with wood, the problem was with lignin which is tightly crosslinked, meaning that it's insoluble and organism willing to eat it has to secrete some enzymes to break it down in smaller bits that can be absorbed
depending on plastic, this first step might be easier or even happening on its own. there are already bacteria that feed on nylon but nylon starting materials are easier to digest for them
if you're being invaded, then killing aggressor side soldiers solves very practical problem of getting invaded by them
unless you're saying that the ethical thing to do is to keel over and die in this situation
llms allowed them to glide all the way to the point of failure without learning anything
nukes, that was just paper thin disguise
couple kg went for fuel fabrication for teheran research reactor, but that's couple tens kg out of low tons
They could just buy enriched uranium directly
they did buy enriched uranium for their only nuclear power reactors in bushehr npp from russians, and didn't use their own enrichment facilities to make fuel for it
it's a legit thing even if we don't know how exactly it works
well, i see a large category of infrastructure problems (that will be 99% civilian use anyway - and not only transport, also telecomms, you can even put healthcare training in there) that is solvable by pouring money at them, and now it's politically convenient to let it rip even among pro-austerity neoliberals. if you want an example of what can this do, look at eastern eu countries and how they changed after funding went in
which ones? germany has government spending at 48% of gdp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_government_spending_as_percentage_of_GDP so 5% of gdp for defense will be closer to 1/10 of all government spending
going by 2024 numbers, russians putting third of government spending to defence would be closer to 13% gdp
It all depends on how it all will get managed, but there are already longer term infrastructure projects that now got some funding and now also it counts under 5% NATO target. I think that more resources will go towards rail infrastructure, bridges are just more illustrative, but still for a couple of these village 7 ton level bridge there will be one 30 ton bridge in town nearby that will get overhauled
in eastern nato countries there is logistical problem because army suddenly switched from 40 ton tanks to 70 ton tanks, for example, and old bridges or rail can't support them. this is just one of many small examples that add to that problem, and of course 99% of the time the stronger bridge will be used by civilians
i feel like if it's not something thst everyone got this would cause new kind of racism
so, a trebuchet?