The Second World War left many economies in tatters, yet, despite the carnage, some companies managed to thrive in the aftermath of the war.
World War II, like many other wars in history, was a time when a lot of new technology was made quickly. The war started with piston aircraft and ended with fighter planes, rockets, and nuclear weapons.
Aircraft are possibly the most emblematic of all the technology developed during this period. But of all the small and large companies involved in making planes for the war effort on all sides of the conflict, only a handful remained in business after the war’s end. But why? Vahlersvik/iStock.
The protests in China have had no impact on Beijing’s ambitions of world domination. On Tuesday, Chinese jets violated South Korea’s Air defence zone. A Pentagon report further claims China will have 1,500 nuclear warheads by 2035. Priyanka Sharma reports.
#Gravitas #China #Nuclear.
About Channel:
WION The World is One News, examines global issues with in-depth analysis. We provide much more than the news of the day. Our aim to empower people to explore their world. With our Global headquarters in New Delhi, we bring you news on the hour, by the hour. We deliver information that is not biased. We are journalists who are neutral to the core and non-partisan when it comes to the politics of the world. People are tired of biased reportage and we stand for a globalised united world. So for us the World is truly One.
Please keep discussions on this channel clean and respectful and refrain from using racist or sexist slurs as well as personal insults.
The first three warships are being rapidly modified to accept the weapon with the first ready for operation in a little over 12 months the U.K. Ministry of Defence said in a statement.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace revealed the deal during a visit of the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth to Norway this week.
The surface-to-surface strike weapon is being rushed into service in time to meet next year’s pensioning off of the Harpoon missile originally built by McDonnell Douglas before the company was acquired by Boeing.
The future we’ve been waiting for is a little closer.
Recent information from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has revealed that the Pentagon has indeed continued to pursue military-equipped jetpacks.
And now, they seem closer than ever to achieving their goal as they have already awarded contracts to companies to build test prototypes.
British engineer Rolls-Royce has successfully used hydrogen instead of conventional jet fuel to power a modern aircraft engine in a world first for the aviation industry, according to the company.
The ground test, which took place at a government test facility at Boscombe Down, used green hydrogen generated by wind and tidal power from the Orkney Islands in Scotland.
Rolls-Royce used a converted AE 2100-A turboprop engine that powers civil and military aircraft to conduct the test in partnership with easyJet.
China has accelerated its Mighty Dragon, J-20 stealth fighter jet production at top-notch manufacturing facilities in the country to match the U.S.’s air-power technology in the region.
China has recently unveiled its third, and most advanced aircraft carrier, the “Fujian.” But how does it stack up against American aircraft carriers?
China recently hit the headlines with the launch of its third aircraft carrier.
The “Fujian” is China’s most advanced aircraft carrier to date. But how does it stack up against the carriers of the U.S.?
In June 2022, China reportedly launched its third and supposedly most advanced aircraft carrier. Domestically made, this ship, called the “Fujian,” makes China the 4th most potent naval power by its number of aircraft carriers.
The test strengthens Russia’s nuclear command and control systems amid rising tensions with the West.
Russian defense officials are claiming a successful test of the Ilyushin Il-80 deep-sea communication system, allowing the Russian ‘Doomsday’ plane to communicate with deep-sea nuclear submarines in the event of a nuclear war.
According to the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti, the Il-80 ‘Flying Kremlin’ successfully communicated with Russian nuclear submarines located deep underwater using ultra-long wave signals, enabling the Russian President to communicate and coordinate Russian military activity in the event of nuclear conflict.
Do you think the image of Elon Musk as a good human being should come to be questioned when he’s a major contractor of the war machine? What are your thoughts?
AUSTIN, TEXAS – Elon Musk’s proposed takeover of Twitter has ruffled many feathers among professional commentators. “Musk is the wrong leader for Twitter’s vital mission,” read one Bloomberg headline. The network also insisted, “Nothing in the Tesla CEO’s track record suggests he will be a careful steward of an important media property.” “Elon Musk is the last person who should take over Twitter,” wrote Max Boot in The Washington Post, explaining that “[h]e seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” The irony of outlets owned by Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos warning of the dangers of permitting a billionaire oligarch to control our media was barely commented upon.
Added to this, a host of celebrities publicly left the social media platform in protest against the proposed $44 billion purchase. This only seemed to confirm to many free speech-minded individuals that the South African billionaire was a renegade outsider on a mission to save the internet from authoritarian elite control (despite the fact that he is borrowing money from the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in order to do so).
The San Francisco Police Department is proposing a new policy that would give robots the license to kill, as reported earlier by Mission Local (via Engadget). The draft policy, which outlines how the SFPD can use military-style weapons, states robots can be “used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweighs any other force option.”
As reported by Mission Local, members of the city’s Board of Supervisors Rules Committee have been reviewing the new equipment policy for several weeks. The original version of the draft didn’t include any language surrounding robots’ use of deadly force until Aaron Peskin, the Dean of the city’s Board of Supervisors, initially added that “robots shall not be used as a Use of Force against any person.”
However, the SFPD returned the draft with a red line crossing out Peskin’s addition, replacing it with the line that gives robots the authority to kill suspects. According to Mission Local, Peskin eventually decided to accept the change because “there could be scenarios where deployment of lethal force was the only option.” San Francisco’s rules committee unanimously approved a version of the draft last week, which will face the Board of Supervisors on November 29th.
