It is what allows the Sun to work. It is also known as thermo-nuclear
reaction and in essense is opposite of nuclear decay. Typical fuel
would be
deuterium (aka heavy hydrogen) or tritium (even heavier hydrogen).
Reaction
would produce helium plus enormous amount of energy. There are
thermo-nuclear bombs (pioneered by russians) and they are MUCH more
powerful
than nuclear ones (they actually use a plain nuclear bomb as
‘detonator’).
However there are no practically usable reactors, due to problem of
instability of plasma. If problem was solved, it would open unlimited
sources of energy to mankind. Lots of hydrogen around …
You seem to be mixing the concept of nuclear fusion, and nuclear
synthesis. According to what I have read, synthesis is comprised of the
set of reactions that produce elements heavier than iron. These
reactions yield less energy than they consume (thus producing heavy
elements, and proving to be really sucky for bombs, which in general
should produce more energy than they consume 
.
You seem to be arguing with different aspect of my statement in every
reply.
Last time you said I was forgetting something, this time it is about
me
mentioning luck…
What I implied (and it was deliberately implied) that you were
“forgetting”, was that Russia lost a substantial competition. You had
implied that Americans always seem to “forget” that Russia was first out
of the gate. Well, if you watch a horse race, you probably don’t
remember who was first out of the gate, it’s who crosses the finishing
line that is memorable.
Note, all that has nothing to do at all with my original statement.
You
can’t deny that US education system indeed does skip ‘inconvinient’
parts of
history, like this one. I know because my daughter is in US school.
That can be frustrating, especially, since it makes the ultimate
American win all that much more significant when you realize, how much
ground they made up.
Yugoslavia was defenseless. Not only it was smaller and weaker, it was
also
denied right to import weapons and fuel which it could use for self
defense.
Huh ? You think that when there is a genocidal maniac killing people by
the truckload, and you decide your gonna take him out, that you should
give him weapons and fuel (just to make it a fair fight). That Igor, is
the most insane statement I have ever heard.
May be its regime was guilty of atrocities, but you can’t deny that
when you
drop a bomb on civilian installation there is a chance of killing
innocent
people. Supersophisticated US military also managed to hit chineese
embassy.
Did those people deserve to die?
Your argument is pathetic Igor. We all know that once a war starts
innocent people are going to die. Less people died because the U.S.
undertook the action, than if it did not.
You also can’t deny there are dual standards in US foreign policy. Why
does
not US bomb Israel for systematic openly admitted killings of
palestinians?
Because the Palestinians initiated the terror attacks on the Israelis
?
Of course those palestinians aren’t angels and they do kill Israelis,
but it
is Israel who occupies their land and denies their right for their own
state, isn’t it?
Yes, it is Palestinian land, and while I don’t condone their terrorist
acts I can understand the motivations. I also understand Israels
response.
And kosovars were not exactly angels either, they did
provoke serbs and commited atrocities too, so may be Milosevich had
right to
establish ‘policy of assasinations’ like Israel does?
Israel responds to Palestinian acts, with restraint, not wholescale
genocide, it is easy to see the difference.
Another example, think about Chechnya problem. First russian military
action
was triggered by local authorities imposing ‘Islam law’ and practicing
things like systematic kidnappings of people for ransom and showcasing
heads
of decapitated people on central square of the capital. Then those
people
hijacked hospital in Russia and killed hundreds of helpless patients
in
cold blood. They also blew residential buildings in Moscow which
caused
hundreds of deaths. They hijacked numerous planes and buses. However
US
was very concerned about Russia denying their rights and members of US
congress accepted delegation of rebels. When Russia was talking about
international terrorism (there are foreign mercenaries in Chechnya)
commiting an act of war against it, words practically fell on deaf
ears of
western leaders.
Actually, the U.S. was very “tolerant” of Russian activity in Chechnya.
I believe that if Russia, had taken the time to muster support (as the
U.S. is doing now) that they would have been assisted in dealing with
Chechnya. Granted it is harder for Russia to “sway opinion” than the
U.S. is (with it’s huge economic power), but I remember arguing with
people who were horrified at what Russia was doing in Chechnya (my
position: Russia was completely justified in their actions). The vast
majority of the people in the U.S. government concured with my view.
Does not that look at least a little dual-standard?
No, although, it does look like the press was a lot less interested in
it, than they were in the current situation.
Just how much US valued human life when they decided to drop nukes at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I would understand if they were military
bases, but
they were just cities with mostly civilian population. Hundreds of
thousands
of innocent people were indiscriminately vaporised in a second and
generations had to suffer later. Of course there was a war and
japanese
attacked first, but they struck a navy base. If you ask me, nuclear
bombing was ‘crime against humanity’. If US wanted to end war sooner
and
thus save lives by demonstrating its mighty power (one very popular
explanation), it could choose some more reasonable target, could it?
See my other post, where I go into this in depth.
This is an interesting point. May be you are right, although I suspect
case
with India was considerably simpler. It was classical colony, and
Britain
had no rights there other than colonial rights. Israel can’t just
‘free a
colony’. I suppose Britain would not conceede so easily if India
demanded to
make East London their capital.
Nonsense. Israel was clearly willing to trade land for peace, if it
wasn’t for radical elements of the Palestinian community there would be
a Palestine today (granted it wouldn’t be the same as the original
Palestine, and sure, the Palestinians are entitled to all of their
land back, but the bottom line is they’d be a lot better off).
And speaking about wisdom of Ghandi, why that wisdom did not help them
to
settle Kashemir issue with Pakistan over last 50 years?
You don’t see Ghandi around do you ?
You can’t really get it unless you are capable of putting yourself
into
‘their shoes’. Imagine yourself a kid in a class. There’s bunch of
others,
but there one who just goes and goes and goes about how Great he is,
how
he’s The Best, how Generous he is, how all of them are really in Debt
to
him, how Important he is, how he’s an Example for all of them, how he
should
keep them all under Control so they don’t dare to challenge his way of
life…
I can see this kid, being ignored, not killed.
How popular you think he’d be among the crowd? Funny thing is, that is
actually understood by some americans too.
As I said before, I understand how that translates into dislike, not
hatred.
… The
author
apparently understood quite well why nearly everyone would love to
hate US.
But then he told ‘it is okay with us, because we can kick everyone’s
ass and
frankly, we like it that way’.
Well, I never said all Americans were smart. This guy apparently has
the same intellect as the people who flew into the WTC.
Anyone wanting to tell me to shut up