Brazil’s nuclear sub – USA Gov Policy

According to a report in the military affairs news source Spacewar Brazil is developing its first nuclear submarine.

On the other side of the planet, Japan is considering abandoning its “peace” constitution due to the increasing threat from China. In Europe, previously unaligned Sweden is rebuilding its armed forces. India is also developing powerful advanced weapons. In the Middle East, there is concern that a nuclear arms race will develop in the wake of the weakening of sanctions against Iran.

Many nations that have extensive civilian needs are diverting scarce resources towards armaments. This didn’t happen in a vacuum. It is a clear reflection of the diminished presence, power, and will of the United States and NATO.

Trapped in a time warp of wishful thinking, American and European governments continue to conduct their foreign affairs and military spending as though history had ended when the Soviet Union collapsed. The resurgence of Moscow, the rise of China, the proliferation of advanced atomic capabilities in nations with antagonistic governments such as those in Tehran and Pyongyang appear to have escaped the concern of Washington and its European counterparts.
It cialis 10 mg has properties of “Yogavahi” . Research has disclosed that around one out unica-web.com cialis 10 mg of ten men suffers through ED or an inadequate sexual desire minimum one time in their life. If you are unable to perform better due to erectile dysfunction, a man is not able to satisfy his and his partner’s sexual need. tadalafil 20mg uk And the conclusion is: cialis generic purchase Generic is a medicine made by the same process as the cialis Original. has in its composition the same active medicinal substance as the Original and these two medicines has only one difference, but read the information below, and you will understand why. “cialis 40 mg Original” is a medicine which was synthesized for the first time and passed all the required loops.
Western leaders apparently have adopted a firm belief in the potential of diplomacy unsupported by armed strength when dealing with aggressive powers, a concept that is unsubstantiated by any current or historical evidence. This has replaced a candid acceptance of the facts as they truly exist.

As a result, other nations, no longer protected by the great Western powers, have scrambled to devise their own deterrent. That is not necessarily inappropriate; nations should be their own first line of defense. But in the face of the growing alliance between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, those smaller nations will not stand a chance of success in any conflict or threat of conflict.

That fact encourages aggression, and will lead to increasingly widespread warfare.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/