Why do they make plastic guns from 3-D printers? aren't there metal printers that would do it?

Absolutely. It is not realistic to expect that fusion is going to magically be a simple cheap fusion source. Its more complex to control then fission, and we could not efficiently exploit all the heat that would be released. We already waste most of the heat produced in nuclear (or fossil fuel) thermal plants, so fusion would produce a lot more wasted heat then fission. I've always been perplexed by people who have thought fusion is so fantastic - we already have a super energy dense fuel that we can safely exploit - nuclear fission. Fusion seem more dangerous, hard to control and not necessarily that much better.

I have 5 and dont play it much. I went back to IV, which I consider to be the still the high point (along with Alpha Centauri) of the franchise. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who was disillusioned with V, my friends like it a lot.

I really wanted to like Gal Civ 2, but it was lacking in fun factor and soul. The combat was terrible, the economy boring. On paper it looked like a great game, but was unfortunately, a nearly unplayable failure. Endless Space is way better. Alpha Centauri had maybe the best quotes of any Civ (or any game ever)

Alpha Centauri gave you a number of ways to win, non-militarily, and there was quite a lot to do without focusing on the military. If you played the Peacekeeper faction, and / or built the wonder to double your votes, and colonized the seas like a madman you could win diplomatically. I'd say a minority of my games were won militarily. Economically the least often, because you had to wait forever to win with money. All multiplayer games are always won only militarily. Humans won't give you the time to win any other way. I played Call to Power, and it was interesting, and a good game, but I would still put Civilization IV, Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion II ahead of it.

I know they say its not Alpha Centauri 2, but thats all it has to be. The original had so much depth and fun, just keep that intact, and don't mess it up, and it will be a brilliant game. Alpha Centauri remains one of the best games in the Civilization world

Iran actually spends less on their military (as a share of GDP) then their neighbours (and obviously) more than the USA, They never start wars. They had indigenous democracy not imposed on them by anyone (until the CIA overthrew the democratic government and put in a monarchy) Iran has been invaded by the USSR, Britain, and most recently Iraq. They may make a lot of noise about Israel, but its just posturing. Iran has never participated in any wars with Israel. When Iran wants to hurt another country, they support their dissidents with money and weapons, they have not gone to war. They support Hezbollah, Assad, and Iraqi Shiites, (and other Shiites) but they are remarkable peaceful in a dangerous neighbourhood. Their nuclear enrichment program was very suspect, but its likely to go the way of Taiwans, Swedens, Argentina's or Iraq's, not: Pakistan or DPRK

on the wikipedia page on the Crimean referendum, there is a pile of pro-Russian voices who are whitewashing the whole affair, claiming the monitors were valid though they were totally biased. Material I put up about the sketchy background of the monitors got repeatedly taken down. Some are Communist Party members, or Russian advocates. It seems clear that Moscow allowed in only a group of voices who would certify their sham referendum. The page does not say how the OSCE monitors were shot at by Pro-Russian militias, and tries to say the whole referendum was super legitimate.

Yes, and the lesson of the Anschluss was that it emboldened Hitler to pursue the Sudetenland. Putin may take the lesson that he has a free hand to deal with the 'near abroad', the former Soviet Republics, at least the non NATO-members. The message was less focused on the West, and more at Astana, Tashkent, Tblisi, Bishkek etc... It is Moldova who is most immediately threatened, as Transdinistria wants a Crimea-style referendum to join Russia. They like Crimea already have Russian troops there since Soviet times, that the Russians have never quite gotten around to withdrawing. (never withdraw from territory if you don't have to was Stalin's thinking)

Many countries are hunting for that money. Canada is trying to seize yanukoych's assets. It may end up like Gaddafi's assets in Canada and South Africa, returned to the Libyan government. A few solid assets for the Ukrainian government would have a bolstering effect, of propping up Kyev's current finances., something they could either liquidate or borrow against.

A nuclear propulsion system is only useful if the carrier is intended to go anywhere. It's mostly likely built to be sunk.

No, training is a very likely activity. I dont know what you mean by surprising a carrier, that doesn't seem to make sense. How exactly do you think a carrier prevents anything from getting close to it? They don't have force fields. A whack of missiles are essentially impossible to prevent from reaching a large target. It makes total sense that they would practice tactics to attack a carrier. Its an effective tactic to practice attacks on mockups before they could imagine they might be able to do it at all effectively. the US, Japan, other countries do these kind of exercises, and sometimes actually sink ships in wargames.

Probably less as a propaganda attempt, and more likely as war exercises. Its a totally logical policy to use mockups as practice. The US and other countries do this all the time. Its probably a very good use of limited Iranian defense money, as it will give them a much better idea of how to attack a carrier in an actual hot conflict.

Are you talking about North Koreas election or the Crimea's? it was about the same level of choice, nowhere could anyone vote to stay with the Ukraine in this sham referendum

did the US annex Iraq or make it a colony? Did they seize its oil and reserve it for Americans? Is Russia going to let Crimea be independent, and make its own decisions as Iraq does? The stupidest argument against standing up to Russian aggression is to say the US has at some points been aggressive. Thats neither here nor there. The question now is about naked expansionist Russian aggression and bullying. In this case, the US is not being a bully and aggressive, but needing for everyone to love her, and not make any difficult decisions that might piss anybody off.