It's not going to get any better either. Not with the way environmental crisis's builds up due to global warming, scarcity of water and topsoil, seasons changing, floods and droughts, small arm wars, etc etc. The temptation to make one 'small' nuclear 'stand' in a otherwise unwinnable war will build up. maybe not this time, but the next.
As a result Sweden was unable to defend its own policy on the use of nuclear recently. It's hidden by a lot of formalistic sentences discussing what it would mean practically but as we now, more or less, joined NATO it becomes harder and harder to hold a own policy when it comes to nuclear armaments. It's geopolitics and as we say in Sweden 'real politik' that defines it. =
I think there are clear trends. One of them is the idea of 'smart' small nuclear devices. That's USA, Russia still use the idea of overwhelming force as far as I've read, including nuclear. That doesn't mean that they aren't prepared to use small nuclear devices but as a guess they will let USA take the first step there. What it will do the rest of the world, especially those Country's that refused to build their own, as Sweden? Mr Trump is quite close to open Pandora's box with his intentions on Iran, because that's definitely a unwinnable war conventionally.
" This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and it provides considerations for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational forces, and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs), and prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and orders. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of objectives. "
" Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict." from " Nuclear Operations" https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf
I don't know. I wouldn't like to put a God to the questions asked at the Nuremberg trials. I find us unable to understand ourselves, and if that is made into the image of a God? Nah, that kind of God is no good.
It seems to me that if there exist 'instants' one then will need to refer to them as some sort of 'quanta' of time? It's also so that even though you locally can define a clock that doesn't 'lie' to you, you can't define those time intervals as a 'global standard'. Not if you go by main stream definitions anyway. We do use standards as the cm or the second and expect them to be the same locally defined, no matter ones relative motion, but I don't think the same will hold in a acceleration. = Actually hose standards seems questionable even in a uniform motion to me. What it could be seen to build on is the idea of there being no way to differ a uniform 'relative' motion from being still, locally defined. But we have different uniform motions proof able, and with it we must have LorentzFitzgerald contractions and time dilation's. To change that you need to change the way we define a universe, making all local definitions equivalent. If you can do that I would be very interested.
I haven't taken your test. It's not a test, it's an idea, or a formula, building on a assumption of there existing 'instants' of acceleration in where you can treat those instants as being non accelerating as I read you. " Even though the frame of the traveling twin, since he accelerates during some portion his trip, cannot be an inertial frame, there is, at each instant tof the traveler's life, a unique inertial frame which is momentarily stationary with respect to the traveler at that instant, with a spatial axis pointing in the same direction as the home-twin's spatial axis, and such that the traveler is located at the spatial origin of that frame at that instant."
I'm not saying you can't think that way, but the whole idea of inertial frames seems rather difficult practically to me.
In the first mindset where the end justify the means you should count in those manipulating global warming and environmentalism for their own purposes. suggesting for example that underdeveloped countries are to blame as they make too many kids. If you look at your own country I'm sure you will find a rapid decline in births between 1800 to now. That's not because your country was better equipped to understand overpopulation and somehow could see what it would lead to. That's just a effect any industrialized society have if you look at birth rates for them. It also connect to what safety net exist around a society, as a lot of kids was a sort of insurance against old age with a lot of them dying before reaching a age where they could support their parents. You can also connect it to religious teachings, and then look at your own country's population. How many of them share those old fashioned beliefs today? =