Both the US and China sold nuclear power technology to Pakistan, as I recall France also agreed to sell nuclear power tech to Pakistan .. in a deal that fell through because of something (haven't checked history) in France's domestic politics scene(?).

All three countries have denied providing nuclear weapons tech to Pakistan - there is credible history to account for both Pakistan and India to have independantly developed enrichment programs and weapons on their own*.

All things are possible, a plausible explanation for the flurry of accusations against China from 2000 onwards from both the US State Dept. and India was the bald fact that the US, the premier global atomic watchdog, was caught absolutely pants down and blindsided by the events of 1998** ... India detonated a series of nuclear weapons tests and Pakistan responded within 30 days with a slightly longer series ( 5 blasts Vs six in response .. IIRC )

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_d...

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagai-I

U.S. Intelligence and India’s Nuclear Tests: Lessons Learned - https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-672.html

  The U.S. Intelligence Community did not have advance knowledge that India intended to conduct nuclear tests beginning on May 11, 1998.

> Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?

Yeah - the "One Drop" PoV was beyond strange:

  The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

> I thought civil rights was for African Americans?

It was for the benefit of anyone sent to the back of the bus, forced to drink from other fountains, lynched, etc. That included minorities other than "classic Black" and all the people treated as Black despite not appearing black.

I’m confused. From tone you seem to be comparing what I’m saying to the one drop rule as if this doesn’t support what I’m saying, but it does support what I’m saying.

Why are progressives using the one drop rule?

> Why are progressives using the one drop rule?

I suspect you meant to ask "Why are people using the One Drop Rule" ? - in no way is its use exclusive to ( USofA? ) "progressives".

No, I mean it is in line with the general character of conservatives to use the one drop rule, so I’m not surprised if they are using it.

Why are progressives using the one drop rule?

They're not using it directly .. they're part of a wider society that has been using it less and less explicitily for hundreds of years - children speak as their paerents do.

What has faded is the habit of exactly breaking down the bloodlines of anyone of mixed blood - mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon and such terms are no longer in common use in this epoch.

So your theory is that the people who seem to center their worldview on racial equality (along with equality of the sexes) are subconsciously using racist language?

I mean, that’s possible, but I think a more plausible explanation is that the bulk of them are just getting riled up by media and aren’t really paying close attention to what’s going on.

> So your theory is ...

No. That's clearly your framing - don't draw me into your strawman.

> but I think a more plausible explanation is that

Or, that a majority people in the USofA that are described as black in the USofA have embraced that term, own it, and have used Black Twitter etc. while those adjacent to them ( the "progressives" ? ) use that term as for the most part the "black people" are comfortable with and haven't told them to bugger off and stop using it.

As happened with "ginger" and "nagger".

Russia? France? The UK? India? Pakistan? Israel? China?

There are many countries that have used nuclear weapons.

If you're talking about the USofA they didn't try that hard at preventing Iran from enriching - they tore up a perfectly good and well functioning monitoring agreement at the start of Trump's first term.

Those countries have tested nuclear weapons. Only the US has used them.

As an American, i can say that, yes, I want us to be the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons. I don't think that should be a controversial opinion.

As a non-American, I want Americans to quit using their warrior narcissism to ruin the world. I'd like to see you disarmed, personally - your regime is out of control and your nation is in the grips of a psychotic nationalist mental illness episode. Your nation should definitely not have nukes.

I was told he also promised a throwing axe for every grunt and to rid the world of the scourge of marching bands.

Ruins the fun and interrupts instilling respect deep into the bones of interns.

Allegedly

While on "work experience" from high school I was put on washing power lines coming straight out of the local power station near the ocean - lots of salt buildups to clear.

Same deal, flashover suits and occasional arcs .. and much laughter from the ground operators who drifted the work bucket close.

There'd be a suprising number of people that'd go to a Greatest Hits and Homages to the Fairlight CMI concert.

Argueably Jean-Michel Jarre concets were 100% gear-porn shows.

Many airports have intersecting runways to account for changing wind directions.

Are you talking about a two strip airfield on a cattle station in the Northern Territory with once a month traffic, or something else?

Your "gotcha" class question isn't especially well formed.

Everyone is stomping their feet saying the answer should be more than the number which has not yet been disclosed, so we don't know, but yet everyone also refuses to provide a definite number.

So tell me, for an airport that only has two runways which intersect, at LGA's volume, what is the correct number of controllers that should be working that field?

This also assumes the FAA hasn't already done this math and the gaming-chair experts know more than the FAA (which they don't).

In my direct 20 year experience working millions of line kilometres of air survey, zero or one controllers works out just fine.

Again, you haven't sufficiently qualified your questions - it's not about the number of runways.

EDIT: I see you updated your response and added in a nod to traffic volume - that's a good start.

Other factors in this non linear multi factor equation are ... ?

China has a large population and does the dirty work of manufacturing for much of the rest of the entire world.

China has done more for renewable energy solutions than any other country, and their per capita population consumption patterns for personal are lower than many G20 countries.

In a fair representation of data, the total high carbon dioxide output from China should be assigned to source- the people across the globe with high personal consumption that have off shored their industry to China.

500+ years prior the Greeks and Iranians were going at it for half a century in the Greco-Persian Wars (499 BC - 449 BC).

That's, what, 2,000 years before the settlement of Jamestown by Europeans.