It's a microcontroller that runs within Intel based systems allowing full control access at the processor level. It runs outside of your processor and any time the system is plugged in or is on battery. It doesn't require the main processor up for it to be accessible. More info on it on [wikipedia]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel\_Management\_Engine).
Unlike typical ballistic warheads, which fly on predictable trajectories as they fall from space to their targets, hypersonic projectiles can change course, making them more difficult to target.
The author doesn't understand what they are writing about. Hypersonic has nothing to do with manuevering, it's a speed definition. Anything traveling at Mach 5+ is considered hypersonic. Western countries already have access to systems that defend against hypersonic missiles. The ability to change direction has nothing to do with being hypersonic.
Depends on if NATO decides to start escorting ships in international waters and Russia goes full pants-on-head stupid and does something to an escort and that country decides to invoke article 5.
It's amazing how many people who say "you need to read xxx" have never actually read it...
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Thats from the NATO website. Doesn't say they need to convene, it says that any member is allowed to respond in any manner they deem necessary.
NATO countries have more than 10,000 troops deployed in Poland. The last time Russia played a game of FAFO with the US,it ended poorly. Repeating that with NATO would be infinitely worse.
And no, despite Russian fanboy insistance, the US isn't low on ammo. From the Secretary of the Army's testimony to congress:
“[the Army is] comfortable that the amount of lethal assistance we’ve been providing is not eroding our readiness, but we keep a close eye on that.”
There may be issues with the amount of excess the US has to give away, I'll believe that when I see the US govt stop sending it.
Thank you for the info on this, will be using it going forward.
Not sure if you did this on purpose, or if something else did it as part of editing, but your bulleted steps included an en dash (–) instead of two short dashes (--).
Have had issues in the past with that, generally with WYSIWYG type editors combining your -- into either – or —.
Wagner has already had a taste of FAFO with the battle of Khasham. Does anyone on the Russian side think crossing into Poland will end any better for them with all of NATO responding?
flying_monkies @ flying_monkies @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 103Joined 2 yr. ago
Tell that to Putin.