relativists, led by Aristotle, divided the Universe into areas under the control of Man, and areas under the control of the Gods. Since Einstein, the Relativists have once more been in control. We are limited by the speed of light, mass becomes infinite at light speed. Time is part of space, or vice-versa. Up to a point, the Quantum Mechanics have gone even farther. We can never be sure where anything really is, at all. Of course, as the Medieval Scholastics had overwhelming logical and empirical proof of the existence of God and his Angels, so contemporary physicists have amassed what they see as overwhelming evidence for Relativity. All in the form of microeffects and highly confounded laboratory particle accelerator experiments, of course. Bear in mind, if we believed in microeffects, then we all have psychokinetic powers, according to the parapsychologists, anyway! And, when a straightforward test exists, with substantial results for or against Special Relativity -- the Parker Solar Probe, for example -- it is systematically avoided, and ignored. Much too expensive, even though it would cost nothing. And, we know the answer anyway, so, why bother? Because the true believers in Relativity Theory will not be denied. Anyone questioning Relativity Theory is a "Confirmed Relativity Denier." A heretic. They are unclean, and must be shunned. They are anathema.

Special Theory of Relativity, no General Theory

So, let's suppose that one day in 1908, or 1909, Einstein is wandering about aimlessly on the streets speculating about the nature of light. Contemplating, as usual, if the streetcar trams might act like beams of light in some ways, Einstein gets a little too close to one, his clothing gets caught up under the wheels, he is pulled down, and his body is horribly mangled beneath the vehicle. Einstein's torn body is then tossed to the curb, and he tearfully begs for assistance from the passers-by as he slowly bleeds to death. They're busy going to work, or the bank, so they let Einstein "go to the light". Truly, a great tragedy, don't you think? So, Einstein has had a few years to publicize his Special Theory of Relativity, but we have no General Theory of Relativity. What is the significance of this? Bear in mind, the contents of the Special Theory of Relativity -- space and time are related, nothing can go faster than light, E=MC2. All extremely speculative, and largely untestable. And, yes, I know that the Michelson-Morely experiment had already shown light always travels at the same speed. However, this appears to be a characteristic of all waveforms. Sound, for example, exhibits a Doppler effect for exactly the same reason that light does -- sound always maintains a fixed velocity, and the sound waves become shorter or longer, depending on whether sound is approaching or receding from you. So, I'm not sure, with Einstein's early death, that anyone really takes Relativity very seriously at all. After all, why would they? There's no real evidence for it. Now, I'm sure, with increasing precision in measurement and increasingly powerful telescopes, astrophysicists will eventually notice that gravity does indeed bend light. But, why would they make any connection between this, and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity? OK, gravity bends light, so, photons probably have a certain very small mass. Simple enough, right? We don't need space-time for this, we don't need time slowing down and stopping. So, I really don't think we ever have, or need, the General Theory of Relativity, at all. We simply get models for how gravity affects light, probably somewhat like those in General Relativity, involving non-Euclidean geometries, but, without requiring space itself to actually be curved. Just light. You see, I think Einstein had an artist's tempermant, and was a very sensitive and perceptive man. He could see that by tying concepts together in a very broad conceptual way, he could attract a lot more attention than he could simply by making straightforwardly testable hypotheses. The Special Theory of Relativity is largely untestable, but fanciful and interesting. The General Theory of Relativity makes empirically verifiable predictions about light and gravity. By tying the two together, Einstein gets the best of both worlds -- speculative fantasy, with empirical verifiability. The problem is, the empirical results don't really require the fantasy Einstein suggests they are actually based on.

Why hasn't the Doomsday Clock been set forward?

I have a serious complaint to make here against the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and their "Doomsday Clock", about the probability of a world nuclear holocaust. Now, it's true that for some three years now the Doomsday Clock has been set at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it's ever been. But, really, in the light of the current World War Three situation between Russia and the West in Ukraine, I hardly think that's fully adequate. Here we have hundreds of thousands of troops fighting it out just on NATO's doorstep, heavily armed with NATO weapons, and threats of nuclear retaliation flying fast and furious. Surely, one second to midnight would be much more appropriate. Or, perhaps even a millisecond to midnight, maybe even a nanosecond to midnight? Is this the problem then? Maybe a conventional clock isn't quite up to our current circumstances. Perhaps the old style Doomsday Clock is just getting behind the times, and what we really need now is a Doomsday Stopwatch, or perhaps a computer clock. Maybe an "atomic clock" has to be employed. Now, wouldn't that be appropriate?

Can scientific theories, effectively, be conspiracies?

1. Let's define a scientific theory as some formal attempt to summarize existing data, and predict future data, presented in formal scientific journals, and used by a significant number of scientists and institutions for this purpose. 2. Let's define a conspiracy as an attempt by individuals to undermine and/or exploit some aspect of society to a significant degree, for their own purposes and/or benefit. So, now that our terms are clear, can a scientific theory, effectively, be a conspiracy? To what extent is it actually possible for ideas to proceed through the peer review process in Journals, and be used for practical purposes by professional scientists, and, nevertheless, have as a significant part of their purpose to be, suborning, undermining and exploiting society, to a significant degree. I think this is rather an interesting question. Now, I would suspect the vast majority of professional scientists, engineers and doctors would say "no, that's totally impossible, the scientific method is, when pursued correctly, incapable of such total dysfunction. Furthermore, the peer review process ensures only constructive social purposes are possible." On the other hand, many people might say that the "scientific method" is little more than trial and error, the peer review process is simply the old boy network, and scientists, like everyone else, are primarily interested in wealth and power, and will do and say anything to get it. So, effectively, it may be that all scientific theories -- even the most well known and successful, like the Special Theory of Relativity -- are largely, or totally conspiracies. So, how can we decide this question, exactly? I would sincerely appreciate feedback on this point. Any thoughts, or relevant examples?

It's the battle of the century! Vladimir Putin versus Elon Musk!

Hey fight fans. You knew the two biggest, baddest guys on the block -- not to say the two richest! -- were going to go head to head one of these days. It was meant to be, right? And now, it's really happening. Yes indeed, our two favorite oligarchs, Vladimir Putin and Elon Musk are going at it tooth and nail, as we speak. Where, you say? Why, in the Ukraine! In the whole damn Ukraine, actually. You don't think it's just a coicidence that tens of thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons were sent by NATO to the Ukraine within days of the Russian invasion, do you? Of course not! This was set up long before. Because this is really a question of who's going to run the world, Elon Musk, or Vladimir Putin. And, as we know, NATO is currently in the employ of Elon Musk. And Elon's damned if he's going to let Ukraine out of his control, whatever the cost to the Ukrainian people. So, if you're Ukrainian, I'd get the hell out of Dodge. Cause, there's one hell of a battle for power between World Oligarchs going on at the OK Corral. So, you're all going to have to choose. Is it going to be Holy Mother Russia, or is it going to be terraforming Mars? It's your choice. Make sure you choose correctly. Your life may depend on it!

Science and technology absent the U.S. Civil War

We all know that science and technology exploded in the period following the U.S. Civil War. Edison, Telsa, Westinghouse, Bell, Marconi etc. etc. The enormous investment in industry and technology necessary for the North to conquer the South, the production of a million man army for General Grant, the extermination of 2% of the total U.S. population in just a few years were an enormous incentive for the lethargic bureaucracies of intitutions and governments to actually be productive, for a change. And, they were! In order to win the war, machine tools, steam engines, telegraph systems, mechanical design, observation balloons, steel production, systems of industrial production etc. etc. etc. had to advance exponentially, so, unlike the usual preference of those in power for status quo., there was actually, really, rapid progress. And, this continued for some decades, during peacetime, by sheer inertia. But, suppose there was no U.S. Civil War. Suppose my old buddy Dan Sickles keeps out of trouble, gets the Democratic Party Nomination for President, and, surprising everyone but himself, beats the pants off Honest Abe, in 1860! I sure think old Dan Sickles could have done it too! So, Dan Sickles negotiates a gradual end to slavery over a period of a decade or two, with the Southern States, and there is no U.S. Civil War. What is the effect on Science and technology? I'd say, we're still stuck in nineteenth century "Steampunk". There simply isn't the financial or industrial infrastructure to support people like Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, Bell, Marconi, Ford etc. etc. etc. They simply never happen. And, the Industrial Revolution more or less stalls at mid-nineteenth century. Institutions and governments are lost in endless trivia and running around in circles like they usually are, and no real progress ever occurs.

Don't all electromagnetic waves travel at fixed speeds?

I know sound and light do, since they both exhibit Doppler effects. So, why all the fuss over the fact that light travels at a fixed speed? Why assume, simply because light, like all other wave forms, travels at a fixed speed, that nothing can travel faster than light? Just because Einstein was obsessed with light, doesn't mean everyone has to be. Possibly, the reason for this obsession is that "nothing" exists in space, and light still travels in it. But, we seem to be aware, now, of a kind of "quark soup" of elementary particles in space, that may, possibly, explain the mechanism of this motion, someday.

Stalingrad Two -- The Sequel

If you liked Stalingrad, you'll love Stalingrad Two. It still features our old favorites the Russians and the Ukrainians doing what they love to do best -- killing each other, in a battle for world domination. But the sequel has ten times the action, ten times the killing, and a hundred times the advanced high tech weaponry, as the original. You'll love it. One of the things I liked best about Stalingrad Two, was the way it intersperses incredible high tech action with comic relief. Like having U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham get down on his knees and cry, begging the Russian people to assassinate their own leader Vladimir Putin. I mean, the audience was just rolling in the aisles! Or having the Prime Minister of Israel trying to mediate as the exponent of world peace! I was just howling with laughter. Like the original Stalingrad, Stalingrad II leaves the audience in suspense as to the outcome until just near the ending. But, as the Russian tank columns begin to slowly but surely surround and encircle the Ukrainian capitol, we begin to see a familiar but beloved plot line once more coming into play. So, don't miss Stalingrad II! It's almost like you're really there.

Why Castro had to kill Kennedy, legally

I think you're failing to grasp precisely the circumstance that Castro was in. He was facing, literally, daily, highly professional assassination attempts from the CIA, at Kennedy's orders. Hence, there was the chronic threat of imminent harm, in a way that perhaps no one, ever, has been in, before, or since. In order to defend himself, given Kennedy's obsession with killing him, he had to kill Kennedy. You may not care for the argument legally, but, I think most juries would buy it. In fact, I doubt most prosecutors would even want to take the case on, given a neutral jury. Which would mean, not Americans, of course. Interesting legally, don't you think?

President Kennedy was killed in self-defence by Fidel Castro

President Kennedy wasn't murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was acting as a hired Cuban agent, whose job was to end Kennedy's program of CIA assassination attempts against the life of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. It was a perfectly justified homicide, clear self-defence, and it achieved its objective. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a "violent punk". Lee Harvey Oswald was a martyr and hero of World Communism and the Cuban Revolution. 1. In September 1963, Fidel Castro did an interview with the Associated Press, in which he said that since President Kennedy was trying to assassinate him, he had the right to assassinate Kennedy. The interview had a very wide circulation, including in New Orleans newspapers, which were read by Lee Harvey Oswald. Apparently, this report was perceived by Oswald as a "help wanted" ad. 2. In October 1963 Oswald travelled to Mexico and visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies there. The Russians acknowledge he met with a senior KGB operative who was responsible for "wet work" -- assassinations -- in Latin America. He then spent some time at the Cuban embassy. Some Cuban staffers there said his activities were routine, involving an interest in moving to Cuba. Other independant witnesses indicate he had an affair with a young Mexican communist woman working there, attended parties with Cuban intelligence agents interested in killing President Kennedy, and was paid 6,500 American dollars to assassinate Kennedy. 3. In November 1963, Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. 4. The Warren Commission charged with investigating the assassination made no serious effort to investigate any Cuban involvement in the assassination. Possibly, they felt they'd had enough of conflicts with Cuba, following the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Source: A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination , by Philip Shenon So, I suspect if Kennedy hadn't ordered the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro, Kennedy might have lived quite a bit longer. The fact is, the CIA simply couldn't allow this to get out. They had been outplayed and outmaneuvered at their own game, by a tin-pot communist dictator of a banana republic. It would have been the end of the CIA, permanently. So, they had the Nicaraguan undercover agent who witnessed the 6,500 dollar payment to Oswald threatened with torture by the Mexican government, prior to his speaking to the Warren Commission. Problem solved. But, let's all give Fidel Castro a little credit here! What a great lawyer he really was!

Was the CIA "responsible" for Kennedy's death, because they coverd it up?

You make an interesting point. But, there's a difference I think, between getting someone killed by gross incompetence, and, actually intending to get someone killed, or killing them yourselves. I think the CIA made such an incredible mess of things here, that they had no choice but to cover it up, or face the end of their agency. Permanently. Let's give Fidel Castro some credit here! What a survivor! He arranged to kill the President of the United States in self defence, and he got away with it. Wow!! Sure, the CIA covered it up. They got the Mexican government to threaten the Nicaraguan undercover agent who witnessed the 6,500 dollar payment to Oswald, before he talked to the representative from the Warren commission. They said he'd be hung by his testicles if he told the truth. So, he told the Warren Commission representative he lied because he hated Castro, and was trying to get him in trouble. Like, Castro isn't allowed to defend himself! Then, after he'd been "discredited", he returned to his original story, which was the truth -- Oswald was indeed hired to kill Kennedy. But, what choice did the CIA have? Could they acknowledge that the President of the U.S. was killed by Fidel Castro in self-defense against them??! Could they acknowledge that they didn't twig there might be a slight problem in letting Marxist Oswald get interviewed by KGB assassins in Mexico after Fidel Castro publicly threatened the U.S. President's life? And then letting him get near Kennedy in Dallas? Could the CIA acknowledge after Kennedy's assassination by Cuban agent Oswald, that Cuban intelligence was much better at killing American leaders than the CIA was at killing Cuban leaders? I don't think so! That fact is, I think Kennedy might have died laughing at the CIA's incompetence, if Oswald hadn't killed him! And, after the rings Fidel Castro was running around them, you can't really blame the CIA for not wanting to mess with that guy anymore, can you? Too tough for us! So, I think the CIA probably was responsible for the death of JFK, but, I don't think they actually murdered him, or even really wanted him dead. Hell, I doubt they would have had the brains to figure out how to kill Kennedy, even if they'd wanted to!

What if JFK hadn't ordered the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro?

1. In September 1963, Fidel Castro did an interview with the Associated Press, in which he said that since President Kennedy was trying to assassinate him, he had the right to assassinate Kennedy. The interview had a very wide circulation, including in New Orleans newspapers, which were read by Lee Harvey Oswald. Apparently, this report was perceived by Oswald as a "help wanted" ad. 2. In October 1963 Oswald travelled to Mexico and visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies there. The Russians acknowledge he met with a senior KGB operative who was responsible for "wet work" -- assassinations -- in Latin America. He then spent some time at the Cuban embassy. Some Cuban staffers there said his activities were routine, involving an interest in moving to Cuba. Other independant witnesses indicate he had an affair with a young Mexican communist woman working there, attended parties with Cuban intelligence agents interested in killing President Kennedy, and was paid 6,500 American dollars to assassinate Kennedy. 3. In November 1963, Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. 4. The Warren Commission charged with investigating the assassination made no serious effort to investigate any Cuban involvement in the assassination. Possibly, they felt they'd had enough of conflicts with Cuba, following the Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Source: A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination , by Philip Shenon So, I suspect if Kennedy hadn't ordered the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro, Kennedy might have lived quite a bit longer.

Russo-Ukrainian War, or World War Three?

In looking at World maps of those supporting Ukrainian people with arms, and those not, one can't help but notice the parallels to allies and axis powers in the twentieth century world wars. Now, of course, for the moment, those supporting Ukraine with arms against Russia, are not in fact actively engaged in fighting the Russians. Well, some might be, voluntarily, but, not with the active support of their governments, currently. Still, the Ukraine is a very large country, with numerous common borders with NATO countries, and the fighting might well spill over into any of these NATO countries, at any time. Also, Russia has the world's largest nuclear arsenal, and it's just possible they might take it personally if nations are supporting their enemies in the Ukraine, who are killing Russian soldiers in large numbers. So, it's just possible, that Vladimir Putin in a moment of eccentric irritation, might launch a tactical nuclear weapon or two in their general directions, with no warning at all. Why not? After all, Vladimir Putin used to be known, during his rise to power, as the "Grey Cardinal". A quietly controlled, infinitely inscrutable, master manipulator. Who would have thought, just ten years ago, that Putin would currently be leading hundreds of thousands of heavily armored Russian forces into a brutal encirclement of the Ukrainian Capitol, Kiev? No one. In addition, China, possibly the world's greatest superpower at this time, certainly is leaning towards Russia in this conflict. What if they decide to do more than "lean" towards Russia? What if China decides to actively join with Russia in a war for world domination, against the U.S. We should remember, no one was expecting World War One, in August 1914. So, the West can mumble happily about economic sanctions, and all the wonderful songs opposing the War -- remember Tom Lehrer and "The Folk Song Army"? -- but, this really might be missing the point. The experts can claim this is just another Afghanistan, and the Russians will be forced out, with heavy casualties, in ten years or so. And on one else will be seriously involved. But, remember how all the "experts" claimed COVID would be gone in a year or so? So, while Western Economic Experts can express deep concern that Russia might be able to evade economic sanctions, using Bitcoin, there might be a few other things to worry about. Like that Mushroom Cloud you can see sprouting in the general direction of the military base nearest you.

Any thoughts on the Polywell?

At least it's a cheaper alternative to the Tokamak laser based design. By using electrostatics rather than lasers, it's much simpler and cheaper. But, we still have this ongoing problem of "just give us a little more money, and we're almost done!" At least, it's a million dollars with the Polywell until we're "almost done", rather than a billion dollars, as with the Tokamaks! Frankly, I don't see the slightest possibility that either approach will work. Perhaps I'm mistaken? They simply haven't taken the design concepts far enough to ensure that they are really practical.