Why do they use the term "warfighter" and not the term "soldier?"

All of the are in "direst" need of reform, and most (if not all) are inter-related. You can't just fix one problem and wash your hands of the other ones.

I think that for the US to have beaten the Soviets in placing a man in space, you would have to go further back in time than simply the Ham and Able launches. The Soviets were well ahead of the US primarily due to one man: Korolev. It was his development of the R-7 rocket that accomplished everything. But in April 1957, there was a mishap - an R-7 prototype exploded. Had that (and I do stress here, HAD THAT) been as devastating an explosion as that of the N1 explosion of 1969 and killed Korolev then it is possible that Khrushchev would have lost interest in the ballistic missile program and scrapped it. That would have given the US - which was far more concerned with nuclear capable bombers - time to catch up and potentially surpass the advancements of the Soviets. Eventually, I think, Van Braun would have been given a chance to pull off a stunt like Korolev did and put a satellite into orbit. That being the case, it would have been the Soviets playing catch-up, not the US. It's entirely likely then that the US would have beaten the Soviets to the punch and placed a man into space first. But that's a lot of "ifs," and it is not how history actually turned out. This is just "navel-gazing" and I'm honestly surprised that something like this would turn up on Yahoo News (not that it's the greatest source of news in the world, but still). I think it's time we started looking forward, not backward - at least in terms of space exploration.

So, Paramount runs out and gets themselves a "hot, young, edgy" director in order to take a more than well worn franchise in "new directions". But at the same time the film is a prequel featuring two of the most "historically" well known characters in said fictional universe. What's the point? We all know how it's going to end, assuming they choose to hold continuity and not just rewrite everything to suit their own tastes. But of course they will rewrite everything - I highly doubt that the demographic that Paramount is after wants to see it's virile young heroes dressed in velour shirts. No new fans will be generated by this exercise and all the old ones will become even more alienated. Star Trek is currently something we all look back on with fond memories and I for one would like to keep it that way. Let's put a merciful stake through the heart of this and move along, there's nothing to see here.