There were contributions from multiple countries. You can point to particular problems that the Russians solved, but also some the the folks in the US solved. And the Germans. (And, IIRC, the French.) If you go back far enough, most of the progress happened in China.

For that matter, I suspect that in the 1700's much of the progress happened in Britain. (Consider "in the rocket's red glare", and there was a lot of work on rockets between ships...often for carrying a line to allow a rescue.)

China is NOT communist. They pretend to be, but they are actually a tyrannical oligarchy. (OTOH, no large government can ever be communist, as the theory doesn't scale beyond around Dunbar's number of people...and that requires a charismatic leader.)

That's a gross overstatement WRT "Russian theory of space travel".

As for the "German engineers", well, that's true. There were US engineers working on rockets, but they were ignored and never funded, so they never developed massive hardware.

If you're not afraid of China, you're a fool. China is potentially the greatest power on the planet. OTOH, the key word there is "potentially". This report is a sign that they are achieving at least part of their potential.

China has the largest population, and has at least SOME tradition of respecting scholarship. The Mandarins were originally scholars more than aristocrats. And it's also got a large number of internal resources that have been excessively mined out.

That said, China also has a history of overly regulatory and corrupt government. That's why the key is "potential".

That's what patents were claimed to be supposed to be. What they have been if baffle-gab lawyer speak. I've looked at a few that should have been intelligible to me, and they weren't. I understood how to do what they claimed to be about, but I couldn't understand the patent.

Not that they *were* aware of, but that they *should* have been aware of. (OTOH, I'm no expert in the field. Possibly it's actually the best design feasible.)

Boeing chose to accept that engine and cowl design. It's not ONLY Southwest maintenance.

If you say "responsibility is mixed", I'll agree, but if you imply that it's not Boeing's fault I'll disagree. If I have a cracked tail light, and it costs a thousand dollars to fix, yeah, it's my fault for not fixing it, but it's also the fault of the guy who designed it to be impossible to maintain.

No, the part he's missing is the idea that one can't model this while ignoring time dilation. Not even approximately accurately.

In a way, you're right. But it's not right to be dismissive of it.

Aether was a concept used to explain certain observed phenomena. So is dark energy (and dark matter). It successfully explains many observations, and ANY replacement theory will need to do at least as well at explaining those observations. Aether encountered Michelsonâ"Morley, which it couldn't explain. It will not be unexpected if dark energy encounters something analogous. But so far there's no alternative that works as well.

Scotland was annexed by force. So was Alsace-Lorraine (multiple times). Then there's Ireland. Nationalists in different countries have different ideas about what the "natural and correct" boundaries are. (And what about Texas and California? Those "revolutions" weren't from the people whose ancestors lived there.)

There's LOTS of other examples. If you say, you think Ukraine has a right to independence. OK. Lots of people agree with that. But lots of Russian nationalists don't. Look up the long and bloody history of "adverse possession".

Are they on state land or federal land? IIUC state laws don't apply to federal land.

Nationalism would be a good enough reason to invade Taiwan were it not (reasonably) strongly defended. And Ukraine was a part of the USSR without causing WWIII. So I don't find your arguments convincing.

Also " In 1885, the Qing empire designated Taiwan as Chinaâ(TM)s 22nd province. ", so calling it a "breakaway province" isn't unreasonable, and a Chinese nationalist could be expected to hold that position without respect to economic or strategic considerations.

Different places have different disasters, but just about everywhere has something or other. Texas has Hurricane driven flooding and tornadoes (though I think in different parts). Also, they've extracted a bunch of oil, so they can EXPECT increased earthquakes and land subsidence. (Those things typically take time to manifest, though, and the earthquakes aren't typically as large.)

Texas is also short on water, which semiconductor plants need. The plant will probably be willing to pay more than some other users, though...so it will be the other users that suffer.

I find Penrose extremely unconvincing. To mention just one problem, consider the thought processes of astronauts in freefall.