In America today, we have politicians who reject the concrete science behind climate change. We have politicians who reject the findings of our intelligence agencies.

This has lead me to think - the concept of nuclear winter is something that was predicted by the scientific community. The reality that the USSR had enough nukes that even if we launched a full blown nuclear attack they'd still be able to destroy the USA in retaliation was understood because of the information we had on the USSR from our intelligence agencies.

So, I'm wondering if during the Cold War there were any politicians or organizations who rejected these ideas. People who claimed that launching hundreds of nukes wouldn't have any major negative effects on the Earth's climate, or at least none that would effect the USA if the nukes were detonated on the other side of the world. I'm also wondering if there were any politicians or organizations who rejected the intelligence communities' information about the USSR's nuclear capabilities, instead insisting that they weren't as capable and that it would be possible for the USA to destroy the USSR without any major retaliation.

Let me know if there are any questions. Hope I'm not breaking any rules! Thank you!

I am not looking for why the wanted to secede but if it was legal because I have heard that Jefferson Davis stayed around in D.C a little longer after his state left the union in the hopes he would be arrested for treason hoping the case would go to the Supreme Court.

Edit: What I actually want to know is what has historically smothered nascent fascist movements? Because I think violence is counter-productive, but at the moment no one else seems to be offering concrete solutions to the growing movement of Nazis in our country.

Look, my country has been occupied by Nazis and i have read extensively books about the Nazi crimes in my country or in other countries.

I can very confidently say that the enormities commited by Nazis werent even close to the enormities commited by the Japanese, both in scale and in brutality. Just think that Himmler invented gas camps because he was worried about the mental health of the soldiers who were executing with a gun. Being killed by a gun in Japanese occupied areas should be considered as a merciful killing if anything.

We also cant talk about isolated incidents because it happened in massive scale in every country that Japan occupied.

Just what are the social and cultural reasons for such gigantic brutality? Was the Japanese society ultra strict and violent? Was it glorifying torment? What happened?

I've been looking for information on whether China had air force of its own during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. I haven't been able to find information using various types of sources, both online and written.

I know for example the Spanish used the riches they had plundered to fund their Armada, but what other examples are there? Colonialism effectively changed European history.

Basically he meant that a man who would live their whole lives in a small town somewhere in Wyoming, for example, would never really had the chance to meet someone who felt the same way they did or reciprocated their feelings. They'd stay and get married to a woman they weren't interested in and that would be that. But the War meant that guy from Wyoming, and thousands of others like him, were transported to someplace like San Francisco or NYC. Where he would meet more men or women that felt the same way and have a chance at forming a community. Is this accurate or bullshit?

[deleted]

Did they always have access to education? Did it coincide with first wave feminism? Has an elementary education always been available, but only recently access at a university level? Also curious about women of other races, but the initial question was when it was first available.

Hi all, I'm Tobias Capwell, Curator of Arms and Armour at the Wallace Collection in London, home of one of the world's great museum collections of Medieval and Renaissance weapons and armour.

This year I've been working mostly on the subject of this AMA, writing several big forthcoming articles, and a new book, 'Arms and Armour of the Joust' for the Royal Armouries here in the UK. I've also been writing up my work on the funerary achievements of both Edward the Black Prince and his great nephew King Henry V, both of whose monuments have preserved important examples of arms and armour. After all that is done I'll be back to my efforts to complete another book, Armour of the English Knight 1450- 1500, which is the sequel to Armour of the English Knight 1400-1450, published in 2015. Phew!

Given the subject of this AMA I should also mention that for the last 25 years I have also been a practitioner of the knightly fighting arts, both mounted and on foot. I've competed in major jousts and tournaments all over the world, built fourteen complete armours for myself working with armourers and other craftsmen in many countries, and managed not to get injured.. very much. I always try to combine the practical/physical and the scholarly/academic approaches in my work. So... AMA!

Originally I understand that World War One was transitioned from being called 'The Great War' to 'World War One.' Why/when did this change happen? Could we not simply have called the two wars 'The Great War' and 'The World War?' Thanks in advance for any responses.

Hi everyone! A few days ago I saw a small video series about the bronze age collapse and got pretty interested in the subject. Can anyone point me to good books about it? Thank you in advance :)

I'm very curious as to how it started.

We have different language families and such and we know that there are similarities, and all that.

However, how did 'they' (as in common man... or the creators of the illuminati, who knows, really) communicate to each other that they needed to establish a formal way of communication through speech? Why is it that so many people speak the same language? Wouldn't there be a lot more languages than there are now? We didn't really have societies back then, and no one could write it down. Because language works differently from maths or sciences, you can't really "discover" language, right? So how did it come about and spread like wildfire?

I noticed any job description relating to USPS package handling, even from non-government shipping companies, has the following notice:

Male applicants born after December 31, 1959 seeking positions that handle or have access to the United States Postal Service (USPS) product must provide evidence of registration with the Selective Service or a Status Letter from Selective Service approving an exemption.

I don't recall hearing about this in the last 20 years. My first thought is maybe it was a reaction to draft dodgers. What's the origin of this requirement?

so I've found an article about the hearing, but I can not find the actual primary source. do any of you have it?

Sorry for another Nazi question. You read a page on Wikipedia, and you start asking questions.

I have always wondered why something like a molotov cocktail wasn't widely used in infantary combat, throwing a pot filled with a flammable liquid at a shield wall would most definitelly be enough to break formation.

Considering since ancient times there are accounts of ships using primitive flamethrowers to burn other ships, and even setting pigs on fire hoping they would run towards the opposing army to break formation, I assume people back then were fully aware of how fire could be used in combat and even had liquids that burned well enough to be used in this manner, so I wonder why something like this is never mentioned (as far as I know)