Surveillance, recon and range of weapons has drastically changed. Satellites have the capability to identify a surface fleet and long range weapons are now able to be fired from long distances, find and hit their targets.

I think a couple submarines can effectively negate a carrier task force by just forcing the task force to keep their distance by the threat of a missile launch coming from a patch of seemingly empty see. Any surface ship hunting them is at risk of suddenly becoming the hunted themselves by the submarine or by any land based defense system that are in range.

Do they need to be able to fight across the entire Pacific? Their most likely adversaries are right next door and their most likely ally is the dominant naval power already.

I any money spent on a large carrier would probably be better spent on other things. You can spend 10 billion on a single carrier or get a fleet of ~100 F-35s. I would guess mid-air refueling and more planes will get more sorties over likely targets in a conflict than a carrier would.

I also don’t think carriers are going to be the dominant sea power force in a future peer conflict. I think the submarine will dominate the next war. The carrier will be regulated to power projection after the sea is won and made safe to operate in.

It not usually into the airspace. Just into the air defense zone which is over international waters. It’s the nation-state equivalent to “I’m not touching you.”

The Soviet Union/Russia have a habit of sending submarines into Swedish waters.

A woman has her own value and that value decreases by men looking at her.

I didn’t know men had that kind of super power. The ability to decrease value of something just by looking at it. Can we harness this power to decrease home prices?

The scale of the support provided is very different. While Germany and others have been provided support, I would be concerned if the USA was to withdraw theirs. It would take all other supporters doubling or tripling their aid to make up the loss. Not an impossible task but also not a small one.

That’s not how science generally works. It’s not up to others to disprove your results. It’s up to you to prove results to them.

You generally do this by very carefully explaining what you did and what the results where. Then others can follow your instructions and get the same results.

If they don’t get the same results you haven’t proven anything.

I don’t think you have to prove loss sales for trademark disputes. Just a likelihood of confusion. And from the article:

As part of its marketing for the movie, Lucasfilm authorized Filson to run a cobranded campaign to promote the movie and the clothing company’s products, according to the suit. “Lucasfilm and Filson produced a 60 second commercial prominently featuring video clips from the Indiana Jones 5 film intertwined with video clips of actors using Filson’s own products,” writes Devin McRae, a lawyer for Frost River, in the complaint. “Shockingly, one of the intertwined video clips was one from Indiana Jones 5 featuring Frost River’s Geologist Pack.”

I think they might actually have a case. Use of one of their bags used in a lookalike competitors marketing campaign without clearly showing that it’s theirs is probably infringement.

Lack of sales might be an argument to be made if we get to damages but I think this will probably be settled out of court for a nondisclosured amount. It’ll probably be cheaper for both parties that way.

I wouldn’t compare Belgium sans Gulfstream to Winnipeg. Center of a continent vs by an ocean makes a big difference no matter the latitude. I think it would be much more fair to compare it to someplace like St. John’s. It will still be colder but not to the same extent.