And historically leads to stuff like putting the one final screw in domestically so you can slap that Made in America tag in it and avoid a heap of tariffs.
The Geneva conventions do not contain the level of protection for civilians that you think.
In particular, Israel has ratified and is a party to the conventions of 1949. After much debate in 1949, those conventions ultimately allowed things like indiscriminate carpet bombing of cities (which the US practiced extensively in the previous war).
Later protocols from 1977 added more civilian protections more along the lines you propose. These protocols banned carpet bombing and introduced the concept of proportionate response into the conventions.
Israel and the United States have not ratified the 1977 protocols 1 and 2 concerning additional civilian protections. According to the text itself, they are not bound by the provisions if they do not agree.
SpaceX is beating the pants off every other domestic launch provider unfortunately. All because Musk took some fantastic risks with his own money, and they paid off handsomely. And the worst part is SpaceX is a private company: no public shareholders to keep Musk in check.
You may have heard about ULA having a wee bit of trouble with some capsule thrusters. They have lost some truly epic amounts of money on that program.
Fracking has granted the United States independence from OPEC, and turned the US into the largest exporter of oil. The US now has the pricing power on the world oil market. This has huge geopolitical implications.
Back in the 2000s it was completely different. All of the geopolitical wonks were pushing renewable energy as a means of OPEC independence. And now that independence has been granted, but we still have the oil.
Meanwhile, as others have stated on this thread, the immediate problems from fracking have been mostly fixed, including the earthquakes. Long term, I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen with all of that dirty wastewater going back into the ground.
So on balance, there's a good reason for the leadership in both parties to be on board with fracking: oil still rules the world, and fracking lets the United States rule the oil markets.
Airplanes are usually limited to land at only around half of the total weight they can take off with.
This isn't normally a problem for normal trips.
If they went to a higher landing weight, the landing gear struts would have to be designed quite a bit stronger. This would make the landing gear heavier, and that would reduce the useful payload weight in the plane.
None of the current ICBM platforms were designed for missile defense. Missile defense simply did not exist at the time.
Sentinel is busting its budget because it's renovating and rebuilding all of the ground segments: all of those decrepit silos and computer systems. It's still money well spent in my opinion.
Missile guidance is not a computationally hard problem, and it hasn't changed much since the 50s. Terminal missile defense is a fantastically hard problem, and wasn't mastered until the last decade or two. And the current generation missile defense capabilities still haven't all been demonstrated in combat.
Having said that, I would generally expect NATO's missiles to work as advertised in a hot war. And I would plan for Russia's missiles to be somewhat less effective than they advertise, but still a credible threat.
I'm just repeating what happened or what the plan was the last couple of go arounds, with Napoleon and Hitler.
Napoleon did occupy Moscow, but it didn't help him very much.
Hitler was turned back just short of Moscow, but the Russian government had all sorts of continuity plans that involved moving further east. Entire factories were uprooted and shipped into the Urals.
Even with nuclear annihilation, NATO could still get to Moscow in a three day operation. It's just a question of which cities back home are still standing.
Moscow is not the big prize you might think it is. Russia can just retreat hundreds of kilometers further east and carry on.
NATO can do the thunder run, but they are not equipped to win a massive land war in Asia. You really gotta listen to the Sicilian from Princess Bride on this one.
ABC is a network that doesn't have an FCC license. Each individual local station is an FCC licensee. They're the ones that are responsible for the content they air.
Question, when you move to a new place in Spain, do you need to register residency with the police?
I don't know if Spain does that or not, but I think Italy does some version.
The United States doesn't have that, and doesn't have a national id card. Although most people effectively register themselves to get a driver license, that is only required if you drive. So voter registration nominally provides some way for the government to get the information on residency, which is important for figuring out which local elections you need to vote in.
Now recently, in the last couple of decades, some states started requiring photo id verification to vote. This defeats the purpose of having a separate voter registration system, because you still have to go to the driver registration system to get either a driver license, or a non-driving photo ID. Nevertheless, the separate voter registration system has hung around in every single one of these states, because the real goal is to prevent people from voting.
When I started on Debian, there was only apt-get. (And dpkg if you manually pulled .debs from somewhere).
Then a little while later, there was aptitude, which was nice.
apt the command didn't show up until 2014.