Both are motivated by the perception that ABM technology may render ICBMs ineffective.
ICBM's are unneeded since the 80ies. That's why they don't have them.
The biggest advantage of a Skyfall missile over a Granit is obvious; range. If a Skyfall missile works as they plan, there'd be no need to sneak an Oscar anywhere close to the target, or even use a submarine at all. Furthermore it could strike inland targets beyond the range of a Granit fired from an Oscar sitting in coastal waters. An Oscar would need to sneak it's way up the Mississippi River if it wanted a chance of hitting a target in Nebraska with Granit missiles, which leads into:
ICBMs. With respect to ICBMs you're mistaken. Russia does have a variety of ICBMs and SLBMs still in service with plans for more. They have enough already to easily overwhelm America's extant ABM systems, which are primarily a defense against smaller nuclear threats (e.g. North Korea.) Poseidon and Skyfall are hedges against the possibility that ballistic missiles are rendered truly obsolete by ABM systems, but that scenario hasn't [yet] become reality.
Disasters would be magnified exponentially.
Then the ICBM made the strategic bomber obsolete, and there was no incentive to sink any more money into nuclear-powered aircraft. Concern for safety had little to do with it, especially if you compare it to other occurrences at the time . Now we can build autonomous vehicles that don't care about radiation and can make use of all that power, and that's exactly what Russia is doing.
How much literature has disappeared from history because certain languages or vernaculars fell out of use?
Hell, why do we even bother teaching classical English if it's just going to change, right? We should just let kids learn from their parents and media - no use being a prescriptivist!
And yes, I do believe that some languages and dialects are vastly more expressive and unambiguous than others, but I don't expect the average person to understand that. Ultimately we're all free to speak as we wish but don't shame me for trying to preserve the necessary consistency that makes language useful.
> How much literature has disappeared from history because certain languages or vernaculars fell out of use?
The answer is not very much, comparatively. Most of the known losses of old works has been due to destruction, not communal loss of ability to decipher. Here's a summary of objects with unknown scripts:
(Just a joke, it was actually exponentially longer ago)
Sometimes that means correct people using a word incorrectly, because that might educate them about something they didn't know.
Sometimes though that means educating people about how languages evolve and that the ship has sailed for some expressions.
Incidentally, some models of civil airplanes (some 747s for instance) contain depleted uranium trimming weights, which can be hazardous if burned in a plane wreck. This is far from a plane reactor accident though, and use of these weights has been discontinued for years (I'm unsure if any are still flying.)
Yeah, I know, it's just... There are already existing words for that. Words that were in use before "exponentially" became the cool word of the week. I guess I should just accept it, that "exponentially" is going to mean the same thing as "truly", "very" and "really". At some point some newscaster is going to describe a patient's outlook as "it's not looking exponentially good". Although maybe the word has too many syllables. One can hope.
does the sentence "Disasters would be magnified increasing rapidly by a large amount" make sense though? With a little word shuffling you can get something that at least comes out as coherent, but can you make it convey an idea more complex or more clearly than "disasters would be a lot worse"?
Nuanced word selection can add clarity that would be difficult to achieve with more basic vocabulary, but too often people use wordgasms to confuddle the person they are trying to communicate with and make an otherwise vacuous statement appear more legitimate.
At one point I'd found someone's doctoral thesis on the subject, but now it's not quickly popping up in searches on Project Pluto or SLAM.
>Military expert Anton Lavrov in the Izvestia article suggested that the design of the Burevestnik uses a ramjet engine, which, unlike the more traditional propulsion systems for nuclear weapons, will have radioactive exhaust throughout its entire operation.
That statement implies that all ramjets produce radioactive exhaust, which is false.