The CMOS military version ran at 5 MHz and consumed 25 milliwatts which is pretty amazing. A CMOS 8088 would take about 10 times that.
Source: https://www.renesas.com/us/en/products/space-harsh-environme...
Source: https://www.renesas.com/us/en/products/space-harsh-environme...
https://www.theregister.com/2012/05/03/unsung_heroes_of_tech...
But you are right, innovation is not a monopoly of the West.
During the Soviet times USSR had many technological advances, their population was quite literate in sciences, schools were very good and USSR had many teams winning math and physics Olympics.
Having great schools resulted in a large number of scientists and researchers.
The situation repeats with China. They invested a lot in scientific education and it is starting to pay off. Meanwhile, in the West, higher education means discussing politics and being woke.
-- the full realm of human development should be cultivated, and
-- there is a crisis in some broad instances of higher education.
For example, with reference to the parent: you /should/ discuss politics: only, productively.
You do not want your society to be well trained in engineering but underdeveloped in other human qualities fundamental in civilization.
I would argue that the scope of education is to improve and spread knowledge.
Politics might be important for society but it is not within the scope of education. Unless you make education about politics and forget knowledge.
Political science (say, the comparative advantages of an organizational, or administrative, or voting system vis-a-vis philosophical principles and quantitative methods etc.) is a discipline. It is surely part of education.
When individuals treat political discussions like "hooligans" could treat "Barcelona vs. Arsenal", that is a fault in mental refinement, hence also in education.
Studying politics doesn't mean doing politics. And studying politics is best done solely as a discipline, not instead of other disciplines.
Now: in theory, if your students spent time being loud instead of studying, that should reflect on the marks, should not it? They finally should not pass if doing politics replaced studying. But it is reported of prestigious Athenaeums in USA, and it is also seen and told in Europe, that the "feedback" from the institutions is being lower and lower: even the worse will get the degree. There are horror stories directly told by professors. So, there is a confirmed crisis in education.
But you want your citizens to be fully developed, not """able to count and unable to read""".
Why is knowledge of politics not knowledge?
It is. But is not the only knowledge needed by a country. Or the most important knowledge.
This two-tired world, where the rich guys and their cronies have nuclear weapons, while the second grade countries must submit to their wishes, will clearly leave many nations wanting to balance the scale. History has shown that all countries with security problems develop nuclear weapons as soon as they get to a suficient wealth level.
If you really want to make the world a saver place the US should give up its first strike policy. That will calm down the escalation calculation China or Russia have to make.
China just recently annexed territory the size of France in the South China Sea. They annexed Hong Kong. Next they want Taiwan. They eagerly want several of Japan's island territories. They very obviously won't stop there, as their military power increases dramatically over the next 10-20 years; they're just getting warmed up on territorial conquest in Asia.
Russia is dead set on destroying Ukraine as it exists today and will proceed to, at a minimum, annex to the Dnieper River. They already annexed Crimea and a large chunk of East Ukraine. They'll attempt to take all of the Black Sea territory of Ukraine, further impoverishing and cutting off the remaining chunk of broken Ukraine post annexation. Further it has its eyes on taking Moldova, either directly or by forced alliance. Taking Ukraine's Black Sea territory will specifically make Moldova easy to conquer; there is no scenario where they don't pursue that combo. It has begun the (likely longer term) process of annexing Belarus, Lukashenko has capitulated into Putin's arms. Nearly any territory in the region that is not in NATO is up for grabs for conquest as far as Russia is concerned. Russia realistically destroyed Georgia, annexing part of the nation, and it's likely to eventually get around to finishing the rest. It would be a big task for the weaker modern Russia, however they'd also really like to figure out how to sink their claws into Kazakhstan and reclaim some of that territory as part of the empire. For Russia ideally there would be some convenient chaos, civil war in Kazakhstan, and Russia would then use border security as an excuse to de facto invade and claim territory that they'd never give back.
Meanwhile, the US has spent most of the post WW2 era trying to maintain global border security, including in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Europe. The US was in Vietnam? It sure was, trying to protect the South from a conquering North; when the US left, the South promptly got conquered (and yet the US is the villain in that story? yeah right). The same fate awaited South Korea, except the US saved them from the conquering North. How much territory did the US annex in Iraq? Zero. How much territory did the US annex in Afghanistan? Zero. It didn't try to take those nations, their territory, or their natural resources.
When was the last time the US tried to conquer and annex Canada or Mexico? Canada sits right next to the world's primary superpower, with an almost entirely unguarded border. Check out Canada's tiny military spending some time. Ask India how their border context is going with China these days; everyone that shares a border with Russia or China is terrified of their territorial ambitions.
While the US has been a superpower during the post WW2 years, how many nations has it annexed? Right.
Well, I would respectfully disagree with the "conquer" part. Since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, that sounds really hollow.
What you described is roughly how things went down in Korea, so maybe you just confused the two.
US sponsored coups and wars, often in favour of downright terrible people (like Pinochet) weren't for "global border security", but for power, resource and against anything vaguely leftist.
Sorry but you are dead wrong about the Ukraine, and especially about Vietnam, the US feared the rise of Communism and by that loosing control over Vietnam.
"By 2002, Pakistan had admitted that North Korea had gained access to Pakistan's nuclear technology in the late 1990s."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/11/aq-khan-pakistan-north-...
But: nice to reflect on that back in the 80's designing a new CPU could be done with a very small team and modest funding in 2 years time going from drawing board to first silicon (assuming that kind of talent, of course).