Could H-bombs be applied as a kind of "force field" air defense system?

One clear takeaway from the Russo-Ukraine war is that air defense systems don't work very well, at all. The very best, multi-billion dollar air defense systems have proved virtually worthless in Ukraine. Now, I know that Israel claims their "Iron Dome" has a 90% success rate. But, remember, Israel is a very tiny country, and the Palestinians have little more than toy, pop-gun rockets to attack it with. Iron Dome wouldn't be any more successful than any other system in Ukraine, or any genuine, competitive air defense context. So, we are faced with a situation where not only Russia and China, but North Korea, Iran and Pakistan could potentially annihilate much of the U.S. with nuclear weapons atop missiles or drones of various types. So, what could be done to rectify this situation? Well, desperate times call for desperate measures. What is the most powerful energy source, by far, known to man? The H-bomb. It's so powerful that, in the U.S., no one is allowed to possess more than about 3 pounds of Uranium ore, even though Uranium ore is, itself, relatively harmless. It's so powerful that we've largely suppressed the development of nuclear technology since the 1950's. It may be, that that needs to change, if we wish to remain safe from nuclear attack from "rogue" nations. One thing we know, for sure, one H-bomb detonation will clear out 1000 cubic miles of air space absolutely, and totally . No need for targeting, no possibility of missing -- all incoming missiles gone, all nuclear warheads vaporized without any possibilty of their mechanisms proceeding to nuclear detonation. Isn't that beautiful, and incredibly simple? Now, I realize radiation is a concern, even from a defensive weapon detonated in space, or over the oceans. However, couldn't H-bombs be developed specifically to minimize radioactive fallout, for such defensive purposes? Isn't this worth pursuing, under these particular circumstances?

Zelensky's last Will and Testament

I bequeath my entire personal fortune of five billion dollars U.S., very much increased recently, of course, thanks to NATO, to found a home for wayward comic actors from all NATO nations, so that they may all live in a style somewhat approaching that to which I myself have become so accustomed of late. I bequeath my private, personal edition of Charlie Chaplin's great classic "The Great Dictator", very much used, of course, but still serviceable, to posterity, so that it may provide as much inspiration to any possible future leaders of Ukraine, in any possible future incarnation of the nation of Ukraine, as it has to myself. I bequeath my beautiful wife Olena, and my lovely young daughter Oleksandra, to the twenty-second Russian Infantry Division. It's always been my personal favorite. I most humbly and respectively beseech the Russian government, if they could see it in their heart to be kind enough to spare them, to send the fillings in my teeth to Israel, where they might be interred with full, formal religious ceremony.

The American Conservative -- Colonel Douglas MacGregor on Ukraine

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-and-regrets-in-ukraine/

North Korea is firing missiles, because NATO air defenses have proved to be totally useless

Many journalists have been speculating about why, exactly, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has been firing so many missiles lately. Generally, the answer given is that Kim is trying to provide a kind of "moral support", to Russia, during the course of the current war in Ukraine. This is possible, I suppose, but, I rather doubt that it's really necessary. After all, the Ukrainian government itself is telling all citizens to leave Ukraine, if possible, because otherwise they are likely to freeze to death this winter, due the extreme effectiveness of Russian missile strikes on power and heat infrastructure. One could argue that, at this stage, the nation of Ukraine is rather like a guillotined head, its mouth and eyebrows still twitching, because it doesn't quite realize that it's already dead. A rather more likely explanation for Kim's behavior is simply that the very best NATO air defenses in Ukraine have proven rather sieve-like, allowing most Russian missiles, even very cheap, easily manufactured Iranian drones, to get through to destroy completely, repeatedly, essential Ukrainian infrastructure. Now the direct implication of this, which the Western media really doesn't want to make public, at all, is that Kim Jong-un can completely destroy the entire United States with nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, any time he happens to be in the mood to do so. Given the Western media's predilection to present Kim as an uncontrollable mad dog, we can all see it would be somewhat inconsistent, or uncomfortable, anyway, to simultaneously present him as having the power to annihilate the U.S. on whim. Which, apparently, anyway, he currently has. You see, what the current Russo-Ukrainian war demonstrates, is that, not only does the Pax Americana no longer exist, it's not even clear whether the U.S. is even a world military power anymore. Because, Russia has already won the war, without NATO generals quite understanding how exactly it happened. Suddenly, it's quite clear that nations like North Korea, Pakistan and Iran can turn the entire U.S. into glaze anytime they want to, and there's nothing whatsoever the U.S. can do about it. Really.

What if Josef Stalin had never been born?

Stalin is a rather puzzling character from an historical point of view. For Americans, quite specifically, he is the worst man in history. Well, he was until quite recently, anyway. Currently, I think Vladimir Putin has displaced Stalin in the minds of Americans as the worst man in history. This may say something about how and why Americans vilify individuals. Americans are great proponents of free competition, until anyone actually competes with them. At that point, Americans tend to classify their competitors as perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Now, I suppose, you could consider this all a part of the competitive process, of course, but, it does means that Americans cease to be honest, indeed are quite incapable of being honest, with regard to any individual or group that actually, consciously opposes their will. And, Stalin certainly did that! Indeed, Russia as a nation tends to do that. And, arguably, America has been trying to destroy Russia for a century or more, now. For other nations, the attitude to Stalin is much more complex. In Russia, there is grudging respect for Stalin, on the whole. Without in any way denying his brutality, they are also aware of his achievements: a stunning, almost doubling of life expectancy, full industrialization of Russia, the defeat of the Nazis, accomplished almost single-handedly by the Russians, the turning of Russia into a world superpower. This is closer to the attitude of most of the rest of the world regarding Stalin: most of Europe, Africa, South America, India, the Middle East. In Ukraine, of course, the view coincides rather perfectly with the U.S., since the Ukrainians and the Russians have been mortal enemies for a thousand years: the Ukrainians see Stalin as the worst man in history. In China, where the communists could not possibly have come to power without Stalin's steady support over a period of decades, the attitude to Stalin is quite positive, more positive than in Russia itself, actually. In China, Stalin is portrayed as wise, just, kindly and supportive. Another interesting comparison is between attitudes to Hitler and Stalin, who are often compared by historians, as the two greatest "dictators" of the twentieth century. The only country in which Hitler remains a hero is Ukraine, because of his hostility to Russia, and because he "liberated" Ukraine, albeit very temporarily, from Stalin. The attitude to Hitler is actually much more positive in Ukraine than it is in Germany. The Germans are well aware that Hitler led them to total destruction, and they don't want this to happen again. That's why Germany is only partially democratic, Hitler was elected democratically: it's very difficult to get full German citizenship, only about half the adult population has the right to vote. And, half the voters in Germany vote for parties who are given no representation in the German government, because, they vote for "fringe" parties -- parties with extreme political views like the communists and fascists -- so less than a quarter of the adult German population actually have any say in the government. Nevertheless, the attitude to Hitler in Germany is still rather more positive than in most of world, where he is considered a monster, with few exceptions. In Germany they have to outlaw the Swastika and the Nazi salute because they are afraid of Nazi supporters becoming powerful in the country again. Many Germans feel that Hitler was "good" at first, and did a lot for Germany. In Ukraine, however, Hitler is considered courageous, just and noble. Indeed, any objective person cannot help but notice, and this point is regularly noted in the Russian media, that President Zelensky of Ukraine is quite intentionally, and consciously imitating Hitler's mannerisms and speech patterns. Personally, whenever I see President Zelensky I think I'm looking at outtakes from Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" -- another Jew imitating Hitler for laughs! But while Chaplin was quite consciously doing satire, President Zelensky appears to be deadly serious. Of course, he is a comedian. He may be laughing his guts out inside. Hard to say, really. In any case, what would have happened if Stalin had never been born? Stalin first becomes really significant historically, I think, in 1918, due to his involvement in the Russo-Polish war then. He is sometimes given personal credit for the Russians failing to capture Warsaw, and then conquer Berlin, and all of Europe, perhaps the world. He is supposed to have sabotaged the entire campaign due to his ambition and incompetence. I rather doubt that. I think that the capacity of Trotsky and the Reds to conquer all of Europe in 1918 could easily be exaggerated, they were having enough trouble controlling Russia. Indeed, it took them years to win the civil war in Russia itself. So, I think this is an example of blaming Stalin for something that simply was in the nature of the situation itself, and not particularly his fault, at all. I think this happens in a number of cases with Stalin. Sure, he was brutal, and sometimes incompetent, but, sometimes things weren't necessarily his fault, and he was doing the best he could, and sometimes did accomplish some good. Estimates for the number of people Stalin "killed" quite literally range from 100,000 to 100,000,000. That's three orders of magnitude, and these are legitimate historians giving the figures. To some extent, it depends on what we call a Stalin killing. Was everyone who died in the prison system -- the Gulag -- a victim of Stalin? What if they died after thirty years there, as many did? Was everyone who died of old age in the Gulag "murdered" by Stalin? How about people who didn't get enough food or proper health care in the Soviet Union, and died? Did Stalin "murder" them? Some historians hold Stalin responsible for the entire second world war, and count all Soviet victims of Hitler as, effectively, victims of Stalin. If Stalin hadn't been running the Soviet Union when Hitler invaded Russia, would the Russians have been able to defeat the Germans? I doubt it, actually. One of the reasons the Nazis underestimated the Russians is because of the poor showing of Russia during the first world war. The Eastern Front was considered "cake", an easy posting, for the Germans. The Kaiser took an enormous amont of territory in Western Russia rather easily, so, Hitler thought he could do the same thing. Instead, his forces faced increasing opposition, and were eventually totally annihilated. Stalin deserves, I think, considerable credit for this. Stalin's talents for bureaucracy and detail made him admirably suited to run a twentieth century war. Without Stalin, would Trotsky have run Russia? I doubt it. Trotsky was an unpopular, arrogant intellectual, it wasn't just Stalin who loathed him. The "toughs" who ran the Bolsheviks could never have worked for Trotsky long term. I suspect some kind of dictatorship was likely in Russia, without Stalin, but possibly a dictatorship of the right, rather than the left. Possibly not a return to Tsarism, which had failed, but some type of Mussoliniesque fascist dictatorship. Any other thoughts?

Do physicists currently believe in a fundamental subatomic particle that is the building block of all matter?

The ancient Greeks created the concept of the "atom", a fundamental particle out of which all other matter was constructed. In the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, European scientists adapted the Greek concept of the "atom", to represent the fundamental elements of the periodic table, out of which all chemical compounds were created. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, physicists speculated about splitting these chemical elements, and determining the fundamental "subatomic" particles. Subsequently, in the mid-twentieth century, the atom was indeed split. By the late twentieth century, innumerable subatomic particles were being analyzed and classified from huge particle accelerator experiments. I was wondering if, at this time, physicists still believe in some fundamental building block of all matter at the subatomic level, and what it might be. Or, do physicists see the subatomic universe as a kind of infinite regress, where an infinite number of types and varieties of particles exist, no single one of which can possibly explain all the rest.

The correct analogy to the nation of "Ukraine" is "South Vietnam"

NATO has invested some 100 billion dollars this year to build a massive and well armed military in Ukraine of some one million men. The Russians had, of course, not expected this, when they initiated their special military operation in Ukraine. They had expected, at most, modest assistance to Ukraine, and, consequently, a quick and successful campaign. Not surprisingly, America has managed to slow the Russians down, even force them back sometimes, here and there. Sometimes, as in the recent case of Kherson, Russia simply decided it wasn't worth the trouble to retain the territory. For the moment, anyway. However, Russia wants and needs Ukraine back in Russia. And, that's not going to change. As in the case of South Vietnam, America assumes that it can spend its enemies into submission. Supposedly, 20 billion dollars a month is "nothing" to the U.S. Well, maybe. And, maybe not. Inflation is becoming fairly catastrophic in the U.S., as it became during the Vietnam War, and, for exactly the same reason. We're blowing money on a pointless, endless war. There is also the point, as was the case in Vietnam, that simply for moral reasons, the American people may eventually tire of mass extermination for fun and profit. I realize for all you CIA types out there, mass extermination is really the name of the game, but, actually, not all Americans agree with you on this point. Once they become convinced that, despite the propaganda, most people in the region would prefer for the carnage to end, they may cease to be willing to cost themselves, and the world, so much worthless damage. Some of the assumptions people make are simply silly here. China is not going to invade Russia to take over Siberia. The last person to seriously consider that option was Chinese military generalissimo Lin Biao, back in the late 1960's. Mao Zedong was brought out of semi-retirement specifically to assassinate his old comrade in arms, for this reason. The Chinese value their Russian ally and have no intention of destabilizing Russia. The Russian economy remains strong, it will not collapse, no matter how long this war continues. The real issue is, who has the most legitimate interest in Ukraine? America or Russia? The answer is quite clear -- Russia has more interest here, and Russia will win. Charles XII of Sweden, France's Napoleon and Adolf Hitler of Germany made the mistake of underestimating Russia in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, respectively. They all lost great empires because of it. France and Germany are already distancing themselves from America in the pursuit of the Ukrainian War. A likely consequence of continued military involvement in Ukraine is the total collapse of NATO as a meaningful military organization, particularly with regard to Russia. America may have to learn the hard way the consequences of trifling with the Russian Bear.

Elon Musk crashes through the 200 billion dollar wealth barrier!

Yes, he's finally done it! Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has crashed through the 200 billion dollar wealth barrier. From the wrong side, however. As Elon was the first man to become worth 200 billion dollars, and was rather close to being worth 300 billion dollars at one time, now, Elon has become the world's first man to cease to be worth 200 billion dollars. Well done Elon. Congratulations! Indeed, I think we can confidently predict that Elon will within weeks become the world's first man to lose 100 billion dollars, he's lost close to 90 billion dollars in the last year or so. Good work! Elon's "Starship" doesn't work, despite 10 billion dollars spent to build this "cheap" stainless steel rocket. Tesla is collapsing as the world recognizes we really don't need electric cars, and GM's better at building them than Elon anyway. It now seems clear that Elon Musk is heading the way of Donald Trump -- bankruptcy, and then, jail. Well done Elon! We always knew you had it in you!

What if Soviet submarine B-59 had fired nuclear torpedoes during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_B-59 One of the truisms of modern war is that the world cannot possibly survive the detonation of even a single nuclear weapon. Now, given the rather small, ten ton yield of the smallest A-43 tactical nuclear weapon -- rather less than the largest conventional weapons, like the MOAB -- this truism seems rather unlikely to be true. However, most tactical nuclear weapons have yields at least in the kiloton range. And, the nuclear torpedo on the Soviet B-59 submarine used during the Cuban missile crisis was 10 kilotons, not much less than the yield on the Hiroshima A-bomb. Effectively, it would have annihilated all of the U.S. ships in the area. As it happened, the senior officers split on using the weapons, so, they decided against it, even though the U.S. forces were using depth charges against them. Suppose, though, nuclear torpedos had, in fact, been used. What would have happened next, exactly? Arguably, the U.S. should not have been using depth charges on a submerged Soviet submarine that had been out of contact with the world for days, and might have thought they were in the middle of a thermonuclear world war. Personally, I would suggest the U.S. actions were not a terribly great idea, under the circumstances. So, if the Soviets had fired a nuclear torpedo, it would not have been entirely unprovoked, by any means, at all. But, obviously, the U.S. is going to have to react to this. What do they do? First of all, I would suggest the U.S. would check its early warning system to see if any Soviet missiles were on the way. They weren't and, this would be somewhat reassuring. Presumably, Nikita Khrushchev would be made aware quite quickly of what had happened, and he would want to deescalate. What does Khrushchev do? I would suggest he calls President Kennedy -- there was no "hotline" until 1963 -- and indicates this was a terrible mistake, and he will agree to demilitarize Cuba immediately. All Soviet troops will leave, all weapons systems removed, the U.S. can have Carte Blanche there. I would suggest Kennedy might well accept this offer. Fidel Castro would be removed from power, Cuba might even have become a U.S. territory. There are many other possibilities, of course. The U.S., which at the time had a sizable advantage in terms of nuclear weapons, might well have launched a first strike on the Soviet Union, effectively annihilating the country, and the Soviet Union would have responded by nuclear strikes on Europe and the U.S. Probably hundreds of millions killed, worldwide. Alternatively, the U.S. might simply have launched a nuclear first strike on Cuba, effectively totally annihilating the island, and everyone there. And, that might have been the end of it. Any other thoughts?

In Vladimir Putin's Russia, chess playing is a very dangerous sport

World chess champion, and political opponent of Vladimir Putin, Gary Kasparov has fled Russia in fear for his life. World chess champion, Russian politician, and public opponent of Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine, Anatoly Karpov, has just woken up from a coma after a serious "fall" near the Russian parliament buildings. In Russia, chess playing is a very dangerous sport indeed. It is a contact sport. It can be deadly. It can kill you. Vladimir Putin is a very reasonable man. If you were a drunk babbling in public right in front of him about your opposition to his regime and the war in Ukraine, he would simply laugh. If you were a high school student debating his policies and his regime in school, he would approve the open development of analytical thinking in Russia's youth. If you led a small public demonstration against the Ukraine war, or his regime, he would have the police break it up, possibly give the participants some short jail terms. If you were a journalist criticizing his regime in the Russian media you might get a few years in prison. If you were a rock star writing songs attacking his regime or its policies, you might be forced out of the country. The important thing to understand here, is that Vladimir Putin does not overreact. He reacts forcefully, but, appropriately, on a sliding scale. So, if you are a billionaire, with the money to fund a private army and directly stage an armed coup against his government, and are openly opposing his regime, you are dead. You may not realize it, but, actually, you are already dead. You are about to fall out of a window from a great height, or have an unexpected heart attack. Guaranteed. Arguably, the billionaire is something of an endangered species in Russia these days. Is that really a bad thing? Chess players are in a special category in Russia. Russia is home of many of the world's greatest chess players, and they are in a special category, something like great football players in the U.S., but, an awful lot more intelligent. Great chess players in Russia are famous, rich and powerful. Putin isn't overly fond of rich, powerful people in his country. So, up to a point anyway, chess players in Russia, if they're really good at it anyway, are almost in the category of Russian billionaires. They are an endangered species.

How is quantum teleportation reconciled with Einstein's special theory of relativity?

Or, is it? Quantum teleportation, as I understand it, involves the transfer of information between particles enmeshed by quantum entanglement, at speeds vastly greater than the speed of light. Now, while Einstein's general theory of relativity is largely about how gravity affects light, Einstein's special theory of relativity is essentially based on the concept that nothing can ever go faster than light, because time itself stops at the speed of light. Now, I suppose, we could dispute what exactly time is, and whether time could stop, but, nevertheless, information could still be transferred by quantum entanglement. However, one could say that arguing that information could still be transferred while time was stopped, was something of a logical contradiction, that the whole idea of time is that it is a way of measuring the occurrence of events, so no events of any type could occur if time wasn't passing, in some sense, or other. So, any thoughts about this issue? It would seem to have some significance for theoretical physics, I would have thought, anyway.

Can quantum entanglement be used for energy production?

I understand quantum entanglement can be used for energy transfer. But, can quantum entanglement be used for direct energy production? Quantum entanglement is actually a very general and powerful concept of particle association, so, isn't it conceivable that some aspect of these complex associations that are processed at, apparently, speeds much faster than light, could be used for direct energy production? Any thoughts about this, at all? I realize I'm speculating in very general terms here, of course.

Is quantum entanglement implicated in the process of photosynthesis?

I've read here and there that quantum entanglement may actually be a part of the process of photosynthesis in plants. Is this accurate? Does anyone know for sure, one way or the other if quantum entanglement is effectively a necessary and significant aspect of how photosynthesis really works? If so, at what stages of the process of photosynthesis does quantum entanglement apply, and how exactly?