Coronavirus -- Unanswered Questions

"Develop a Vaccine and Vaccinate"

Said and done -- by the previous administration and continued by the present illegitimate administration (More later, probably).  But there were always questions and, some, still remain. 

1. Wear face masks and maintain two-metre distancing.  Sufficiently done, but with much complaining.
2. Close all public venues, i.e., stores and restaurants ... and hair salons, except grocery stores.  Sufficiently done, and physical fighting developing. 
3. Distribute vaccines ... months behind schedule, with uncertainty of second doses.
4. And politically-inspired conspiracy theories :

• Bats in and out of a wet-market near to the Wuhan laboratory ... proven unlikely.

•  Bungling, incompetent scientists at the Wuhan laboratory ... highly likely. 

•  A coronavirus being "weaponized" and, now, proven to be highly efficient.

• Funded by the US government (See Dr. Fauci). 

•  "Why on Earth would China weaponize a virus within their own country liable to kill their own people?"  (Dr. Fauci)  Obvious answer, long-range cruise missiles, etc. 

•  Note;  All staff at the Wuhan laboratory are PLA personnel supervising civil scientists from China, US, and Europe. 

 Let us pray.  🙏 

Snippet 14 -- China Ties to US Riots Exposed

BY ELLA KIETLINSKA & TREVOR LOUDON

Most of the riots that racked the United States within the last few months were organized by two socialist organizations which have close ties with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said Trevor Loudon, author, and filmmaker, who has been researching radical and terrorist groups and their covert influence on mainstream politics for more than 30 years.

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) based out of Minneapolis, an openly pro-CCP organization, and Bay Area-based Liberation Road, with very close ties to the Chinese consulate there and the Chinese Progressive Association (CPA), are behind the recent riots, Loudon said in a recent interview on Epoch Times’ Crossroads program.

Total article click here.

Aerospace 17 - Bombardier / Boeing Controversy

The U.S. Commerce Department’s decision to attach Bombardier Inc.’s C Series aircraft with a retaliatory tariff of 219.3%, is an obvious abuse of power.

Writing about Bombardier has been a pet project of mine ever since I watched their early innovational business jets fly from the Cartierville airfield, in Montreal, many years ago.

The trials and tribulations of the C Series aircraft have been a source of serious comment (good and bad) since before the first flight in 2013, and I am annoyed that the bad comments have become very political.

The history of self-important U.S. aerospace manufacturing companies contains a number of unfortunate examples where pressure is placed on foreign competition to lose market share.  There are many obvious cases (and some shrouded in mystery).  For example;  The superior Canadian Avro Arrow (with design features from the British Avro 730 and the BAC TSR-2) that was discontinued by P.M. John Diefenbaker following U.S. lobbying.  The English Electric Canberra (that gained an altitude record of 70,310 ft.) that was licensed to the U.S. (and is still flying with NASA for high altitude research) with its’ remarkably similar design characteristics to Lockheed’s high altitude U-2 spy aircraft.  Was the Concorde a failure because it hit a piece of metal on the runway, causing an explosion, or was it inviable financially due to a U.S. ban on supersonic overflights?.  Finally, the enormous success of the Hawker Harrier V/STOL fighter that became the McDonell Douglas AV-8 (now, sharing its’ engine thrust-vectoring technology with the Lockheed/Martin F-35 which will not be 'war-ready' before 2020, according to the US Pentagon).

The innovative design of the C Series aircraft is not obvious when observed from a distance but it is using manufacturing technology, designed from the ground up, that is not comparable to the competition, i.e., Boeing B-737, COMAC C-919, Embraer E170, and Mitsubishi MRJ-90.  In detail, the B-737 and C-919 are much bigger, and the MRJ-90 is smaller.  The Embraer series of aircraft are competitive in size but are less technologically advanced.

So there you have it.

The U.S. tariff of 219.3% should also be looked at and compared with Boeing’s B-787 ‘Dreamliner’ sales.  The B-787 programme is not expected to be profitable until after 1,100 aircraft have been sold.  As of April 2015, the production rate is 10 per month;  Boeing lost $30 million per aircraft delivered in the first quarter of 2015.  JPMorgan Chase has estimated the programme's cash loss to be $45 million per airplane, decreasing as the programme moves forward. The actual cash flow reflects Boeing collecting most of the purchase price upon delivery; Boeing expects deferred costs to total $25 billion (Yes, billion) before the company begins to break even on production.  It should also be noted that Boeing is the recipient of massive amounts of government aid;  US$14.4 billion in federal and state subsidies and US$73.7 billion in loans over the past 17 years.

Finally, PM Justin Trudeau has stated, referring to the Boeing Super Hornet F-18 replacement, that Canada will not deal with a company that is suing us.  In my view, this wonderful statement shows that European companies have remarkably perfect aircraft available.  If DND wants more F-18’s, they should talk to Australia.  In the meantime, our future should be with a European deal.  The Typhoon, Griffin, and Rafale  are all capable of the software upgrades that is plaguing the F-35 at the moment (just to mention one problem).  Let the Pentagon and Lockheed stew in their own corruption.

Some may say that we should ‘pull the plug’, but what will we produce then, premium wine from Niagara and B.C.?  Now, there’s an interesting U.S. tariff story … for some other time.

The DPRK (North Korea)

Recently, I had a discussion with a friend via e-Mail and feel it useful to expand the audience.

North Korea  -  Unfortunately, China is the problem.  I believe that Xi trusts that the US would NOT move into the northern area of a unified, and peaceful, Korea.  Additionally, there would be NO reason for Koreans to rush to enter China when there would be a free, although controlled, southern passage.  Thus, it’s the usual Chinese bluff.  China will not suffer badly by banning coal imports from Korea as they continue to export oil to Korea.  In other words, Xi’s duplicitous, crafty, promise of Chinese sanctions to Trump was clever … but, I suspect that Trump can see that and, at the moment, Trump has the Joker card.

Of course, every pack has two Jokers.   😟

George Friedman's 70% chance of attack requires a definition of the word ‘attack’.  I hope the the US Defence Secretary will very soon issue an order to destroy ALL future (illegal) missile tests upon launch.  This will give Little Fat Boy pause … and it could not be condemned by do-nothing China.

Behind all this, of course, is China’s expansion into the so-called South China Sea ….