It also works the other way. A nuclear war between two countries nowhere near the US and that doesn't draw in any other nuclear powers could still have pretty annoying effects in the US.
Here's a paper [1] and an article [2] based on that paper that looked at what a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan could do to the rest of the world.
The scenario they look it is each firing 100 nukes the size of the bomb used at Hiroshima at the other, aimed at major population centers.
Here's the abstract from the paper:
> A limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan could ignite fires large enough to emit more than 5 Tg of soot into the stratosphere. Climate model simulations have shown severe resulting climate perturbations with declines in global mean temperature by 1.8 °C and precipitation by 8%, for at least 5 y. Here we evaluate impacts for the global food system. Six harmonized state-of-the-art crop models show that global caloric production from maize, wheat, rice, and soybean falls by 13 (±1)%, 11 (±8)%, 3 (±5)%, and 17 (±2)% over 5 y. Total single-year losses of 12 (±4)% quadruple the largest observed historical anomaly and exceed impacts caused by historic droughts and volcanic eruptions. Colder temperatures drive losses more than changes in precipitation and solar radiation, leading to strongest impacts in temperate regions poleward of 30°N, including the United States, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 y. Integrated food trade network analyses show that domestic reserves and global trade can largely buffer the production anomaly in the first year. Persistent multiyear losses, however, would constrain domestic food availability and propagate to the Global South, especially to food-insecure countries. By year 5, maize and wheat availability would decrease by 13% globally and by more than 20% in 71 countries with a cumulative population of 1.3 billion people. In view of increasing instability in South Asia, this study shows that a regional conflict using <1% of the worldwide nuclear arsenal could have adverse consequences for global food security unmatched in modern history.
BTW, both India and Pakistan rely on the glaciers in the Himalayas for freshwater. The glaciers in effect act as a natural reservoir system.
Something like 70% of Pakistan depends on that system, and a similar percent for northern India. Overall in Southeast Asia about 1.9 billion people depend on those glaciers.
As global warming reduces those glaciers it is not a stretch to imagine disputes over allocation of the remaining water getting heated enough for war to break out. I've read that if we let it get to 3℃ above pre-industrial levels we lose about 75% of those glaciers.
This is confusing, the Russian and Chinese 'nuclear weapons tests' mentioned in the article didn't involve testing nuclear weapons, but Trump wants to test nuclear weapons in response? Did I read that right?
I'm confused about that as well. I don't see any reason for the US to not test the delivery mechanisms, i.e. the ICBM and missiles. The ICBMs are being replaced, so it would make sense to test those, but the Tomahawks and Trident missiles are tested frequently, the last Trident II being tested in September of this year.
That's certainly a plausible reading, but in truth it is very uncertain what he means.
The leading guess I've seen is that he's "striking back" after Putin announced successful tests of new delivery platforms for nuclear weapons (which Russia developed because Bush abandoned the ABM treaty for the lols).
Don't try to find the magic truth in Trump's rants: he is an ignorant, dementia-addled old man whose self-perception as a leader is as a strongman in an imagined late 1970s/1980s era because he's always been stuck in that era.
Pretending it's all a crazy-man act with hidden strategy a) requires that he isn't mentally declining (when he obviously is and his doctors think so and are trying to tell us) and b) would require that this ignorant man has good advisors where he very clearly does not.
I guess by offering consistent long term cashflows you can attract classic institutional investors, and banks. Europe is much better at that than it is at finding VC cash for a moonshot
Another way to look at it: When a companies bubble bursts, when people realise that it is just a note taking app (or whatever), and that its never going to grow 10x again, VC investors want shot of it.
Without a constant stream of new investment, the company simply can't afford to be loaded up with SV staff producing features that nobody will pay for. Bending Spoons change the business model to 'normal business'. They move to much cheaper European staff, stop work on nonsense 'features', concentrate instead on servicing their existing customers with a stable platform and well thought out incremental advances.
So they take businesses that are dying because nobody will give them free money any more, and make them into real sustainable businesses that can stand on their own two feet?
All you have to do to encourage nuerotypical white males from elite schools is to have high remuneration. They see highly paid jobs as the best jobs. This is not discrimination. If a job is too hard for the pay offered then this class will choose something else.
They are also not excluded from working in sewers, even though they are underrepresented!
>Such interspecies adoptions appear to have become more common in recent years
Or humans have been noticing them more. If this happened every year in a deserted area then nobody would know. Equally if some yokel saw it happening regularly in the past, they probably wouldn't have contacted anyone who would publish it to the world. They also probably were not carrying a camera in their pocket.
I agree that the phrasing lacks some self-awareness. It can well be true that pairings of this nature are only just becoming common, but the cuckoo is infamous for parasitically getting other host avians to rear it while a fledging.
I can see why this is worthwhile for a freight train, it takes a long time to unload goods onto a boat and offload them the other side. But why does it make sense for passengers? Is it just because they were doing it with freight already?
You board a train in Milan and wake up in Sicily without ever having to drag your luggage across terminals, onto buses, or through port checkpoints. Especially for night trains, that seamlessness adds a kind of magic
Passengers are more time-sensitive than freight. For a 20 minute ferry crossing, having everyone and their luggage disembark the train, go on a ferry, disembark the ferry and board a train would easily double the travel time of the crossing. It would also be far less convenient
reply