Technically I suppose Liberia carries the reponsibility; but what does it mean in the real world?

You mean the US will start sinking Russian, Chinese, German, French, Italian, Indian, Japanese, Saudi, Korean and ... US Ships which are flying the Liberian Flag?

I think US can get away with willy nilly sinking of Russian or Chinese or British ships. But considering the extent to which the US political establishment is compromised by corporate insterests it is unlikely to survive sinking of US owned ships :)

It is not hard to defend against these kinds of missiles - when you are all spooled up and expecting an attack. Modern US carrier battle group rely on a number of layer to protect themselves - long range air cover followed by long range, medium range and short range air defense missiles plus point defense artillery, electronic jammers & seducers as well as last ditch target obfuscation. These battlegroups are generally so agile that it is a non trivial problem to find and target them with the degree of accuracy.

Using these against a carrier battle group is not the only option. For instance an Persian-American conflict which sees half a dozen ships hit just out of the territorial waters off San Francisco or New York will likely have a crippling effect on the shipping industry.

A Liberian flagged, British owned, mixed Chinese-Malasian-Indian crewed ship fires Russian missiles at a US carrier? Whose merchant marine are you gonna blow up?

They had to do this for the consumers own good. Do you realize the amount of RDF Apple puts in each iPad? If more than three iPads are brought together in close proximity there it could result in spontaneous reality meltdown!

Adam Showman, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona, says the 'provocative result' raises questions about the evolution of this planet...

.
Adam Showman talking about a provocative result eh? Who is surprised? I mean what else could you expect from the father of all show men?

After the excellent results of lightning war in Poland, France and Russia itself it was reasonable to assume that Germany would not be fighting an attritive war. Was it foolish not to plan for an attritive war in Russia just in case? Sure. But was it insane to disregard it? Surely not in 41. War is a risk, and hitlers decision in 41 was a risky one; but not an insane gamble. That is the only point I am trying to make.

With Russian out of the picture as a major combatant and German focus on any perceived threats from across the channel I posit that Air Superiority and hence Cross Channel Invasion are simply impossible for the allies. With or without a nuclear armed US.

I agree, without lendlease and overlord, Russian triumph would have easily been delayed by an year at the very least. My point is that Lendlease made an signigicant impact because the Eastern Front turned out to be attritive and not the expected blitzkreig victory in 41-42. If Hitlers, fairly reasonable gamble in my view, on the Russian Front had paid off and Russia was knocked out of the war then leadlease would have been moot right? Since Germany failed on the eastern front in 41-42, defeat was again guaranteed irrespective of the leadlease. Hence my assertion that on a grand strategic level nothing that US could do matter, the fulcrum remained the Red Army.

The biggest contribution of the US in ww2 in europe was that it ensured that the Russian Tanks didnt roll upto the atlantic. Ultimate fate of Germany was not in US hands; which brings me back to the original point - German declaration of war on the US was not necessarily a "insane" one.

How is that even legal?

You are looking at the options available to Hitler from a retrospective post war view; i.e already assuming that WW2 would be a war of attrition. From Hitlers point of view being conciliatory and magnanimous to the western democracies was pointless (see his attitude to British Empire and how little dividend it paid him).

In December 41, he was pretty much master of Europe, despite setbacks in the Russian hinterland, it was reasonable and not insane for Hitler to assume that the Russian Campaign would be wrapped up in 42.

If that had happened, and Germany been free to direct its resources west/mediterranian again, there was nothing what so ever to fear from America.

Declaring War on the US did not change his position in Europe much, it would be years till US could make its presence felt in Europe; it would help him in two ways though. Intensify the blockade of UK (which did happen and was again a close run thing) and give Japan a tremendous boost.

And Hitler was right about the impact of making war on US, very little of consequence happened till the middle of 44, by which time his goose was cooked anyways on the Eastern Front (see Bagration) which for Germany in World War 2 was always the field of decision.

Hitlers declaration of war on the US might have been a debatable trade off, it was hardly an insane one.

Regarding Japan, it was a case of devil and the deep blue sea. An oil embargo pretty much forced their hand. It was either cave in and give up the empire or fight for it and sue for peace from an advantageous position.

Regarding negotiated peace, world war 2 was pretty much an anomoly in that the Allies refused to negotiate and demanded unconditional surrender. The norm before before ww2 had always been of wars being concluded with a peace treaty.

You speak as though wars are decided solely by Quatermasters. If you paid any real attention to how close run thing the second world war in europe was, it would disabuse you of the notion that allied victory in Europe was a self evident thing. Yes the axis were poorly placed to fight a drawn out war of attrition (which is when GDP and population come into play), but the German game plan was not to fight a war of attrition but short sharp overwhelming one. It did work very well in France in 40 (it finished so fast the GDP, population etc had no chance to play a part).

Irrespective of what America could do later on, had Germany triumphed in 41 in the east (it was a touch and go business there) for all practical purposes Germany would have won the war.

the ability to hack mech enemies (one character makes a Unix reference)

OK, I'll bite. What was the Unix reference?

I don't think ITAR would apply as no arms or equipment would be traded internationally. What I guess I am asking is if there are any legal reasons that suggests Boeing could invest in BAe or Dassault but not Sukhoi. Given the political climate it would be foolish indeed, as you suggest, for a US arms major to associate with a russian arms manufacturer.

Really? It is a convictable offense under federal laws if a private US corporation invested money in russian arms industry? What laws would be broken?.

Which sounds pretty close to the attitude of the people in the US as well.