Then, it depends on what you need to do. A 3x cost if you deploy a strategic constellation is fine. A 3x cost if you want to launch huge payloads for a Mars trip (I know costs were for LEO, just giving an example) is probably uncompetitive.

In a "free market" would you recommend on USA to rely only on a Chinese manufactured essential product for its military (or the reverse, or Europe on Russia, or etc.)?

I am not against great private offers (be it rockets/cloud/etc.). But there should also be some "local" capability for some strategic products, so that if the private providers encounter issues (crazy CEO, tariffs, export regulations, etc.) you are not left without any of that capability.

But having educated people everywhere is hard, so some people, because they don't get how some stuff works, they try to abuse friends and allies and make things worse (inefficient) for everybody in the process.

I would just hope most people don't like them either and they look for the "next one". Otherwise you transform politicians in a cult...

Depending on your situations different actions will have a different impact.

I do try to choose what I can to help. I am not obsessed with "the impact". If I buy a train ticket instead of a plane ticket - that can mean trains get more money. If I keep my phone for one more year, less waste is produced.

Would I help with the situation if I would buy a car consuming lots of gas, take international trips every years etc. (I could afford it, that's not the issue) ? I think not.

Can I say that my actions significantly influence the outcome? Definitely not, but we are 8 billions on this planet, so it all depends on averages. But if I don't do it (I am convinced there is an issue), how could I expect others to have my position...

"What I can do to achieve world peace today"

The next generation must understand how stuff works. If we have privacy and no education, we might get burnt on stakes because any invented stupid reasons, no matter if someone read or not your communications.

Additionally Europe's natality is not great, it needs people working. So many enterprises in Europe are happy with that.

Why is immigration presented as a problem? Because it is easy, does not affect directly any potential voter (I mean, if you say "rich are to blame", around half of the voters will not vote you, if you say "the poor are to blame" the other half will not vote you, but immigrants? No problem they generally don't vote) and because Europe has a tradition to seeing itself "above others". So if there are problems and you see dark people around, must be there fault, no? I really think they are (many) people that think like that (and I also met a couple)...

You allow onky the highly skilled ones who cannot reach their potential from where they come from.

> Additionally Europe's natality is not great, it needs people working. So many enterprises in Europe are happy with that.

False. No need for outside workers. There are about 500mm europeans, abs not all of them are old. You remove the benefits and all of a sudden you get a few tens of millions of able bodied people looking for work. Problem solved without importing people from other places.

> Why is immigration presented as a problem? Because it is easy, does not affect directly any potential voter (I mean, if you say "rich are to blame", around half of the voters will not vote you, if you say "the poor are to blame" the other half will not vote you, but immigrants? No problem they generally don't vote) and because Europe has a tradition to seeing itself "above others". So if there are problems and you see dark people around, must be there fault, no? I really think they are (many) people that think like that (and I also met a couple)...

Turn on the TV or read a newspaper to see how much crime is caused by wanton unchecked migrants invading Europe.

Even for places where we import migrant workers it does not take long until they start creating drug trafficking rings and resort to violence.

I am not blaming the poor. Europe has plenty of thise too. But at least we have cultural similarities and don’t resort to violence unlike the migrants that wash up on the shores of Europe, which conviniently all have smartphones ready to be used.

Amazingly on TV in Europe (watching 3 countries) I see how many women are killed by their partners (nicely born here), how politicians are (occasionally, mostly rarely) arrested for building mobster like organizations, how large enterprises (own by locals) avoid paying taxes.

The poor don't resort to violence? I wonder what blessed country are you in for the poor to afford to be nice. 30 years ago in the quite poor Eastern Europe (now part of EU, not that poor anymore) there was direct violence (sure, not concentrated like a terrorist attack) like mugging or rapes or just people beating others on the street because they "did not like how you look". All that without immigrants. So yeah, kind of hard for me to blame so much immigrants for all the violence.

And on that, 70s and 80s the was perfectly calm no? No terrorist attack IRA, ETA (found easy a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ETA_attacks - 829 deaths), Italian mob and the like were "freedom fighters" probably...

I am definitely not for completely open borders. And immigration should be controlled. And some people should be deported. I just do not think it is the "largest" problem that it is presented, and I find discussing it avoiding other thorny, complex issues (energy, climate, education, etc.).

I'd also want to go to SV, California, NY, Portland, etc as a better place to live, yet I need to do it legally, which I can't because of how hard getting a US work visa is, so I won't. Migration to the EU should be the same. Only accept people with a legal visa and nobody else. You're not entitled to be allowed to come in any country you want just because you want a better place to live. Those who do think otherwise, please open the doors of your house to everyone who wants to come in for a better place to live and take them in.

> The able, hard working and entrepreneurial ones bring a lot to the countries they immigrate to.

From various statistics from various EU governments you can look up, about half the migrants that they get via the open borders system are either unemployed or a general net negative to society, consuming more from the state via welfare than they contributor back via taxes. And that's when you don't even consider per capita crimes where migrants from some nations are overrepresented in jails per capita.

So how many are "hard working entrepreneurial ones" is the EU actually getting and does that offset the societal and lives lost due to migrant crime and terror attacks?

"Sure, your daughter doesn't feel safe alone at night and your wife got run over by a truck attacker, but just think of the GDP growth due to all the entrepreneurs that came with them"

I wouldn't even mind if they would be honest about what they claim (being nationalist), but I don't see any right wing party talking seriously about programs to encourage natality, reduce poverty or improve education. Blaming a generic category for your problems rarely solves said problems.

So, for me the boogeyman is talking about superfluous generic topics rather than solutions to problems I see: education, natality, energy, industry.

The worst thing might be that it is kind (or close to) a best possible average (can't assess honestly). When I talk with many (mostly opinionated) people, at various ends of various positions (left, right, ecology, industry, security, etc.) I can't imagine any leadership that would make a significant portion of the EU citizens happy.

Now, the historical solution was to make things so worse to calm down all the crazy ideas (mostly implying war or revolution) and make people focus on the basics, let's see how it goes around this time.

Which makes current model, and federated model impossible and/or prone to crumbling. Problems of Germany are different than one Spain faces, and France, and Poland etc.