Geoengineering is a field dedicated to exactly that - mitigating climate change by modifying solar input and so forth.
Basically, the Republicans have been shooting the environment and now want to ban tourniquets and sutures.
Geoengineering is a field dedicated to exactly that - mitigating climate change by modifying solar input and so forth.
Basically, the Republicans have been shooting the environment and now want to ban tourniquets and sutures.
Maybe this is because China just said they needed Russia to win? Trump's got an obsession with opposing China.
Or maybe it's just the way the mush inside Trump's skull happened to flow this particular day.
Next headline up: Taliban sends troops to Kursk to support Russian defenders there.
This timeline just keeps getting weirder.
Now make the exact same meme but substitute "AI training" for "piracy" and watch the downvotes flow in.
If you asked "what do Holocaust deniers believe" I would expect answers like this.
Israel: "Hang on, we're not done killing everyone first."
Okay, but not sure what that has to do with my point. It still supports the notion that giving weapons and similar supplies to a party fighting a war involves you in that war.
Iron, aluminium, titanium, oxygen, silicon, phosphorus, potassium, I could go on listing elements at great length. There are plenty of resources out there. Celestial bodies are made of resources. You name it, you can find it out there in various abundances.
Helium-3 is just one of the few things you can find out there that is basically unavailable on Earth. It's myopic to focus solely on that.
I don't care about what international law says, this is what world war means as I understand it. I said that to begin with. International law is often even more nebulous and open to interpretation than most national law given there isn't really a universal framework for adjudicating it.
I'd be curious for a citation, though. I looked for some and found way more instances where international courts and laws held that supplying weapons counted as being involved in a war than the contrary. For example:
I think you've got an overly narrow view of "direct involvement." If I'm in a war with someone and a country tells me "here, take these weapons" and I say "you know I'm going to use these weapons to kill soldiers of the country I'm at war with" and they say "yes, we know. We actually have some specific conditions about how and where you can use these to kill them, and some satellite photos to help you target them" then I'd call that direct involvement. Flesh-and-blood soldiers are only one small part of a nation's military these days and not every part of a military needs to be involved for the military overall to be involved.
I think we're already in it. A world war, as I understand it, is basically just a situation where a variety of alliances and tensions build up until when a war erupts in one spot it rapidly spreads around to involve a large number of countries world-wide. That seems to be the case already, you can easily build a Pepe Silvia wall-of-crazy showing all the connections between Russia and China and Iran and Syria and Israel and Hungary and Ukraine and Belarus and the United States and Taiwan and on and on. The actual shooting pew pew warfare is still relatively confined (though bear in mind that literally a million Russian casualties have happened over a thousands-of-kilometers-long front line riddled with trenches and minefields, which is pretty significant) but all these countries are throwing their weight in on those fights and it's easy to imagine them branching out quite quickly when conditions change.
Nobody's expecting a "machine that can't think straight" to do it. Some people are hoping that a more competent machine will be developed.