Black Holes

1. I take back what I said about that the singularity being limited in size. However, It could reach a limit.

2. I reckon it is possible to avoid gravitational singularity by pretending that things don't fall in at the same speed or at the same time.

3. Black holes should therefore emit gravitational waves, even though my understanding is not sufficient to show that they exist.

4. If they emit gravitational waves, then this is another energy exit for black holes, other than hawking radiation.

5. Hawking radiation is hardly going to decay those black holes anytime soon. Cosmic background radiation absorbed is typically more than what is emitted.

Mutual Assured Destruction Debate Continued

If the players were really sane, mutual assured destruction would not be considered a reasonable option. It's not even war. It's a "crime against humanity" many orders of ridiculous magnitude worse than all previous cases combined. You cannot assume all players to be sane in this world, because as even economists realized, people are not sane, nor are groups of people. The point of "mutual assured destruction" is not actually to win a war. It is to murder as many human beings as possible, while safe in a deep silo somewhere. Nuclear submarines don't do all that much except for launching more nuclear weapons. The side that destroys more capabilities wins, and it's not going to be equal at all. So everyone is destroyed, but some are more destroyed than others and that's important.

Mutual Assured Destruction

- is beneficial for politicians. It fosters nationalism, raises defense budget spending and maximum death. Politicians have a high chance of survival due to their huge bunkers with supplies to last indefinitely.

- makes no sense whatsoever for all civilians. They pay for weapons to be used to destroy other civilians and escalate nuclear war. The strategy does not pay off for them either.

- makes no sense for the military. Mutual Assured Destruction does not win wars, strategically or tactically.

- does not happen in real life. The destruction of population centers and nuclear weapon facilities will not prevent nuclear retaliation or conventional retaliation, or reduce resistance. One side will emerge with the upper hand.

- is not assuring at all. Killing billions of people does not make the world safer.