Trump being a literal Russian agent will be this generation’s Kennedy was assassinated in a conspiracy.
January 16, 2026 at 8:41 PM
Trump being a literal Russian agent will be this generation’s Kennedy was assassinated in a conspiracy.
Worst case scenario a river catches on fire again and then we scramble back to real regulations though, right?
No one could ignore that, right?
No one could ignore that, right?
January 12, 2026 at 7:40 PM
Worst case scenario a river catches on fire again and then we scramble back to real regulations though, right?
No one could ignore that, right?
No one could ignore that, right?
Including China would be great. US and RU would be automatically forced to drastically reduce their arsenals.
Unless Trump and co seriously think some lopsided agreement that severely constrains CN while leaving US and RU arsenals much more strong is somehow viable…
Unless Trump and co seriously think some lopsided agreement that severely constrains CN while leaving US and RU arsenals much more strong is somehow viable…
January 9, 2026 at 9:07 PM
Including China would be great. US and RU would be automatically forced to drastically reduce their arsenals.
Unless Trump and co seriously think some lopsided agreement that severely constrains CN while leaving US and RU arsenals much more strong is somehow viable…
Unless Trump and co seriously think some lopsided agreement that severely constrains CN while leaving US and RU arsenals much more strong is somehow viable…
I think the point of the naysayers is that letting procurement be guided purely by bureaucracy dynamics is not a good idea, no matter how logical those dynamics are. The IJN’s forces were developed that way and it did them no favors in an already poor situation.
December 23, 2025 at 7:21 PM
I think the point of the naysayers is that letting procurement be guided purely by bureaucracy dynamics is not a good idea, no matter how logical those dynamics are. The IJN’s forces were developed that way and it did them no favors in an already poor situation.
Oops—I’m re-reading the Ars article and he does say “will not be composed of *entirely* [emphasis added] new modules.”
Eric does leave out the part where the old parts are supposed to be jettisoned in the future though. This isn’t as bad as it sounds.
tass.ru/kosmos/25949...
Eric does leave out the part where the old parts are supposed to be jettisoned in the future though. This isn’t as bad as it sounds.
tass.ru/kosmos/25949...
РОС развернут в составе российского сегмента МКС
Директор Института медико-биологических проблем РАН Олег Орлов также сообщил, что тема выбора орбиты РОС с углом наклонения 51,6 градуса поднималась Роскосмосом из геополитических соображений
tass.ru
December 19, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Oops—I’m re-reading the Ars article and he does say “will not be composed of *entirely* [emphasis added] new modules.”
Eric does leave out the part where the old parts are supposed to be jettisoned in the future though. This isn’t as bad as it sounds.
tass.ru/kosmos/25949...
Eric does leave out the part where the old parts are supposed to be jettisoned in the future though. This isn’t as bad as it sounds.
tass.ru/kosmos/25949...
They could be referring to launching new modules to the ISS temporarily and then dumping the old ones in the future. It’s a proposal that has been floated in the past.
December 19, 2025 at 7:31 PM
They could be referring to launching new modules to the ISS temporarily and then dumping the old ones in the future. It’s a proposal that has been floated in the past.
I would check the original TASS announcement before jumping to conclusions. In the English Izvestia article he links, ROS is described as being “deployed to the ISS” and will be “separated from the ISS in the future.” That is much more vague than the detailed terms Eric speaks in.
December 19, 2025 at 7:30 PM
I would check the original TASS announcement before jumping to conclusions. In the English Izvestia article he links, ROS is described as being “deployed to the ISS” and will be “separated from the ISS in the future.” That is much more vague than the detailed terms Eric speaks in.
This can be Cold War II’s Red Dawn/Amerika.
December 17, 2025 at 5:55 PM
This can be Cold War II’s Red Dawn/Amerika.
My understanding is Russian is in the top 5 most spoken languages in Oregon and post-Soviet immigrants happen to be subject to frequent discrimination. It is an actual scholarly position that discrimination is entrenched enough they can’t be considered “white.” Not sure how recognized it is though.
December 12, 2025 at 1:21 AM
My understanding is Russian is in the top 5 most spoken languages in Oregon and post-Soviet immigrants happen to be subject to frequent discrimination. It is an actual scholarly position that discrimination is entrenched enough they can’t be considered “white.” Not sure how recognized it is though.
The intervention scenarios I have seen vary wildly depending on what the authors believe about Russian strength. For some- Russia is losing right now so they’d fold. For others- Russia is battle-hardened so it would stalemate or be a NATO defeat ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Everyone thinks no one will use nukes.
December 11, 2025 at 2:09 AM
The intervention scenarios I have seen vary wildly depending on what the authors believe about Russian strength. For some- Russia is losing right now so they’d fold. For others- Russia is battle-hardened so it would stalemate or be a NATO defeat ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Everyone thinks no one will use nukes.
Well, I didn’t mean they’d prove useful in low-level conflicts or ones already in progress. My understanding is the asks for more spending are primarily in relation to direct wars with RU or CN.
December 9, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Well, I didn’t mean they’d prove useful in low-level conflicts or ones already in progress. My understanding is the asks for more spending are primarily in relation to direct wars with RU or CN.
Alternatively we could go back to heavy reliance on nuclear weapons. The whole point of allies not having large militaries and us not spending ourselves into oblivion was to avoid breaking the bank while deterring conflict.
But huge conventional militaries are in vogue I guess?
But huge conventional militaries are in vogue I guess?
December 9, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Alternatively we could go back to heavy reliance on nuclear weapons. The whole point of allies not having large militaries and us not spending ourselves into oblivion was to avoid breaking the bank while deterring conflict.
But huge conventional militaries are in vogue I guess?
But huge conventional militaries are in vogue I guess?
I’m not convinced the x-intercept in birth rate decline has any meaning, but Elon Musk seems to think it does (pun intended).
December 2, 2025 at 10:30 PM
I’m not convinced the x-intercept in birth rate decline has any meaning, but Elon Musk seems to think it does (pun intended).
Things like this make me think there is a greater risk of nuclear escalation in a Taiwan conflict than seems to be commonly discussed. China’s massive superiority in certain arms presents itself a lot like Soviet land superiority in Europe in CW I. Nukes will be very tempting.
November 29, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Things like this make me think there is a greater risk of nuclear escalation in a Taiwan conflict than seems to be commonly discussed. China’s massive superiority in certain arms presents itself a lot like Soviet land superiority in Europe in CW I. Nukes will be very tempting.
The idea that NATO expansion was the US’ doing forgets that it was the new members themselves who pushed for their entry. That inherent discomfort towards Russia might have led to tensions in Eastern Europe anyways; maybe war. But who knows.
November 25, 2025 at 8:08 PM
The idea that NATO expansion was the US’ doing forgets that it was the new members themselves who pushed for their entry. That inherent discomfort towards Russia might have led to tensions in Eastern Europe anyways; maybe war. But who knows.
Maybe referring to Soviet 70s and early 80s support for arms control and anti-nuclear activism. Many in the US with conservative foreign policy views saw those as ploys to weaken US strength (and thus defense).
June 11, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Maybe referring to Soviet 70s and early 80s support for arms control and anti-nuclear activism. Many in the US with conservative foreign policy views saw those as ploys to weaken US strength (and thus defense).
China has made some important overtures to the US, with Trump invited to visit in the near future.
They gave him a banquet in a palace when he visited in 2017. I think he’d be more menial to such people than Zelensky, who he seems to think of as an ungrateful, freeloading warmonger.
They gave him a banquet in a palace when he visited in 2017. I think he’d be more menial to such people than Zelensky, who he seems to think of as an ungrateful, freeloading warmonger.
June 11, 2025 at 9:34 PM
China has made some important overtures to the US, with Trump invited to visit in the near future.
They gave him a banquet in a palace when he visited in 2017. I think he’d be more menial to such people than Zelensky, who he seems to think of as an ungrateful, freeloading warmonger.
They gave him a banquet in a palace when he visited in 2017. I think he’d be more menial to such people than Zelensky, who he seems to think of as an ungrateful, freeloading warmonger.
I guess your line in The 2020 Commission about people glossing over reports extends beyond presidential briefings and into the media.
June 11, 2025 at 9:23 PM
I guess your line in The 2020 Commission about people glossing over reports extends beyond presidential briefings and into the media.
Isn’t this a little bit dramatic on their part? USAF always maintains readiness to upload at any time, which is why they test fly M-IIIs with MIRVs every now and then.
June 10, 2025 at 7:37 PM
Isn’t this a little bit dramatic on their part? USAF always maintains readiness to upload at any time, which is why they test fly M-IIIs with MIRVs every now and then.
I was more referring to his grouping of all people who fought in the Red Army as Russians.
IIRC some (not widely accepted) estimates have the number at 42 million. Maybe he went with the biggest number, accuracy be damned, given his propensity for big things 🤷🏻♂️
IIRC some (not widely accepted) estimates have the number at 42 million. Maybe he went with the biggest number, accuracy be damned, given his propensity for big things 🤷🏻♂️
June 10, 2025 at 12:15 AM
I was more referring to his grouping of all people who fought in the Red Army as Russians.
IIRC some (not widely accepted) estimates have the number at 42 million. Maybe he went with the biggest number, accuracy be damned, given his propensity for big things 🤷🏻♂️
IIRC some (not widely accepted) estimates have the number at 42 million. Maybe he went with the biggest number, accuracy be damned, given his propensity for big things 🤷🏻♂️
In his defense that’s literally what Americans are taught and told, especially so his generation. There is no attention paid at all to the ethnic nuances of the USSR, at least by the general public.
Our monsters come from ourselves.
Our monsters come from ourselves.
June 9, 2025 at 9:46 PM
In his defense that’s literally what Americans are taught and told, especially so his generation. There is no attention paid at all to the ethnic nuances of the USSR, at least by the general public.
Our monsters come from ourselves.
Our monsters come from ourselves.
The ballot box is just correcting himself so as to not offend those he is speaking to.
June 6, 2025 at 2:34 AM
The ballot box is just correcting himself so as to not offend those he is speaking to.
They’ll avenge the B-17s that couldn’t hit ships for shit from high altitude during Pacific War I.
June 5, 2025 at 8:43 PM
They’ll avenge the B-17s that couldn’t hit ships for shit from high altitude during Pacific War I.
US did indeed do this during the late 50s and throughout the 60s. The Soviets never did though, not because of any benevolent reason, but because of positive control anxieties.
June 2, 2025 at 10:20 PM
US did indeed do this during the late 50s and throughout the 60s. The Soviets never did though, not because of any benevolent reason, but because of positive control anxieties.
Not a fan of Golden Dome, but Proton failed dozens of times before it became reliable. Space is hard.
May 28, 2025 at 10:32 PM
Not a fan of Golden Dome, but Proton failed dozens of times before it became reliable. Space is hard.