BamaATL

Interesting @PTINS I still have to think it wouldn't take too much to equip a drone with an RPG that fires upon contact with something like this. You'd be trading payload for it, but the bomb is actually the fuel or gas.

Ask Muslims in India how much Modi gives a shit about innocents and children.

He's more apt to use chemical weapons than anything (I've seen the Ukrainians allege this multiple times, never seen anything verified). Mistaking that Putin gives a shit about his own guys is a mistake though, if he did, he wouldn't have already gotten over 600k killed or seriously wounded. The same could be said for his civilian population as well, he doesn't give a shit about anyone in some backwoods village in Kursk. Hell, killing any of them potentially saves him $110.

Frank Stallone

Unfortunately, won't make a dent into's maga's pull to said groups, they are both riddled with them.

Killing Bin Laden isn't exactly the same talking point it once was, that's 14 years ago, and 9/11 is now 23 years. Not dismissing those events as unimportant, but their relevance in today is ..... lacking.

What a fucking ghoul

They cast perfectly for Ed Wood's Plan 9

A Dick Cheney acoustic set, then he "accidentally" shoots Mike Lindell in the face.

that's pretty strong

It's like a strip club, they have satellite stages for non headliners.

That wouldn't be a huge concern (certainly not for Putin, like he fucking cares), but a low yield tactical weapon wouldn't create enough fallout to be of a concern that far away. The danger would be in the immediate area, and serious fallout would last only a matter of days (beyond ground zero). A decent rainfall would knock most of it down, what's left by half life cycles dissipates pretty quickly. We tend to think of nuclear weapons release like Chernobyl, but that was entirely different, it was an open core just spewing radioactive isotopes for days on end (and really months). This would be a completely different ball game (of course still not good).

At this point, might as well, the Ukrainians have called the Russian's nuclear bluff. Russian nuclear doctrine is that if the sovereignty of Russia is in any way threatened they will respond with nuclear weapons. I can't think of a bigger threat, than, you know, being invaded and partly occupied, no matter how small. This is still a dangerous period because Putin may well use a tactical nuke on the field, but in Russia, and justify it by his claims to sovereignty. I don't think he will do it, because we've told him if does, we are in it. However, nuking his own country was probably actually never clearly communicated (who'd have thunk it?)

Congrats to Russia on obvious more successful air defense

Ever make a zig when you should have zagged?

Yes, but because he has a worm in his brain, he will wind up at the Embassy Suites.

I'm sure it was dark and ominous for him, it was the death knell of his political career. Counldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I know of someone who's stock would rise if they quit.

That they currently have, that I am aware of, it's ATACMS and the F-16s and ordinance associated with them. There are other things we dangled out there that might be on the table to include JASSMs (surface to air cruise missiles, stealthy from what I've read, with longer range capability).

By the same logic, if you wreck the truck, would it be considered a post birth abortion?

In theory, we've had the tech to at least land people on Mars from the 70s (they'd have likely been dead bodies, but hey). Going to the moon actually makes more sense than meets the eye, and it does have resources. 1. Water exists on the moon, it isn't plentiful, but it exists. Where water exists, you can make rocket fuel. For deep space manned exploration, barring improvements in propulsion, that will be important. 2. It's beneficial to have a proving ground for new tech, like regolith 3D printing, or farming. The moon being only a few days away makes it a realistic test bed for emergent tech. In other words, you can afford to have something fail on the moon and get a replacement or a return to Earth in short order. Something like that happens on Mars, everyone could die. 3. Helium 3 exists in abundance on the moon's surface, while it doesn't here on Earth. This makes it potentially highly commercially profitable. There are lots of other reasons, but a big one to me is the fact that we aren't likely to send people without lots of fail-safes. To me, that means we will realistically we will need essentially weigh stations in space in between here and Mars, all equipped with the ability for things like life support, supplies, and return options. I think it's far more viable (mind you not economically) to build a series of O'Neill cylinders as both research stations and lifeboats. That isn't to say that leap in technology can't turn all this on it's head, after all, more or less we are using the same principles Robert Goddard and Werner Van Braun used. The Starship could be a game changer for a lot of reasons beyond itself, for example, the ability to get new test beds into orbit on the cheap could (and likely will) lead to new breakthrus.

German media also reporting

I'm about tired of this "Fire your housekeeper, and we clean your home for $19, plus we do all your laundry." commercial from, I think Homaglobe. Who the fuck is cleaning your house for $19 and doing your laundry? Give me a break. I get that it's a intro rate, but damn.