If you honestly believe this way, you have been dangerously radicalized.
Sorry, cheering for political violence is just normal now. The right has been pushing and supporting political violence so hard that its…just not radical anymore.
Sure, this time it might not have been somebody on the right, but it doesn’t really matter. Once political violence becomes normal, it becomes normal.
Its basically a diplomacy / wealthy check for countries.
Basically, countries make agreements between themselves that say that a person with a passport from X country does not need a visa to visit Y country. This may be part of a trade agreement, part of a treaty, part of some larger agreement (For example, EU passports are good for any EU country because they are all part of the EU, thats included as part of countries being in the EU, not as part of an individual agreement.
So a country that has really good diplomacy might get into a lot of international agreements that let their passport enter countries without a Visa, even if all they do in the treaty is be a mediator for it. Switzerland is perhaps the most famous for this. Its not uncommon for Switzerland to be the neutral location where international treaties are negotiated, and in order to facilitate that, they get their passport to be accepted basically anywhere that wants access to those talks. So if Canada wants to be allowed into the Switzerland political arena (and they do) they need to make an agreement with Switzerland to let people visit without Visas.
The other side is money. Tourists from wealthy countries tend to spend a lot of money while on vacation, and so other countries generally want to provide access for those tourists to enter the country and spend all that money. So a country that has a relatively large wealth for individual peoples will often have a strong passport. Singapore does this really well, the Singapore passport is very very strong, largely because Singaporeans tend to have a lot of money to spend.
The third side is also money, but its more on the very wealthy / business side of money. Basically, everyone wants to sell to certain countries, with America being the poster child for this. Americans are famous for buying shitty quality goods at super expensive prices, and every country wants in on that. In order to facilitate that kind of trade, you need mid level executives / logistics people / ships etc to be able to go back and forth without needing to stop for visas all the time. So countries are happy to have Americans come into the country without a Visa, because they want some of those people to be importers.
None of these are on their own ofc. Relatively wealthy countries tend to also have a lot of diplomatic contact, and that means they often include visiting without a visa, even if they are not politically neutral. Several politically neutral countries have strong visas because they are Tax havens, and the very wealthy who use those countries to not pay taxes want to be able to travel freely.
Some countries are mass exporters, and the companies they export to want to be able to travel to that country, so they push the governments to make Visa agreements so they can more easily gain access to the low cost stuff from those countries to sell.
Hypothetically yes.
Concrete has a very high PH, between 12 and 13, it can even test at almost 14, depending on admixtures , letting that sit on on skin can cause concrete burns.
Its less about how thick the skin is and more about the normal conditions the legs are in, and how resistant those legs are. Seabird legs are going to be adapted for a higher ph than humans, and probably be more resistant to a high ph than people, but a ph of 13 or 13.5 is dangerous to any living animal, except perhaps an extremophile
Sure, recently mixed concrete is basically just wet powder with sand and gravel. The powder will absolutely stick. Hypothetically, if the bird then flies around long enough for it to dry, the bird will probably get itchy feet, but the concrete will dry and flake away fairly quickly.
Perhaps,
You could probably make a backpack nuke, although I don’t know that Iran specifically could.
and I guess if you have a backpack nuke, you can just make it be a really bulky vest
Honestly, the problem with a dirty bomb isn’t the cancer rates or w.e, its the sheer amount of propaganda that has gone into scaring people over nuclear energy. Yes, the propaganda is mostly to stop nuclear reactors to force reliance on oil, but its still there.
I used to use a nuclear soil density gauge. The gauge was not at all scary, I could use it as a seat for a whole year, and it would have a minimal effect on my lifetime cancer rates.
But no matter how many times I explained it, as soon as I said “Nuclear Gauge” people got scared.
“Nuclear” has become a scare word, so a nuclear dirty bomb is terrifying to people.
Sure, technically if it has two armholes and covers most of the upper body it can count as a vest.
Could they develop one somebody could reasonably carry around? No
Some people get so caught up in “defeating the bad guy,” that they completely lose sight of the harm they are facilitating. At some point you have to ask yourself, “is this about winning or about saving lives?”
I don’t think anybody ever believed that the war was about saving lives.
I doubt if Republicans even want to win.
Republicans want to distract people from how Republicans are all defending serial child rapists, and want to drive up the debt in order to destabilize America.
Wait, you mean the proudly corrupt conservative government is being corrupt on a betting platform while callously playing with the lives of the American soldiers they have so much contempt for?
Im shocked, shocked I tell you
You got the real question, and then gave a fake answer?