Removed by mod

And by “take over” you mean uselessly posture and dick waggle and colonialize in brand new space accords breaking ways.

This is not something anyone is winning.

It is not the first commercially funded fusion reactor even assuming this qualified.

https://www.energystartups.org/top/fusion-energy/

Not hard to find a bunch.

In what sense? They still have not achieved net power out.

Also “q>10 new reactor by 2027”

…🤣

The moon is not tidally locked with the sun. Also the viable landing sites on the moon are tiny. There’s so much that’s difficult about the moon for settlement and solar power viability is actually one of them.

It’s entirely unclear how this eo impacts VPN users or even sellers short of the ones you shouldn’t even bother using anyway.

It’s all propaganda. Acting “against” in the same sense that it’s acting as a tool of propaganda for China. Trying to claim a moral right in this situation is just silly.

I mean in a sense yes, but it’s not been a secret China has been using tiktok for similar purposes among other things.

They can use it to impose sanctions. Breaking international law, as much as contrarians like to claim otherwise, can come with consequences. No I don’t think blue helmets are going to be deployed but these things aren’t toothless.

You’re coddling a nuclear power by claiming it’s entirely subject to evil us pressures. They could have implemented a no first use policy any time in the past 20 years just fine, but they haven’t.

I’m dismissing you because your points are wildly silly and blatantly have an agenda to paint Russia as a victim of external forces. Russia is a big boy country, they can implement a simple policy.

Don’t worry, the us could too.

PS, every single country in the world is responding to external and internal pressures.

Removed by mod

“Russia makes constant nuclear threats and doesn’t have a no first use policy, but it’s totally entirely the fault and moral obligation of the us. Totes definitely.”

lol

Radioactive contamination is basically a non concern. Potential massive climatic effects and logistics collapse on the other hand, are.

If you really want to accomplish this you can achieve it with civilian work corps and the like. You don’t need to make it a military only process, claiming it would would show just why making it a military only process is actually problematic.

I’ll also point out “the forms weren’t detailed enough to resolve the concerns raised” directly implies that not only were these sorts of inconsistencies then investigated, but that the forms didn’t provide information to allow the investigators to understand why (or why not) it was ethically performed.

The paperwork isn’t there for no reason, if it isn’t sufficient to cya, it’s not actually doing anything for you beyond ritual, and you’d need to redesign your forms or accounting to correct that.

Notably, Putin doesn’t really need a mouthpiece. He’s not some unheard of hermit with no power to spread how ideology, he’s a dictator of an extremely large country. This is seen as in poor taste because it’s implying the former, while being an expression of the latter.

But this title simply says it is explaining why a thing is happening. It isn’t sensationalizing, placing an emotional value on it, nor excessively simplifying it.

This title is the opposite of click bait.

The perverse incentive simply makes it untenable as a policy.

“Why talk about policy actions when this fantasy ive concocted says we are all living a video game?”

Good stuff