One thing about pressuring researchers.

 

Researchers are facing things like unsatisfying at least once in their life. There are always people who say that some research is not necessary, or there is a better place to put their money. Everything that does not support some people's way to see things. Is wasting of taxpayers' money.

When some researchers are making their research for the institutions like parliaments, there is sometimes a misunderstanding that those researchers should support the political atmosphere in that country.  So that thing means that research should support the politics and political line of the members of the parliament. These kinds of things are against the purpose of research. 

The research's purpose is to bring neutral and confirmed information for supporting decision-making. The purpose of research is not to support the political attitudes of people. So this is why people should understand that science and research are not democratic things. Even if we want to believe something, the evidence might be something else. And that evidence might be against the attitudes of most people. 

So the results of the research might be against the things that even researchers self wants to believe. And the results of the research might be against the national interest and even against the will of the big majority. When we are talking about things like national interest and especially national security we must understand a couple of things. 

There are no perfect solutions for those things. And the short-period benefit can also turn against the nation in the long period. When people are making decisions. They should realize that the political atmosphere can change very fast. Nobody can predict what is the great majority's opinion tomorrow. 

Another thing is that we should learn to see things that are happening the day after tomorrow. Some decisions might seem perfect. But they are always causing the counter-reactions. And that means we cannot please everybody in the world. So we should select the allies that are closest to our values. And the same way we should select do we want to make short-period decisions that kick back in the distant future. And believe me, many solutions might be easy to make. But they can turn very complicated and pressuring. 

One of them is to buy energy from a nation that doesn't care about international agreements. There is the possibility that this nation uses energy to pressure its neighbors. When neighbors are not pleased leaders of that country, its energy delivery ends immediately. 

When we think about Putin's way to make international agreements. Those agreements were meant to give Russians time to develop new nuclear weapons. Things like the Novichok strikes showed, that Russia still has a stockpile of chemical weapons. 

We must understand that energy dependence is the thing that attracts the use of that thing as a blackmailing tool. When some nations can use things like energy as a weapon or pressure tools we should understand that state uses energy as that tool 

How oligarchs can topple Putin without official authorities? (Earlier text continues)

The answer is that there is no official way how oligarchs can even topple Putin. The only thing that those people can make is hire contract killers. And that is the worst mistake that those people can do. If the FSB sees that kind of attempt. That thing causes very big troubles. Like ricin poisoning in the streets. 

The oligarchs cannot arrest Putin. They cannot give commands to FSB. Because those people are without official prerogatives they cannot do anything legally. There is no way to resist or even say something that Putin doesn't want to hear. The thing is that the three stages of oligarchs mean that there is no way to make connections with Putin without the middleman. 

The thing is that only the top oligarchs can speak straight with Putin. And the lower-level men must find somebody at a higher level to tell their business to Putin. That thing protects Putin very well against people who want to make something for him. Putin wanted to keep their distance from most oligarchs. But that thing doesn't mean that oligarchs are not under surveillance. 

And nobody allowed to speak against Putin. If some oligarch wants to operate against Putin that person must have access to talk straight with Putin. And what would you think to happen if some friend of Putin would uncover an attempt to topple him? That thing would be a big disappointment. And in that case, the threat to Putin would be personal and concreate. That thing makes Putin a frightening person. 

When we are thinking about the age of Vladimir Putin, nobody lives forever. That means that Putin might have 10-25 years of career before he turns too old being the leader of Russia. And if we think that Putin will rule Russia to the age of 95 all people will turn a little bit paranoid. So there is the possibility that when Putin turns old. That person might start to see conspiracies around him. And that thing can cause very bad problems with social relationships between Putin and his closest friends. 

https://thoughtandmachines.blogspot.com/

Russian stock markets are diving.

Image: https://markets.ft.com/data/world/countries/russia

Russian stock markets are diving. And that thing is a good example of how military actions are affecting the economy. When we are thinking about things like strong leadership and authoritarianism we forget one thing. In an authoritarian nation, the leased has a different position than, in a non-authoritarian nation. 

In an authoritarian government, leadership has a bigger purpose than in a non-authoritarian government. And that thing means that the words of that kind of leader mean bigger things than in a non-authoritarian nation. 

When we are thinking about the crisis there is always the possibility that the investments would be confiscated. And the other thing that causes uncertainty in marketing is the thing that being fellow with the attacker is bad for business. If there will be some kind of sanctions. That means that those investments to the nation that will get sanctions can cause problems for that investor. 

The thing is that uncertainty in the marketing means that the investors will start to remove their investments from that nation. The thing is that people are afraid the authoritarian and violent governments. And that thing means that the investments to the authoritarian nation would be a hard thing for investors. 

Threatening to use force means that other governments must react to that kind of thing. And that means there is the possibility that investments that are made to that country would be withdrawn. The thing is that the marketing statuses tell about the trust for that country. 

Things like corruption and non-predictable actions would destroy the trust. And without trust nobody makes investments. The thing is that there is the possibility that nobody buys products like gas from Russia. The reason for that might be that the customers are afraid. That Russia would cut the energy shipments. If other nations would not follow its orders. 

When we are thinking the words that Nordstream-2 pipeline is a non-political project we must remember one thing. Nordstream-2 is the thing that brings billions of Euros in Russian cash. And those billions are free to use in all projects including nuclear weapon research. This means that all energy shipment contracts have a political dimension. The problem is that if Russia attacks Ukraine, the energy shipments would be a good political weapon in the hands of Russia. 

If Russia attacks there would be problematic things. One of them is the Russian as a business partner. If the Russian government turns very unpopular in the west. That causes problems with Russian investments in western Europe. 

https://gamesandtehories.blogspot.com/

Politics and planes

 

Politics and planes

The nuclear strike capacity is the most calculated firepower on the Earth and this kind of thing are the extreme reasons, why the number of certain aircraft like stealth-bombers and nuclear-capable stealth-attack planes is limited. The way of think in this kind of case is that if some nuclear force is too dominating, that thing would addict to "push the button", and that means that the nuclear strike force must have the opposite force. 

And the idea is that the military threat, what is outside the borders keeps the military force busy, and that way to think keeps the world stable because of military rebellion would cause that foreign forces would start to attack against those troops because they want to eliminate that threat. So this might be the reason, why the military forces have not taken control of Russia or the USA during the Cold War era. But the thing is that public use of power is different than a covert way to control people. 

When we are thinking about the nuclear strike capacity, the primary role of those weapons is to threaten other nations. The nuclear shield would attack every country's very uncomfortable idea and sometimes I have thought that the North-Korean nuclear weapons are like the gift from God for the USA and South-Korea, which would argue their passive attitude to that country by afraid of their nuclear power. So is there something, what is hidden from the public in that program? 

The primary role in the traditional nuclear arsenal is the bombers and other aircraft. Idea is that when those planes are sent to mission, they can also call back, and if the military forces use the ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles)-missiles or any other nuclear missile, there would be no way to call those weapons back, but the modern technology has changed that kind of operative way to think. 

Miniature space shuttles can be used as the orbital version of FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System)

If we are thinking of the stuff like X-37B(1) and MiG-105 (2), those miniature shuttles are suitable for use as the orbital cruise missiles, which can be returned to Earth. They can send to the orbital trajectory, and if the situation requires the use of that kind of system, they can dive to target. 

Sometimes both space shuttles NASA:s shuttles(3) and Soviet "Buran" (4)have been suspected to use as the FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bobardmanent System) (5)-bombers, what can send to the orbiter and equip with those miniature shuttles. That thing allows a very fast attack against targets. There are rumors that somewhere has been created the OBS (Orbital (or Fully Orbital) Bombardment Systems), what would be the satellites, what are equipped with conventional or nuclear bombs. 

Sometimes it is suspected that Northrop-Grumman X-47B (6)has also some kind of space going version, which can be used as the stealth-version of those hypersonic missiles, which will send to orbital, and then they would attack against the targets or return to base if the mission doesn't require attack. 

Hypersonic missiles are deadly even they don't have the warheads. The kinetic energy that has released while the weapon hits the target is extremely high. If the missile hits to aircraft carrier by the speed of Mach 8, that means that the aircraft carrier would vaporize in seconds. The nuclear weapon like hydrogen bomb can be taken in the cargo bay. Also, normal cruise missiles can refuel during the flight and artificial intelligence makes possible to return those weapons to base for service. 

The new robot tankers might be meant for use with those cruise missiles. That kind of system might be the normal Tomahawk missile, what has wheels under them. The thing is that cruise missiles are drones, which are equipped with nuclear and conventional warheads. 

So if we want to equip the drones like Predator with a nuclear warhead we could create the device, what can orbit above the battlefield and then explode their warheads. One suspected weapon, what might have this kind of system is X-47B, which can be equipped with the nuclear bomb, which can either drop to target or detonate internally. 

This kind of system is highly classified, but those platforms would be suitable for that kind of mission. And the thing is that this kind of system can send to the attack by using various platforms. They can use regular runways, aircraft carriers or shoot to space with a rocket. And then those missiles or drones can dive to the target with hypersonic speed. 

(1)

https://www.space.com/25275-x37b-space-plane.html

(2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105

(3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle

(4)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

(5)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

(6)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

Image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/B-2_Spirit_%28cropped%29.jpg

Do you know, what is the ideology of your candidate during the election?

Do you know, what is the ideology of your candidate during the election?

One word more about political commercials, we should know who we are voting, what is the ideology of that group, and what kind of things it supports? The thing is that what if some politician starts to act in parliament against things, what has been promised during the campaign?

The problem with political campaigns is that they are made by the people, who are professional salesmen. They might write speeches to the politician, who might not even think about some things and the thing what those people, who are working in those campaigns are offering is the change to get a place in the political system.

At first, those people must get a candidate, who they would sell to people, who will give votes. Sometimes some people are saying that selling a politician to the people is the same thing as selling soap to customers. But at the first sales team must get a candidate, wh would believe them. And then they must get money for commercials because they must make sure, that people listen to their man. They must confess that their politician has something to give for the regular people.

Regular people are making a decision, who they will vote in the election. So the policy and the promises must be adjusted for pleasing the regular people and financial leaders. The thing is that there are more cleaners that top directors of enterprise companies. And in real elections only the votes, what are given have mean. If some candidate would get more votes than others, that means that the candidate has been elected.

And here I don't write about American way to elect presidents. There the number of electors, who are elected from each state is crucial. That means that the campaign makers are making focus, what states are important to them. And wich states would get less attention. And in the USA the person, who gets fewer votes can be elected to the president if the number of election men would be greater.

And at the last, I must say, that if those people, who would work in the election campaigns get their own man or woman in the top place of the political pyramid, that means that they would get a job, where is a good salary. They would be hired to next campaigns, and that is the reason, why the entire team must and will do their best in those cases.

Aristotle and democracy (What means the term "free men"?)

Aristotle and democracy (What means the term "free men"?)

Aristotle said, that the right to give votes must reserve to "free men" because they have the best knowledge about the things, and then about a thousand years after that the voting right expanded to belong also for free women. And that caused a revolution for democracy, but then we have forgotten something, and that is here in the modern time is still many people, who have not right to give votes in any elections.

Those people are handicapped, ward, underage or foreigners, who would not have citizenship, and that's why those people have not right to vote in elections. And that means that the model of Aristotle is still in power. That kind of action, what is limiting the democracy is meant for protecting the state. And this means that they are so-called "necessary evilness", which means that the state must deny the situation, that two million foreigners would come to its territory and votes to the involved in some other country.

But the question is, why youngsters' opinions about the laws are not ever asked? Maybe there is no time for that. But when we are thinking about democracy, and the principle that vote cannot be bought, the answer is a little bit complicated than we ever thought, and the answer would be that there are people, who would buy votes.

Those people would offer more salary, lower taxes and another kind of thing, but there is one problem, the government would need that money, and even the taxes of salaries would be low, the taxes of the food, fuel and another kind of stuff would rise. And this is one thing, what we cannot even think about. If we would want to crush our political opposition, we might call our leaders as the "expert", and that thing would make those people more trusted in the eyes of the great public than world "leader". "

An "Expert" is one of the worlds, which shows real professionalism, and that would be a really good argument in the political discussions. But when we are thinking about "free men", we must realize that in modern times Aristotle would say "free persons" are only capable individuals for making decisions, because they have "right knowledge". But then we should ask, what exactly means "free person"?

Does that mean some businessman or maybe the specialist of administration? Or is it a person, who is a member of the ring, what makes decisions? And who would get the place in this hypothetical ring? Is that the person, who has the right training, and that training could be free to get. But then we must realize, that the high price of those, maybe administrative training would be a good way to eliminate not wanted persons from that training. This is one point of view of those things.

And censorship is a very bad thing in a democracy. If we are thinking election campaigns is not tolerated to deny to print the campaign material of some candidate by using political arguments, rejecting the offer by using argument, that we don't want to print that material we would be childish. If the price of that material would be so high, that person cannot pay it, that will be a very good alternative for political censorship. In this model, political marketing and campaign commercials would be under the heavy tax. And that would make them very expensive.

But if we would give the announcement, that thing would be tax-free, and then the parties, what are under the power would pay a lower price for their commercials because their commercials are interpreted as the announcements. Because opposition cannot pay the prices, their candidates would not get their commercials to the media. And this is the good and non-violent way to make sure, that the same persons would be in the control of the state.

Every individual in the society maximizes own benefit.

Every individual in the society maximizes own benefit.

The traditional politics is in crisis. The problem is that the candidates are coming more often from the highly trained wealthy families, what already have contacts to the politics. The thing is that those people are promising things, which are accepted by their social network. And the thing what makes this advantage very sad is that the "Game theory" says that every individual automatically maximizes own benefit means that in the worst case the politicians would voting only people, who are from the high-class societies.

When we are talking about the social classes of society, we should mention, what we are meaning when we are using words social and economic class of people? Are we mean people, who have high salaries, or are we mean people, who have high education? Those things are not always mean the same things. And the main problem of politics is that the people, who have high training and high education are voting more often than people, who have low education or low salary.

Why highly educated people are voting more often than uneducated? This is the question, what people are sometimes thinking. And at the same times, we might want to know, why people who are living in higher social position are giving their votes more usual than people, who would not have that position? This is a very interesting thing because giving votes is an only legal way to affect the people, who are sitting in the parliament.

And this thing is also alarming because people are giving votes to similar people, what they are. The thing is that people, who are children of highly educated people, or who have parents, who have a big role in politics are voting very often is that they might know people, who are working in politics.

That thing means that those people understand that there is a mean, who people are voting. This kind of advance, that only highly educated or wealthy people are giving their votes has a very sad influence on politics. If so-called normal people are losing touch with everyday politics that means that the politicians are losing also their touch with everyday life, and the politicians are getting old.

This kind of things is a really bad thing, because if every people, who are voting are giving their votes by following the socio-anthropologic model where people are voting individuals, what is similar with them, that means the politics would turn one-sided. And the dangerous aspect of this advantage is that the people, who would want to become candidates for elections are coming from wealthy and highly educated families.

When we are thinking about the price of the campaigns, there must realize, that the candidates need very strong support for their project. If there is no financial or mental support, the career of the person in politics would stay short. People must dare to make speeches and speak to people if they want to become a member of the parliament. During that process, a person can hear or read very strong criticism and that means that political candidate needs very strong support in the road to parliament.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10984870

The right-wing politics and nationalism

The right-wing politics and nationalism

Right-wing politicians are always connected with the nationalism and another kind of things like militarism. But when we are looking at history, also left-wing movements are supporting military and being even more militaristic than right-wing governments. And as we see in the cases like uniting Germany the same politicians, who were like national heroes, turned to be the most unpopular political leaders in the history, and Helmut Kohl flees from stages in the rain of eggs. But when we are looking at the right-wing government's relationship with independence, we must remember that popularity is a volatile thing.

When the leaders of the government are telling that some nation should make union with another land, and sometimes those leaders are telling that their nations should leave those unions. This is the thing in history, and always there is some argument, what supports those decisions. And the opinion of the journalists has always colored the news about those big things. When we are thinking about the crisis and constitutional problems, we must remember one golden rule: that thing is that also constitution is how we want to read that text.

When we would think that some Great Britain flees from the European Union, we must say, that there might be people, who are willing to begin new discussions with the membership of the same union. This kind of things is typical for the politics of today. And one of the thing, what brings this kind of things in the public is that there are so few things in the world, what are giving topics for media.

One of the major things what gives breaks for military solutions in crisis is that the new nations are joining the "nuclear club", and will to get those armaments are decreasing the will to get military solutions in conflicts. The nuclear weapons have influence, that the leaders of the nations would want to discuss things more than ever before. There are many things changed in the world, and one thing is that the so-called "official press" doesn't control information anymore.

And that brings so-called faked news closer to the normal people than ever before. But one question remains on the air. Why we ever discussed how attitudes of reporters have influenced to the text, what is written about something? There has been news also in respected media which is prejudiced in purpose or without purpose. That means that when we want to believe something very hard, that thing might make us blind. We might not understand that something, what we might think as fact might be an only rumor. And do we ever dare to confess, that we are wrong?

What if something that we have believed as true proven as lie or wrong? Would we want to go to the front of people and say, "I've been wrong in 20 years"? In those cases, the question is about authority. Somehow the attitudes of the community are that elder people are always right. That thing is of course because we need to respect those people, but when they are wrong, and the case is scientifically proven, we must accept that thing.

But would we want to confess that thing to our children? That's another difficult question because that thing would turn the image what we want to give our children different. We would not be perfect anymore. In my childhood were people, who teach that adults were perfect, and they didn't make any mistakes. And in younghood, we hoped to get the same position what our parents had. But then the Internet and social media turned things.

We had the opportunity to check facts from the sources, and that made the first time possible that we were wrong in front of our children. In our younghood, the books, where were information were too high, that we couldn't take them, and suddenly we could get all the information straight from the net, and that turned us erring people. Even if we would not that our children see from the internet how children should make, and we can censor those pages by using authority, we cannot censor the homepages what are telling what is going on on Earth, or what is going on in space programs.

In the past, we could say, that we need that telephone and modem, but then we got high-speed mobile Internet, what made those excuses impossible, and that means we must say that we are right because adults are always right. And sometimes those things cause little bit embarrassing situation when our children open the homepages, where is the data, what is against our opinion.

The errors what was done in the 1970s while planning neighborhoods

The errors what was done in the 1970s while planning neighborhoods

Many problems in modern society are coming from the 1970s when most of the so-called concrete suburbs were built. In that time the planners of the hoods created an idea that people wanted to go home to sleep when they were going home after work, and weekends they spent in the countryside. So in the 1970s, the plans were that people come from the countryside for working to cities for earning money, and when their parents retired those people moved back to the countryside and continued their parents work.

So in that time, there was the only couple of activities in the hoods. There was, of course, pub and other activities were food market. That kind of things brought youngsters to the streets and the youngsters who spent their time while hanging in shopping centers were from the families, where were social problems with the narcotics or alcohol, and this kind of things brought a thing, what is known as social politics in the mind of people.

There were only a little number of youngsters when we are looking at the entirety, who spent their time sniffing the glue and causing troubles, but those youngsters were a very visible part of the society. And of course, they offered work for police what were needed to handle those youngsters, when they caused problems. The problem was the loss of positive activities.

When people realize that the major problem, in that case, there was made community centers for youngsters. But sometimes those places were broken, and the reason was that there were a small group of people, who wanted that the youngsters were hanging in the shopping centers. Those people were drug dealers, who saw those people as potential customers.

So, if the youngsters meet together in some other places like shopping centers, they lose their customers. And that kind of people wants that everybody is hanging at the shopping centers and go to the prisons. But when people are planning how those The problem is that targeting the money and resources in the social developing programs is always compromise. There are two lines in that kind of things.

The people who are believing that the money for social work must be targeted to the masses because they would get the best benefit. Those people believe that there is needed the skateboard ramps and other kinds of things, and that kind of things are working if the youngster has no problems yet. The prevention is in the main role in those cases, and most of the youngsters are not needed for special therapies.

But the common versions of that kind of social policies are not working with youngsters, who have problems and bad feeling. That kind of youngsters needs special therapies, and the major thing is that those people must understand that the individual center model in the social policy is needed in the cases where problems are started to create. And this is the reason, why hybrid models of social politics are needed, and most of the youngsters are not needed special therapies.

The common models can be used to uncover the persons, who are needed therapy. There is one point in therapies, which are targeted to the individuals. People must realize that therapies are effective only if the patient or customer follows the rules, and also medicals are ineffective if the person uses drugs or lots of alcohol during that time, and there is also a thing, that punishments must be things, what are afraid people for making crimes. But the social politics are the best way to prevent problems, which causes millions of Euros bills for society each year in the form of washing houses and course prisons are not a cheap thing.

The writing about the Russian sea routes.

The writing about the Russian sea routes.

How Russia would make a trade or otherwise benefit the western sea routes if it goes to war against Western nations? This is one very big question when we are looking at the news, what are telling about the Russian new naval exercise in the Baltic Sea. If the Russian Navy wants to break to the sea, the Murmansk region would be better placed for that kind of actions, because the open sea would give more room to make movements than the Baltic Sea.

The Russian invasion is a very good threat and at the same time argument for people, who want to return to the past, when people like President of Finland had the right to term people like processors in the office. That kind of rights are somehow interesting because they are telling, that president must hear only things, what that person wants.

The thing is that somebody believes that the Russian naval exercise would give the leaders of the political movements opportunity to go behind those exercises and request that the people should keep their opinions about Russian politics and exercises in their mind. Fear is the best weapon, what mankind has ever created.

And that means that when the newspapers are full of stories about the power and effectiveness of Russian weapons people would believe to shut their mouth because of the fear of the Russian weapons is so high. And of course, there is an international journalist, who would get in trouble, if somebody will write something against the benefit of the Russian state or its benefit. 

This thing brings my mind one very interesting idea, and that is, why those reporters would go to follow those naval exercises? If somebody would feel getting in trouble in some areas, should those places avoid? Why people go to follow that kind of exercises if they are afraid of violence or attack against themselves?

Sometimes I have heard, that this kind of things have been a popular way to make some people keep their mouth shut. The offering self as a hostage would seem nice, but in those cases, a person must be sure, that there is found friends on another side. If there are no friends, there would be a very bad situation, because if somebody else would not care about this person at all. And those cases hurts. But Russia doesn't take hostages, because it has underlined the international contracts about this kind of things.

The problems with image recognition

The problems with image recognition

One problem with the face recognition program is that kind of software, what is used in some controlled situations like unlocking the computers in certain brightness are not suitable for recognizing the people from the streets. And another problem, what has caused problems especially in London and other areas of Great Britain is that the shadows that are falling on the face if people are using caps are making recognition very dangerous.

The problem is that the camera has also problems to get the necessary contrast if the system is looking at black people. When we are thinking about law enforcement and its relationship with minorities, we must face the thing, that many times the member of the minority community is more often stopped than the member of the majority community.

But when we are talking about the recognition system, what is used in Great Britain, I don't know are those databases linked with the systems, what are collecting data from the demonstrations, or drawing support messages for the IRA.  And that kind of things would cause also arresting in that country.

But if the image recognition would able to make so-called "rough selection" it would eliminate the chance to put the cases like shoplifting on the shoulder of some rockers. The system would recognize the clothes and deny false recognition in the cases, where the case is fresh. Sometimes thieves are using tactics, where they would claim that some punk or member of the minority community is the thief, and the artificial intelligence can pick the cases, where the stopped person is totally different looking than the thief.

The thing is that recognizing people from the natural environment is a little bit different than reading the registration plates. The thing is that the sensors are advancing, and the most modern surveillance cameras are also using laser scanners and infrared radiation areas, which makes the recognition more trusting.

The infrared systems can also block weapons like knives and guns, which are hidden under clothes. There is no problem with that kind of things. But there is another problem with image recognition, and that is political. If the image recognition programs are collecting data from multiple nations, that would uncover things, what people might keep undercover. One is that if the person often visits the embassy of Russia, that kind of things would be noticed in the counter-intelligence.

But there is another problem with that kind of things is that if this kind of automatized systems would be trusting in someday, that would cause that some big part of the work of law enforcement will be ended. Even now the system can recognize things like Rasta hair and other rocker styles. And it notices that if the thief of some other tracked person would be a member of some ethnic group.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10861457

What if people have a basic income?

What if people have a basic income?

What if the basic income would concern only the wealthy states like Japanese or some other industrial state citizens?

The wealthiest people in the world own 720 billion dollars, and most of the people would not have money to buy the clothes. So there have been talking that the wealthiest people would give money to those poor people. And that is the question, what is always on the lips of some people.

But there are also politicians, who have given permissions of basic income what concerns only the people, who have the nationality of some western country. In that thing that money would not go to Africa or Asia or Latin America. It would be reserved only to the people, who have the nationality of the European, North American or the wealthy Asian States like Japan, Korean and Singapore citizens. In this case, that money would not help any person outside those countries. What would you think about that?

It's true that this idea would be absurd in the mind of many people because they are afraid that the money to that thing would be taken from taxes, or that income would transfer straight to the prices. But if that thing would not raise prices or taxes, the idea would be very good. There is still one problem, and that is that basic income would cause social problems, if the person, who has problems with alcohol or drugs would get that money.

The money must get from somewhere

The idea of this writing have been got from the film, what is below this text, and that is a very interesting thing. Sometimes politicians and philosophers have been introduced an idea of the basic income every people on this planet, or at least their own country. In the first sign, that would seem a very nice idea, and this is the thing, what many people are thinking when they are talking about this kind of permissions.

But there is one big threat to this kind of thing, and that is connected to economics. That thing is that the money for that project must be taken from someplace, and that might mean that the prices of the entire state would rise the same way, what the basic income would be, and that means that if the basic income would be 500 euros per month, that means that the prices can rise 500 euros. And this makes basic income a very complicated thing.

The money for that thing must take from someplace, and that money is away from some other things, which are also important. In fact, there are people who think that social security is the synonym for the basic income, and they say, that the money, what people can get from social security is the basic income. And here is a thing, what we might think very seriously, because if the idea of basic income would not raise the prices that is a very useful thing, to keep society peaceful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y81BlyTUwNg

Why China is a problematic thing for the Western world?

Why China is a problematic thing for the Western world?

Problem is that China is the biggest homogeneous economical area in the World

China is the biggest authoritarian nation in the world, and it is at the same time the biggest nation and economic area in the world, which makes the relationship to that country very problematic. The thing is that China is a very wanted partner for trade because there are so many people and who would not want to sell products in that state. It has been cheap to make products in China, and that's why in the trade between China and other nations well-known thing has been so-called "tandem actors", where the western corporation develops the product, and then the mass production is transferred to China. And this has been guaranteed good profits for companies.

But the people who are working in the business area with China have not counted, that China would bring its own products to marketing, and the problem in China is that the government is in business as one partner. The thing is that the government officials can make copies of the products, and produce those things in China. Even if in the special economic areas the companies operate like the normal company, the product can take outside from special economic areas, and copied to Chinese national industries.

The problems in the production and developing process is that the government can support the companies straight, and Chinese support the high-class support for high-tech companies and industry is visible in the business environment. There have been massive invests in the training of mathematics and engineering in China, and this thing has been bought the fastest supercomputers to that country, and this would hope to get western scientists to China. In the newest TOP-500 list the fastest supercomputer on Earth is IBM Sierra, but this list would chance very often.

https://www.top500.org/

Advantages in engineering also benefit the Chinese military 

Every Chinese must have a mobile telephone and that has been bought many benefits to people, but also mobile telephones are an extremely good way to surveillance the people. And also PLA (People's Liberation Army) and other Chinese military have benefited about this advantage. They can get mobile devices, which is suitable for the military purpose, and there are some other things, what Chine has made. They have tested their own stealth bombers and hypersonic cruise missiles. And China has been opened the first overseas military base in Africa.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-fuzzy-picture-be-first-glimpse-chinas-h-20-stealth-bomber-41237

This base is probably made to support its interests in South-America and global areas. But it can be used to take virus and bacteria samples to China. Those viruses are the most lethal organisms in the world, and when we are thinking about carrying the DNA or RNA safe way, the genetic code can transfer as the text file in some USB stick, and those organisms can be produced by using the nanomachines in highly secured areas, and those organisms can use to create vaccines. But it's also very easy to weaponize those viruses. If the own military would vaccinate against those organisms, they can be very effective weapons.

Chinese have grown their role in global areas very fast, and they have the potential to sell their knowledge to other counties, which can offer their natural resources for China. And the changing role of China in the international political area forces the western nations to rethink their relationship to the government of China.

About the new right-wing national populist group in the European Parliament

About the new right-wing national populist group in the European Parliament

I just read an interesting tweet from Twitter. That tweet was written by Jyrki J. J Kasvi, and that is there is forming the right-wing populist and nationalist group in the European Union Parliament. And that thing is a very good mark, that also nationalists are integrated into the European Union. Those nationalists are a really interesting part of the politics of the European Union, and the thing what makes them so different than before is that they are operating in the European Union. International nationalism is a new phenomenon in the field of politics.

In the past is the nationalists sat in their own parliaments, and they were only small groups, what had no influence on the politics, or at least the foreign politics those movements had nothing t say. And they were stamped as the far-wing movements, what would not able to create their politics to the high-level influence.



The tools of the makers of the politics are different


But the time is changed, and modern politics is different. When we are talking about hate writings we can justify every writing, what doesn't please us as the "hate writing".  Today the elector has a responsibility to make the decision, is some movement right-wing radical or not. In traditional politics, every new political movement is mentioned as the far-right movement, or otherwise, they are far left movements, if we can trust writings about those things.

Today the far-wing or not tolerated political movements are able to meet the electors. And we are facing the new way to lobbing the politics. That method is different than the hate speeches and Nazi salutes. It's just taking one part of the things in public writings, and there is, of course, many arguments, what is making those movements interesting. One very effective tool is social media, and there the members of those movements can make contacts with the people, and then they can suggest visiting their homepages.

The thing, what makes this little bit dubious is that the contacts are sometimes made to people, who are underage. That means the 15-16  years old youngsters, who would be the voter in the next elections. And those persons are a really good target for the recruiters of the political movements, what is promising "straight acting". And the thing is that populists have always good looking excuses for the militarism and one of them is the threat of terrorism. For the solution of the problems is offered the kicking off foreigners and strong military forces.

The political game with numbers

The political game with numbers

The popularity of Vladimir Putin has been decreased, and maybe the dropping from the 80 to 64 percent would be caused that Putin has hard to explain the demonstrations all around Russia, and it seems better in public media if the number of supporters of the official president is 64 than some 80 percent of the people. This is the thing, what we must understand in the popularity records of the people. The thing is that the lower numbers of the supporters would be lower than 60% is more trustable than some support ratio, what will be near 100%. The trusting and giving the information, what seems trustable and real are the key element in the information operations, and the thing is that 51% of given votes is enough to keep the man in the rule of the nation.

If I will make faked information of the politician or some other person, I would use lower numbers than some 99%. The thing is that if the winner would win by numbers 52-48% that would seem very good in the public network. And the thing is that the person, who has got the support would win the game. That kind of result would give an image of the fair campaign, and the things like 80% support would seem that the race has been fair and the thing is that the "better man wins". In this case, the number of abandoned votes would not be very big.

And in fact, I sometimes think how many politicians have bought their election to parliament by the way, what uses minimum numbers for victory. In the modern days, the attempt to buy the "miscalculation" is quite difficult, because of the Internet, but before global information network would be a possibility to manipulate the numbers of the supporting votes. But there is no evidence that this kind of things has done in western election campaigns.

Writing about the politics in the Crimean peninsula and in the world of nuclear forces

Writing about the politics in the Crimean peninsula and in the world of nuclear forces


The dream of control Crimean peninsula and the traffic in the Black Sea has turned against Russia. The influence of that kind of international acts is that other nations have started to keep Russia as the aggressive and provocative neighbor, and this kind of things are forcing the western nations to go together in military cooperation, and another thing is that the Russian way to talk about their weapons as the strike-equipment, and aggressive way to speak, we must realize that this kind of things are justifying the ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) bases in East Europe.

Those ABM missiles are meant for the protection the NATO, but actually, many writers forget the thing that the same weapons can use against ground targets, as well they can strike against ballistic missiles. When we are thinking about the missiles like THAAD, what has the kinetic energy warhead, those missiles can give the iron projectiles very high speed, and when the steel ball hits the ground with the speed of 15 000 kilometers per hour, the impact energy would terminate the target.

The metal melts as the drop, which consists the melted steel, and that thing could be very devastating against the point targets. The benefit of the THAAD system is that it would not consist the radioactive material, and that means that if those missiles would go in the hands of terrorists, they can use the fuel in the bombs, but the thing is that the destruction is more limited than the use of the nuclear bomb. So the thing is that THAAD cannot use against its creators.

The developing of those missiles started in the 1980s when the MGM-131 Pershing  II missiles wanted to equip with conventional strike capacity. The suitable system for that purpose seemed the iron nails, which would launch against the target. The idea of that weapon was to create the "shotgun-type" system, what can use against enemy airfields and missiles. The system was planned to launch to the opposite direction of the trajectory of the enemy missiles, and the iron projectiles would hit the target with very high speed. That system could be the tactical version of the ballistic missile, which cannot use against its owners. The problem with highly mobilized battlefield systems is that they are good targets for the terrorists, and that's why the military commanders have been searching the replacement options for the highly radioactive isotopes.

The system what was used before THAAD was SPRINT, the ABM system, what was equipped with high yield thermonuclear warhead, what had 5 mt destructive power. The mission of that warhead was to cause the large fireball and powerful EMP pulse, what would damage and vaporize the incoming missiles. But those warheads can be used also against ground troops. The thing was that the nuclear warhead could be dangerous in the wrong hands even if the detonation of the nuclear system would fail, because of the radioactive material would be used in the radioactive bombs. And that's why the military is looking for replacements for those weapons.

When we are talking about the contract, what denies the developing and producing the intermediate range ballistic- and cruise missiles, we must say that the contract does not have an effect if it would just break by every nation, what are involving it. In the real world, the thing is that IRBM missiles and the highly mobile nuclear missile systems need sharp location system if those missiles would be used against hardener silos and other targets.

For the operation, the missile needs two coordinates the beginning coordinate of the flight and the coordinate where to fly. And the GPS would give the first coordinate, where the launcher is, and the second coordinate or the end of the trajectory would come from the intelligence or reconnaissance systems, what are giving the coordinates to the warheads of the missile.

The beginning point of the trajectory is important because that point is used to calculate, how missile must fly to the second point. The GPS is a very effective tool for that purpose because it can give the location to the missile in seconds, and after that, the unit can continue the trip. The entire operation would take only a couple of seconds, and that's why the destroying those missiles would be very difficult, and after the nuclear missiles have flown away, the targets would be destroyed even if the launching vehicles would be destroyed.

And many people think that NATO has more advanced technology in that area than Russia and things like multi-channel communication with packed data packages makes the jamming of that kind of systems very difficult, because of the communication between location satellite and receiving system is happening in very short time periods. Those computerized and highly secured systems are hard to locate because entire communication would be done in a couple of nanoseconds, what is the time for the transmitting the coded data package, that contains the packed and coded location information. And the biometric safety systems makes them useless in the wrong hands. That means if the wrong person takes the device, would the information about that send to the command center.