Hans de Vries

A ship in the 40,000+ t range with 12-16 CIWS would be VERY hard to sink by any aircraft carrier. You'd need a combined force of aircraft from 4+ carriers to sink it. Or 5-10 cruiders and it would still be extremely hard. If the ship operates together with other ships, then it's almost impossible to sink except by a massive force.

Which parts of the brain make up the social brain network which is dysfunctional in autism?

How does it work that in certain individuals some kind of stimulus triggers psychosis? How precisely does a stressful stimulus turn into dopaminergic overactivity in the mesolimbic system?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200615140921.htm Administration of a peptide that changes gut bacteria results in -40% plaque size after 10 weeks although in mice not humans. What do you think of this?

Is that the case? My cousin's son has some kind of mental disturbances (probably conduct disorder) and has shown remarkable carelessness and dangerous behavior since early childhood. My aunt (probably some combination of borderline + ADHD + bipolar) has also shown extremely careless behavior including excessive money spending, loan taking etc etc There has to be some kind of structural abnormalities that causes this kind of stuf

Does the brain predict immediate and long term consequences of actions differently? What abnormalities in the brain can compromose one's ability to predict consequences of actions?

@CharonY is the reason of Muslim countries' poverty in your opinion?

It is not hard to be rich if you're sitting on largest oil reserves in the world.

Easy. Terrorist - a person that engages in violence for the sake of political gain Why wouldn't a wealthier Middle East lead to a happier Middle East? A main part of why the Arab Spring happened had to do with economy. Very similar sort of thing to the one that fuelled support for the Nazis in 1930s Germany

In 1970s it was already clear that Arab Socialism is not delivering the sort of economic success people expected it to deliver. Military failure of the Six Day War contributed to it. For the future the best thing is for Saudi Arabia and allies to stop funding Islamists all around the world.

Yes. When Arab Socialism failed, people started looking at an alternative. Islamism seemed to be the natural answer. You either have to make Arab Socialism much more successful or provide a viable alternative.

Not all Muslim countries are poor. Turkey and Malaysia are not. Iran is also doing a lot of pretty amazing things despite being under an economic blockade for 40 years. The problem is really with Arab countries. Arabic speaking countries have been until recently tribal societies with little in terms of national consciousness among the population. Their borders are also set rather arbitrarily. The Arab Nationalism movement which ws dominant in 1950s-70s had mixed results.

To be more precise "somehwere in between" means "mostly monogamous with occasional polygamy".

Why would US want to invade Canada out of thin air? It had good relations with Canada due to economic and cultural ties.

I think this varies among people probably in a Gaussian way. There are minority of very monogamous people and minority of highly polygamous ones. Most are somehwere in between

Not really since ww1 was mostly caused by two people, Wilhelm II and Conrad von Hotzendorf. Germany itself estimated that by 1916 Russia will be too strong to defeat. If ww1 is avoided for a few more years and there will be a high chance it never happens. Germanyu was the Silicon Valley of early 1900s and it would make the kenel of European integration as it did after ww2

BTW look at how fast the jet aircraft developed after ww2. You went from pretty basic fighters like MiG-15/17 and F-86 in 1950 to Mach 2+ aircraft firing guided missiles in 1960. Basically every jet fighter introduced into service in 1950s was throughly obsolete 5 years after entering service. It is true that the tank developed fast during ww2. However one cannot say that it's development would not be fast without the war as well. Many iconic revolutionary ww2 designs were actually designed BEFORE the war: T-34 designed 1937-39, introduced 1940 Bf-109 introduced in 1937 Sherman designed in 1940 (before US entry into the war) My take is that ww2 just coincided with a period of particularily fast development in certain areas of technology like tanks and aircraft. Without it at worst the development will lag 3-4 years behind which is nothing How sure are you of that? Countries continued development of new tanks after ww1 and they continued to improve. Same is true for fighters - they used to get faster in 1930s until development of engines and mechanical engineering finally allowed monoplanes to become viable

I don't think war itself drives progress. If anything, competition drives progress. During war lots of resources and manpower is spent on producing things which are of no use during peacetime. Just look at how many Shermans and P-51s were scrapped after the war simply because they were not needed anymore. Note that before 20th century the period with fastest technological progress was the period between 1815 and 1914 which saw only a few short wars in Europe. To look at just Germany - German lost 1.7 mln military dead in ww1 and 3.7 mln military dead in ww2. These were all overwhelmingly young men 1000s of whom could have become scientists or inventors. Even further 3.7 mln less men means 3.7 mln less taxpayers, it also means that milions of women never married and had children because there was a shortage of reproducrive age males in he population

BTW Russia has Kirov class battlecruiser which has a displacement of 20,000 t, roughly the same as earliest dreadnaughts. Remember that during ww2 the Yamato required aircraft from 5 carriers and 11 torpedoes to be sunk. And it was all alone without air cover or any other kind of ship around What do you think of something like this? Alexander Kolchak class battleship Displacement: 50,000 t armament - 4x 380 mm L/55 smoothbore gun, autoloader, guided shells with radar, laser or TV guidance - 6x 127 mm L/55 smoothbore gun - 8x CIWS - 144x guided missile cells - nuclear propulsion - active and passive sonar - AESA?PESA radar 500+ km range - 1x helicopter, 4x recon/ASW/EW drones -

I remembered Japan. It literally just seized a single island from Germany in the Pacific so its participation was... quite limited Without Wilhelm II's assurances Austro-Hungary would have not decalred war on Serbia most likely. In Germany itself social democrats were growing in power, Germany would need to transition to a constitutional monarchy roughly in 1918-25

Italy? It was among the winners but considered itself to be a loser. Italy gained nothing from ww1.

It still could not make up for numerical inferiority. Britain had 28 battleships at Jutland vs 16 German ones.

WW2 was a case of losers of ww1 teaming up against the winners to exact revenge. If you look at top Nazis and Fascists (including Hitler and Mussolini) nearly all of them were psychologically troubled people who could not find a place in a peaceful society. So no ww1 automatically means no ww2. Say with a peaceful pacifist Wilhelm II Germany likely becomes the center of science and technology and creates something akin to the European Union at some time in 1920s or 30s

How can it be superior? It was much smaller. At Jutland there were 99 German ships vs 151 British ship Yes the German ships were (likely) slightly more accurate and had stronger systems to pump water out. This still did not make for the numerial inferiority

No chances for a bigger German navy. Germany unlike Britain, has two large neighboors to the west and east + no easily defensible borders like Italy. It needs a large land army. BTW Wilhelm II is probably more responsible for ww1 than anyone else. More precisely his inferiority complex resulting from a withered arm due to birth complications resulted in an extremely strong drive to prove that he's better than George V and can also have a fleet.