Slashdot Mirror
Russia Unveils 'Satan 2' Missile Powerful Enough To 'Wipe Out UK, France Or Texas' (telegraph.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Telegraph: Russia has released the first image of its new nuclear missile, a weapon so powerful that it could wipe out nearly all of the United Kingdom or France. The RS-28 Sarmat thermonuclear-armed ballistic missile was commissioned in 2011 and is expected to come into service in 2018. The first images of the massive missile were declassified on Sunday and have now been published for the first time. It has been dubbed "Satan 2," as it will replace the RS-36M, the 1970s-era weapon referred to by Nato as the Satan missile. Sputnik, the Russian government-controlled news agency, reported in May that the missile could destroy an area "the size of Texas or France." Russian media report that the missile will weigh up to 10 tons with the capacity to carry up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo. With that type of payload, it could deliver a blast some 2,000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia reportedly tested a hypersonic warhead in April that is apparently intended for use on the Satan 2 missiles. The warhead is designed to be impossible to intercept because it does not move on a set trajectory.
At least, they certainly didn't make a missile with that kind of damage potential.
While it could throw a single 40 megaton warhead, it would more likely carry a handful of weapons topping out at about 50 megatons, total. Maybe.
Which is a lot, but nowhere near big enough to "wipe out" a medium-sized country like France.
They could pretty much destroy up to 15 separate cities with 300 kiloton airbursts (if the MIRV systems gives them that much spread and control, which it probably doesn't), but everything in between would be effectively untouched, and with a single weapon, most of Paris itself would only be lightly to moderately damaged. Modern high-efficiency weapons don't drop a lot of fallout in air burst mode, so that's not a consideration.
If they used ground burst targeting, they could cause a lot of downwind fallout, but it would leave large areas untouched upwind.
Forty to fifty megatons sounds like a lot, but when you compare it with how big the world is...
Remind me, why are we picking a fight with Russia again?
Because having Russia dominate the world would be horrific?
Why is Russia willing to pick a fight with the US again, and keep building new nuclear weapons and threatining people with them?
The US is maintaining only a 1960's ICBM and a 1970's SLBM, but Russia keeps building and designing new ones. Why? Why do they get a free pass to act like they are lead by a KGB thug?
Because a world dominated by the US is all peaches and cream?
Because Russians remember the 20+ million they lost in WW2 and are never going to let 1941 happen again. They are justifiably paranoid. That's what Westerners do not get about the Russian national psyche. They trust no one, especially the US.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
In comparison, yes.
Countries that want to grow and have large economies are nearly all democratic, with open trade policies. The exceptions are Russia and China. China has focused more on trade than weapons and their economy has grow.
You need global trade to go forward without you are limited in what you can do.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
and keep building new nuclear weapons and threatining people with them?
Yes why are those Russians putting their country so close to our NATO bases!!! This is blatant aggression!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Good thing comparisons don't change the fact that most of the world hates the USA and Russia equally, and don't excuse either being such assholes.
and in the process of invading Ukraine.
Still? Wow it's taking them a while. Which units are invading Ukraine? As far as I know, all that happened was Crimea acceeded to them. And they may have indirectly supported some rebels in Donbass, but hey it's not like NO ONE ELSE ever supports "moderate opposition" anywhere...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yip, hate America for that safe and technology loaded western lifestyle you all enjoy :-)
I don't think you appreciate just how touch and go the events of WW2 were towards the end. Europe and the Pacific could be very different places to live today.
Russian media report that the missile will weigh up to 10 tons with the capacity to carry up to 10 tons of nuclear cargo.
The story here is that Russia has escaped the tyranny of the rocket equation, and designed a missile that is 100% payload and apparently 0% fuel.
I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
Ah yes because that makes so much sense..... Oh wait no, it just shows your a moronic racist!
Theres a big difference between "helping" and "saving". Russia contribute man power and equipment like tanks that the west has no concept of. For example there were literally 10x more Russian armies when Germany surrended. The truth is Russia WON ww2 by blood and guts.
Please dont tell me bullshit about LL. LL was arranged in late 41, just a few months later Russia won the biggest fight in history, involving about 4 -5 million soldiers - the battle of Stalingrad. That was the start of the end of the NAZIS. Befor eyou jump... theres no way anythign got thru to Russia by the time of Stalingrad.
Stop you hubris. America would not have landed in Europe without the UK as well, just like the UK would have had serious problems without its friends like Canada and the rest of Empire helping it from day one.
Hardly matters. a 100 MT bomb wouldn't destroy Texas. Or England. Or France.
And please tell me that a 10T rocket carrying a 10T bomb was a typo. Or are our glorious editors unable to count, as well as being unable to edit?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why would humans create a weapon like that? :(
Nobody in their right state of mind wants it to be used.
If it is ever used, it could mean the end of the world is nigh.
Why would anyone invest the resources in developing such a weapon?
Fuck the Russians, and the Americans, and the defense departments, and the technicians and engineers willing to take on such a job, and the generals and presidents commissioning such a thing. You are all assholes.
You are an idiot if you think "that safe and technology loaded western lifestyle" has even meaning in the vast majority of the World.
America, as any dominating nation, fucks up the World to protect its interests. Don't be naive as to think America is doing everyone a favor or something like that.
Because they want to remain a sovereign nation going their own way
Which is why Russia is invading Ukraine and supporting terrorists when Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with the West, right? Because the sovereign nation of Ukraine didn't want to live under the thumb of Russia any longer.
Why the fuck the rest of the European leaders don't go the same way as Russia I have no fucking clue.
Because people don't want to live under a dictatorship where the guy at the top can steal your business on a whim and hand it over to one of his oligarch friends.
Nor do they want to live in a place where the dictator decides who can and cannot run for political office and where, if you become too popular with the people or reveal the corruption endemic in his rule, he'll have you killed.
If you can't see the obvious, you might be a Russian troll.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
You say that like the other two are a significant improvement.
If Putin doesn't want 1941 to happen again - or rather, don't want to be embroiled again in a terrible war, - why is his regime trying to make enemies of the most powerful nations in the world?
As little as four years ago, Russia was a moderately respected nation about which our major beefs were homophobia and an apparently state sponsored murder of a former citizen on foreign soil. Now it's government is lying about its involvement in shooting down planes full of civilians, building giant bombs, and, whether the Russian government hacked US emails or not, Putin's assets have certainly been out in front making use of the leaked materials in an obvious effort to smear the likely winner of the current US election - from "reporting" on emails depicted as critical of Clinton sent by her friends that were actually forwarded news articles to publishing doctored copies with faked headers in an attempt to make Clinton look like a racist.
This is not the behavior of a country worried about war. It's the behavior of a demagogue eager to make war more likely.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I don't think a global nuclear was is likely. I think it's more likely that a small state actor that has nuclear weapons ends up getting hit in a pre-emptive or punitive strike for credibly threatening or actually using one against the US or Russia in a single strike.
Should that happen, it seems unlikely that a major nuclear power would risk some kind of retaliation what would surely end up mutual destruction.
I also doubt that any small state actor, no matter how apparently crazy, would try to do so because you just can't fight and win a nuclear war with Russia, China or the US. The Iranians or the North Koreans simply lack the ability to hit a major player hard enough to prevent an overwhelming retaliatory strike that would be the end of the regime and knock back the country's development by at least 500 years.
If we didn't have a nuclear war in the early 1960s, we aren't having one now.
Yep, thanks for NTSC, 110V AC, and most importantly feet and inches.
"I hate America!" he said, on an American-built website, on American server, using American-designed hardware, with his American-designed cell phone, running an American made OS, via the American Internet they gave to the world.
Go fuck yourself.
-America
Let the migration statistics for Russia answer this question for you.
http://www.lucify.com/the-flow-towards-europe/
All of which was built in China / Korea ^.^
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
"I hate America!" he said, on an American-built website, on American server, using American-designed hardware, with his American-designed cell phone, running an American made OS, via the American Internet they gave to the world.
Go fuck yourself.
-America
I AM AMERICA AND SO CAN YOU
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It might also be the behavior of a leadership trying to distract its citizens from realizing there are severe internal economic problems by pointing at the nasty, evil outside world threatening their way of life, and the leaders need to do things to stop the threat.
Hmm, now where have I heard that before....
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
My guess? Putin does it to distract his own people from the internal problems.
Do you not listen to the guy yourself? Do you actually see a well adjusted human being that would be a good President? I am curious because I don't need the media to tell me he is a self centered, egocentric, narcissistic douchebag that will run the country and a good chunk of the world with it into the ground.
That's indeed the kind of ideas that is now floating around. I rank it in the category of Iraq coming to kill us all, with the same combination of inflating the threat and at the same time regarding the opponent as a pushover. I think Colin Powell has made some sensible comments on that. Russia is paranoid about us, about NATO. We scare them. They are a small power, we're a big one that is surrounding them more and more, and then sabre rattling is a sensible response. You may think they're wrong but you should at least listen to what they're thinking. Apparently that is not happening at all, while the wartalk on this side is increasing, by politicians because it makes them popular,and by the military because of budgetary reasons. And that makes for very dangerous times.
So these are the only two options? Hoping the lesser evil wins? That is how the US got in this mess in the first place.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Nearly everything the mainstream news has been feeding you about Trump is either taken out of context, twisted, or just an outright lie.
Nice troll. There's almost nothing about Trump that is out of context. He's the one putting it all out there like a monkey flinging poo. You have to be either a troll or a completely moronic fanboi to actually believe that statement.
I'm amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by lies that come from so-called experts that the media routinely trots out on stage.
You support Trump and you're complaining about people easily manipulated by lies? Hahahahaha.... I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. That's one of the more astonishingly stupid things I've read in quite a while. Let me guess, you think folks like Hannity and Coulter are telling you the gospel truth too, right?
Ballistic setups are old tech. Even if you outfit them with maneuverable warheads, some of todays systems we're using to knock them down are maneuverable as well post launch. We have multiple to choose from. Patriot, THAAD, and pretty much any naval ship ( or shore installation ) outfitted with Aegis and SM-3 interceptors. It will not be long before directed energy weapons or rail-gun tech is fielded rendering pretty much anything incoming with a radar signature obsolete.
So we basically have a giant missile. The US MX-Peacekeeper had similar specs from 1986 - 2005. We decommissioned them in favor of smaller units that we can hide on submarines and super sneaky cruise missiles instead. Note, it's difficult to move giant ass heavy missiles. They tend to live out their lives in silos. Besides, MAD is very much alive and well in the 21st century. The major powers understand that using nukes on anyone else all but guarantees the target will return the favor before the first missiles even reach their apex.
In short, Russia now has a shiny new ballistic missile that has similar characteristics of a missile we first fielded thirty years ago. The only new component being the currently-theoretical maneuverable re-entry vehicles.
I don't see where this really changes anything other than the fact that all the old treaties prohibiting these things are pretty much off the table now. Though I doubt they were ever worth the paper they were printed on to begin with.
If you want your voice heard, you should probably vote for the person who you align with best.
Or to put it another way, you wouldn't tell a Trump voter in Massachusetts not to vote. Trump has a zero percent chance of winning in Massachusetts, but millions will still vote for him even though their vote is "wasted". You can say the same thing about Hillary voters in much of the south. Their candidate can't win in their state, but they'll still go out to the polls and make their voice heard.
The two-party lock-in is pure rhetorical garbage. I can't in good conscience vote for a completely unqualified demagogue or someone who is the closest thing to a living embodiment of the establishment.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The web was invented by tim berniers lee, a brit working in cern, a european city.
"I don't personally know a single Trump voter who isn't a racist or a sexist."
So let's see if I've got this right. You don't know any Trump voters? Somebody I work with summed it up nicely. I'm going to vote Trump, I'm not thrilled about it, I'm not proud about it, I'm not going to broadcast it to the world, but for as bad as he is, he's a damn sight better than Clinton.
And I've been thinking about it. Who you view worse depends on your view of political correctness and corruption. If you think political correctness is important (view being unoffensive and standing up for social causes as the height of importance) and you may not be thrilled about corruption but will deal with it, you support Clinton. If you're sort of sick of the PC agenda being shoved down your throat but are incredibly pissed off about corruption in politics, you support Trump. And I know you're going to try to point out how corrupt Trump is with his business deals, but remember, corruption requires political power, and as much as you may not like how he does business deals, he's never held political office so has never been in a position to demonstrate corruption. And Clinton....well, when the FBI said she shouldn't be charged on a gross negligence charge because she didn't intend to commit gross negligence, well, those of us who can't stand corruption were just left with our jaws dropped unable to believe just how far the corruption went.
Nearly everything the mainstream news has been feeding you about Trump is either taken out of context, twisted, or just an outright lie. Assuming that people are only voting for him because they are "racist, sexist morons" is childish, simplistic thinking at its height that was also programmed into you through the media by those currently in power.
I'm amazed at how otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by lies that come from so-called experts that the media routinely trots out on stage.
Lets assume for the moment that all of that is true, even a cursory review of his speeches shows that is lacking in emotional stability, easily riled, not interested in changing his position when factual information is presented, and knows very little about the constitution (i.e. a president appointing a special prosecutor goes against the separation of powers). I would think that any one of these would be a red flag no matter what your position is on the issues.
What you are saying is that voters should ignore these very real concerns and assume that it will all work out in the end...
They did send in their military, that's who the "Little Green Men" were. Even Putin has publicly admitted this. The "vote" was held under occupation, not internationally recognized, boycotted by significant segments of the population, and even Russia at one point accidentally released the "real" numbers from the vote which didn't match the official ones.
Do recall that Russia is a country where Chechnya "voted for" United Russia (Putin's Party) 99% in 2001. Some parts of Grozny voted for "The Butcher of Grozny" by well over 100%. You seriously think that's legit?
Amazing how many apologists for Russia there are here. False equivalencies are clearly alive and well.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
At least Russia didn't sell weapons / training to the Afghan mujahideen, the Saudis, most of the dictators in latin america for the past couple centuries, or Syran opposition who openly collaborate with terrorists.
This space intentionally left blank
This is the most massive case of projection I've ever seen. Who's Trump going to start the war with? Russia shouldn't be an enemy. China? They're run by engineers, you couldn't start a nuclear war with them if you tried.
On the other hand, Hillary took the initiative in starting wars, the Libyan civil war comes to mind. She also represents the interests of the banks, the arms manufacturers, and the Washington DC establishment. You know, the ones who continually demand that wars start.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
How would you know? Seriously, this is not trolling. How many countries has Russia invaded for profit or global politics and how many did the USA? Who used nuclear bombs on civilians? When has Russia ruled the world so that we cab compare?
It seems to me that the old-fashioned communists in Russia [and their modern day descendants] were much worse towards their population that towards foreigners, whereas USA seems to be the reverse. As I a neither American nor Russian, I prefer the Russian way.
Russia warned many times after the end of the [first?] Cold War that the West is constantly moving goalposts and breaks agreements about military bases, NATO membership and the like.....sorry but the most serious Western analysts agree with this [Google it, it is true, the West admits they did not handle their victory from the Cold War very well].
I am not fond of the Russians at all - at the end they occupied my country for half a century and installed totalitarian regime there but let's be a bit more realistic here...
And finally - I am very sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I really hate the Western leaders hypocrisy and constant masking of blatant power grabs with words as "humanitarian", "democracy" and so on...in contrast Putin [although being also a liar, of course] appears way more honest in his motives and explanations - "you do this, I kick your ass" instead of "if you build that oil-pipe I'll bomb you for democracy". I mean just look at the name of this weapon - no masking, no rosy glasses, no BS. It is Satan, period. A similar weapon in USA will be called "peace maker" or "bringer of democracy"
I don't personally know a single Trump voter who isn't a racist or a sexist. I'm not saying there aren't some out there, surely there must be, but there's a reason why most of these scandals haven't hurt him more than about 5% points. It's because most of his supporters are proud of his transgressions. If Trump came out in favor of reintroducing segregation, he wouldn't lose many supporters.
I actually have a lot of friends and family (male & female) that are supporting Trump, and NONE of them are sexist or racist to my knowledge.The thing they have in common isn't that they like Trump, it's that no matter how much of a clown they see him as, the see Hillary to be worse. I think people in both camps aren't voting for their candidate as much as they are voting against the other one.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
hillary didnt accept the 2000 election for years afterwards..... in case you didnt know that so by your logic you cannot vote for her
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If Trump came out in favor of reintroducing segregation, he wouldn't lose many supporters. It shows what a bad state our country is in that such a man has such a large following. Racism is still a huge problem in our country.
except for BLM is already advocating for segregation (black only dorms, back only safe spaces) and hillary supports that
so hillary is literally supporting segregation now..... should we simply ignore that like you have and make assumptions that have no basis in reality???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Russia has a GDP roughly equivalent to Italy. They aren't exactly "the largest in the world".
You're talking like Putin isn't the madman.
Note: I don't think he's a madman - he's too smart to actually go down the road to a full-on military engagement against NATO. I do, however, think he is beating the nationalist drum in order to bring back the glory days of the USSR that everyone seems to remember without also remembering the crushing human rights violations, the starvation and bread lines, and the ever-looming threat of nuclear oblivion between the Soviets and the West.
For the millenials that have no idea what Soviet Russia was about: everything sounds nice and rosy until you find yourself being forced into being a farmer because that's what some bureaucrat designated you as. Don't like it? Better not say anything about it, or you're off to a gulag in the next purge.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If your tiny little syphilitic Eurobrains can't handle that, by all means keep using your soft, pussy-ass metric system.
It is pretty much this unlikely combination of arrogance and ignorance that much of the rest of the world considers "uniquely American".
Also, doing the right thing -- for the wrong reasons, after having tried everything else.
Well, more accurately it would be an American-built website, on a Taiwanese-made server, using Taiwanese-designed hardware, running a Finnish operating system, with his American designed cellphone made in China, running a Finnish operating system...
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It seems to me that the old-fashioned communists in Russia [and their modern day descendants] were much worse towards their population that towards foreigners
except for Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.. and every other country that they were able to occupy.
I don't know what kind of world revisionist history you've been smoking but if you can't tell the difference between what happened in western and eastern Europe after WW2 then there is no reason to discuss anything. No one can argue with that kind of crazy.
once more into the breach
Better than Hillary who will take us to war with Russia and give them a chance to use this thing.
At least Russia didn't sell weapons / training to the Afghan mujahideen, the Saudis, most of the dictators in latin america for the past couple centuries, or Syran opposition who openly collaborate with terrorists.
Ah, yes, Russia the good guy that never sells weapons to morally questionable governments. Actually they just recently made deals to sell weapons to the Saudis and have also sold weapons to Iran, they have sold weapons to S-America: Venezuela, Peru, they sold plenty of weapons to Cuba during the past few decades (not sure where you are going with centuries there) as well as the mafia that passes for Syria's government, the Genocidal maniacs that pass for Sudan's government, the Junta in Myanmar... would you like me to go on?
Syria invited the Russians.
Sure. But effectively destroying a country as an entity is one thing. "Wiping out an area the size of" a country is something else entirely. And the text specifies the latter. And I'm not even convinced that destroying a countries 15 largest cities would totally destroy it as a country. See, for example, the still very much in existence countries that had many of their cities wiped out in WW2.
Importantly though, France and the UK have nukes of their own. And if you target the cities with your 15 nukes, you leave the weapons untouched. And if you target the weapons and facilities; not only are the cities untouched, but there's still the nuclear missile submarines that you can't target because you don't know where the hell they are.
Imagine all the people...
Yup it was touch and go whether america would join at all. Just had to wait until the old world powers had bankrupted themselves and destroyed their industry. It all worked out very nicely for the new world order.
The boon of having all the brightest displaced people move to the USA certainly didn't hurt either. The US was at that time, and still is, the safest place to be if you're worried about either terrorism or a real fighting war. The US reaped the benefits of importing a whole lot of german engineers and scientists for decades. Too bad we lost our balls at some point and are afraid of immigrants now.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
But the Euromaidan protests were sponsored by western governments and NGOs.
Hello Russian troll! How's the weather in St. Petersburg? Getting your daily vodka allotment?
No one in the West, especially NGOs, sponsored the Ukrainian protests over Yanukovych's refusal to listen to the people. Your repeated lies about supposed billions of dollars used in this endeavor are nothing but fantasy and delusional rantings of drunk, paid trolls such as yourself.
Ukraine wanted to go their own way and have closer trade relations with Russia rather than the crumbling EU
Once again, more delusional rantings. The people of Ukraine made it very clear they wanted closer ties with the EU and the West in general. They saw the prosperity, and freedoms, which exist in an open society compared to the oppression and repression which exists in Russia under Putin's regime and wanted to experience the same.
When Yanukovych ignored the will of the people he then ordered his Berkut security forces to murder the protestors, then fled into the arms of Putin for protection, taking with him hundreds of millions of dollars he had stolen from the Ukrainian people.
but you can't act like Russia started it.
False once again. Russia started it when it first tried to bribe Yanukovych then, when the people made it known they didn't want anything to do with the oppression of Russia, Putin then made up the excuse of people who spoke Russian in Ukraine needing his protection.
It was at that point Putin sent his troops into Crimea to steal it, and also sent in Russian troops to prop up the terrorists who were on the verge of defeat in the spring of 2014. We know for an absolute fact Russian troops attacked Ukraine because a) there was a sudden increase of hundreds of dead Russian soldiers being buried, all with their date of death within the span of a few days, b) the terrorists have stated several different times the Russian soldiers saved them from defeat and c) Russian soldiers continue to be killed and captured in Ukraine.
What makes Putin's lie about supposedly defending Russian speakers in Ukraine so laughable is he is persecuting the Tartars in Crimea who want to speak their own language, who want to have their own schools, who want to have their own radio stations. Putin continues to indiscriminately arrest Crimean Tartars and put them in jail for no reason other than they want to speak their own language.
Russia lost. Get over it. The thousands of dead Russian soldiers, the billions Putin has spent invading and now supporting the terrorists, the sanctions, all are taking a toll on Russia. Putin is at a turning point. He has until, roughly, June before Russia will run out of money. Unless he can steal more, Russia will go bankrupt. Even your own Finance Minister says Russia will suffer for twenty years because of the invasion, support of the terrorists and sanctions. Or are you saying your own minister is lying?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
You're welcome for radio,
You mean James Clerk Maxwell wasn't Scottish?
Or are you saying Heinrich Hertz wasn't German?
Or maybe even that Giugliemo Marconi wasn't Italian?
Perhaps I was wrong about Reginald Fessenden's birthplace, Québec, being a province of Canada, and it is in fact a US state?
television,
Facsimile: Alexander Bain (Scotland), improved by Frederick Bakewell (England)
Rasteriser: Paul Julius Gottlieb Nipkov (Germany)
Term "television" coined by Constantin Perskyi (Russia)
Amplification tubes: Lee de Forest (USA), Arthur Korn (Germany) et al
First instantaneous transmission of images: Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier (France?)
CRT: Karl Ferdinand Braun (Germany)
Nipkov disc wireless viewing: Charles Francis Jenkins (USA) and John Logie Baird (Scotland) (independently)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not countries that invent stuff -- it's scientists and engineers. And scientists and engineers don't respect borders, stubbornly sharing knowledge and learning across worldwide networks, and building on each other's successes to make successively greater and greater things. For any country to try to claim any invention as its own is to appeal to ignorance.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
What are you smoking? Even the current mayor of Kiev was directly sponsored by a "NGO" that answers directly to our conservative party and hence Angela Merkel.
Some did, some didn't. Ukraine has been a very divided country in the past 25 years. But apparently for you only one part counts as people.
Even though Yanukovich had it coming, an armed rebellion would be dealt with harshly in every western country. Probably way more harshly than he did. I remember how the peaceful protests in Stuttgart against the planned reconstruction of the central railway station were brutally broken up by the Baden Wuerttemberg police.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap