You need problems first in order to have solutions. For example, this article is about how 1.5 C rise in temperature is supposed to be bad with all sorts of "negative impacts", but there's no actual evidence for the claim. Providing solutions to non-problems doesn't help anyone.

Nor do we have a sane plan for keeping temperature rise below 1.5 C. Note that you won't get the US, China, Russia, or OPEC on board.

Because most of the deaths were Ukrainian as reported by Wikipedia's sources. And Ukrainians would have died elsewhere than just in the Ukraine. A lot of people had been moved around during this period.

Second, I find it interesting that considerable argument has been put forth that there was a weather/climate contribution to the Holodomor, but no one can say what this contribution was. Along this vein, I see no evidence that Romania was suffering from this famine despite being right next to the Ukraine. Instead, their cereal production was higher in 1933 (which would have been the peak of the famine) than in 1932, despite a nasty economic depression.

Those "territorial variations" ended up with Ukraine getting much harder than anywhere else.

This is an interesting rationalization. We have here the bald assertions that Russia had to starve Ukrainians in order to have industrial technologies and that there had to be "destruction of peasantry" resulting in "masses of hungry industrial workers" in order to survive WWII.

The US went through trying times too during that part of history, but they didn't have to starve millions of an uppity ethnic group in order to survive those times.

You just went well beyond calling it a "practical weapon". So I think the original poster's argument remains intact. It's not a perfect mass murderer's weapon for several obvious reasons.

Except when it's not, of course. Fascism really is about pursuit of power. How that pursuit gets rationalized can be left or right-wing.

They're encrypted, TDRSS communications is routed through US military infrastructure, and the US military is the primary user of the system. There might not be much secret about the TDRSS system and protocols, but a lot of stuff associated with it is secret (in the sense of (IMHO legitimately) classified as secret).

I was expecting actual warnings about hyperbolic space.

No, the US, a racist country, doesn't want its stuff stolen by China, another racist country. Given that the US already works with Russia, Japan, and the ESA countries, which are all racist countries, I'm sure something can be arranged. Probably what would happen is that the relatively secret stuff that the US has on the ISS like the communication system (TRDSS) will either be opened up or a few wheels will be reinvented in order to eliminate a good portion of the stuff that China would want to steal.

Moving on, I think the real problem with this concept is how badly the ISS turned out. It's an awful lot of money spent for little outcome. I suspect that the parties involved would both want a bigger and flashier space station than the ISS, would want the US to pay most of the cost, and there would be the same massive inefficiencies, vast cost overruns, and corruption as were present in ISS

I agree, but there is a reason for it to happen. Namely, such corruption and inefficiency can get in the way of other powerful interests. My view is that there are some parties that need the Air Force to have better space capabilities and the ULA just wasn't delivering on that.

Let's not get hasty here. There's a reason I'm a fan of SpaceX, but not of the ULA. Sure, you might be right. But it also might be a way for the ULA getting to compromise SpaceX's competitiveness, at least in Air Force contracts.

Because the military industrial complex wants less subsidies.

We've had orders of magnitude more than 27,000 years of human flight, FYI. I'd say that there are probably a few tens of thousands of airplanes in the air at any given time. Meaning that we're accumulating about that much flight time every year.

This isn't an argument you will win. If we can't accept the past few centuries of history because it is less than a few thousand years, then we can't accept those few thousand years, because they're less than the few tens of thousands of years of cro-magnon man and so on. It's no longer the age of spear chucking empires. Something has changed.

That's the oddest way to state such things. Those mean, ole Koch brothers are getting away with spending one or two orders of magnitude less than their opposition because they're rich. We're also ignoring that a lot of their money goings into weird games which just don't get them anywhere. There's a better way to put this. Their money is spent just as terribly as their oppositions' money, but the ideas that they frequently back, such as liberty, personal responsibility, and less government meddling resonate with a lot of people these days.

I don't consider you capable of deciding who is rich. And why shouldn't the rich or anyone else for that matter not want more. Your sane "standards" aren't feeding anyone.

Well, they can't possibly have more than three times their fair share just due to the size of the wedge.