By Completing This Advance Care Directive You Can Choose To: Fill & Download for Free

Some random stuff:Maybe time travel obeys some sort of power law, so "distant" time travel (ie, to our time) is hugely more expensive than "near" time travel, as opposed to "you can time travel and can choose to go back five seconds or watch the Big Bang in person using the same expenditure of energy".Something like the Temporal Prime Directive stops travelers from interacting with or possibly bodily visiting our time. Doubtless such advanced types would know all about the Grandfather paradox and would be darn careful to mess with timelines.Maybe they actually are, and we're living in one of the threads they've forked off the "undisturbed" timeline.Maybe time travel lets you travel in time, but doesn't translate you in relative position. So, you can go back in time, but the Earth is now in a completely different point in space, so you'd need a space vehicle to move you to the right place. (And hope you didn't jump into the middle of a black hole, etc.) And if we don't solve the faster-than-light problem, this would mean you can't move in time very far without being very far from Earth. If this was the case, the early researchers in time travel probably died as they'd likely jump into vacuum, into the middle of an object, etc.

Stay Healthy - It’s difficult to be highly productive if you are overly stressed, have a poor diet, or get minimal exercise. The highly productive people I’ve seen in life make sure that they take care of themselves physically and emotionally so that they have the energy to stay productive.Utilize A Calendar - Whenever they are notified of a meeting or task to be completed, they don’t hesitate to put it in their calendar.Plan in Advance - If they know they plan on having a busy day they do things in days in advance to make their lives easier. This includes things like showering the night before, laying out clothes to wear the next day, or cooking lunches to eat throughout the week.Remember Deadlines - They constantly check their schedules/calendars to stay aware of any upcoming deadlines. My smartest friends in college were always the ones that were never surprised in class when the professor said, “Just a reminder, we have a test next week.” They never needed to be reminded because they started their preparation early.Stay Busy - They take advantage of idle time by completing unfinished tasks or getting things done in advance to save them time in the future. Having “nothing to do” is rarely an option.Eliminate Distractions - They know how to prioritize what needs to be done over indulgences and distractions. Whenever I know I have work that needs to get done and it’s a Saturday night, I choose to stay in and get it done instead of go out and party.Combat Procrastination - Procrastination is productivity’s worst enemy. Productive people regularly win battles against procrastination by never hesitating to start a task.I created a relevant video that you will find useful. To watch click here - Everyday Habits That Drain Our EnergyIf you liked this answer and want to hear more advice, subscribe to my YouTube channel: ThisisJoshOPhoto Copyright: alphaspirit | Direct Link To Photo

Realistically? No. If we care enough to commit fully to an air strike, we can essentially guarantee its destruction, due to a combination of long-range cruise missiles, stand-off ordnance, and low-observable/stealth aircraft.There are two ways to stop an air strike -- destroy the strike aircraft before they can launch their ordnance; or destroy the ordnance before it can hit the target. In order to do either of these things, you have to first detect the target; acquire the target, intercept the target, and successfully destroy the target. This requires you to have an air defense network (ADN) capable of doing these things. At the longest ranges, you have your big theater air defense and anti-ballistic missile radar and SAM launchers -- things like the S-300 and Patriot systems. At more intermediate ranges, you have lighter, more mobile SAMs like the Buk and Kub systems, and then you have short range, point defense SAMs like the Osa, or the Avenger (and at even shorter ranges, you have MANPADS, shoulder-fired missiles like the Strela, or the Igla).Each of these platforms has different ranges, altitudes, and targeting capabilities. Defeating them, then, becomes a matter of determining the best ingress and egress routes, the optimal ordnance release points, and maximizing the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) while minimizing your own risk (through the use of countermeasures and low-observable aircraft).So, with that intelligence painstakingly gathered, here's what happens. The longest range and most capable of these SAM sites are either fixed in permanent locations, or are extremely difficult to move quickly (usually requiring dozens of minutes to hours of tear-down time). So typically, we know exactly where they are. A wave of cruise missile strikes fired from well outside their detection radius obliterates most of these.Many of these will be Tomahawks, or similar missiles. Depending on the rules of this scenario, these will either be conventional warheads (a mixture of high explosives, and cluster sub-munitions, such as on the TLAM-D), and nuclear warheads (we decommissioned our nuclear TLAMs, but it uses the common W80 warhead, so it would not be difficult to get them back). These cruise missiles can fly upwards of 1500 miles, and are extremely difficult to detect. We can reprogram their trajectories in mid-flight; we can make them use terrain masking to be essentially invisible to radar; we can program complex GPS courses into them to allow a single missile to attack up to five targets autonomously.If the terrain supports it, the remainder are targeted by anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) that seek to home in on their radar transmitters.These can be launched from between 50-150 miles away. The really advanced versions in use by NATO forces today can loiter in an area until they detect a radar signal, then immediately home in on it. They are resistant to jamming -- in fact they can use jamming as an additional measure of detecting enemy defenses, by homing in on what is jamming them. By eliminating the radars, they make the launchers impotent and useless. Even the mere threat of ARMs can shut down an enemy air defense network.So now we've cleared a path to get close to our target. We still have to worry about the localized air defenses, the mid-range (and short-range) systems that are very deadly and accurate, and are often difficult to weed out. Let's also assume there are a few stragglers of the theater defenses too. And maybe there are some fighting positions in the city we'd like to hit in the process. The solution to this is to simply stay outside the range of what can shoot at us.The Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) can be dropped from numerous aircraft, and can glide into a target from over 70 miles away. It can hit with an accuracy of just a few feet, and is capable of performing various missions such as destroying hardened underground bunkers, dispensing sub-munitions or land mines over a wide area, or simply eradicating every vehicle within the span of several football fields, leaving everything else untouched.If that's too close, stealthy cruise missiles like the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) can be launched by many fighter aircraft (including the semi-stealthy F-35) from upwards of 200 miles away (the extended range version, from upwards of 600 miles). It can deliver a 1000 pound warhead onto a target the size of a 18-wheel truck in Moscow, Russia, fired from around Warsaw, Poland. Put another way, one of these fired from London or Paris, could blast holes in the Reichstag in Berlin with little difficulty, and no warning. (Imagine if this capability existed in World War II?)The obvious trade-off here is cost. Tomahawks, JSOWs, JASSMS, they're all expensive. What's cheaper is to use regular bombs, but regular bombs -- even when equipped with glide packages, bolt-on precision capability, etc., still have a much shorter range than stand-off weapons. For that, you need a low-observable aircraft.The F-22 (which is even less observable than the strike-oriented F-35) can deliver a 1,000lb Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from over 25 miles, while supercruising (traveling a supersonic cruise speeds, i.e. not on afterburners) at over Mach 1.5, from 50,000 feet above ground level, and against a non-superpower opponent, can essentially act with impunity, at much cheaper costs. Even against a superpower such as Russia or China, it's far from certain that a smart F-22 pilot could be easily detected before releasing ordnance; the cost is still probably cheaper in the long run (barring shootdowns, of course). It also doesn't hurt that it is the only true fifth-generation fighter in service and has no equal in air-combat, allowing it to defend the airspace it is intruding in from air threats.Of course, if we REALLY need to get into a hostile area, we can break out the B-2 Spirit. The B-2 can carry a truly massive amount of ordnance. Want JDAMs? It can carry 80 of them, including the 2,000lb variant. Want the biggest possible blast to destroy the most hardened possible target? How about the 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator? It can carry two of those. Yeah, it's a 30,000 pound bomb (compared to the more common 500lb or 1,000lb; or even the mighty 2,000lb JDAM)It's huge. Don't want to get up close and risk the remaining 20 B-2's left in service? It can fire the AGM-129 stealth advanced cruise missile (below) from 2000 miles away, delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere on a continent, without warning or any real chance to stop it. It can also fire the aforementioned JASSM.That's not to mention what we could do if we were actually willing to get close enough to risk strike aircraft. Dozens or hundreds of F-15Es, F-16s, even A-10s, dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of conventional bombs and precision munitions. Something will always get through -- any SAM site that shows itself either by radiating, or firing a missile, will necessarily be destroyed in the process.Now, capabilities come and go -- we've retired some of these things, replaced them with advanced successors, etc. Some of our stockpiles are low (I think we've retired all the AGM-129s, we are down to less than 3500 tomahawks, and no longer have nuclear ones, etc.), but that's always a temporary problem. Defense acquisitions is an every changing game of capabilities, countermeasures, counter-capabilities, and so-on.The point is this: you can't stop it. You can minimize the risk, you can develop anti-missile technology, you can harden structures, and try to hide them, develop mobile SAMs, jamming and countermeasure technology, etc. But if the U.S. really wants to assert dominance in the air, it can, and if it wants to strike your cities, there's literally nothing you can do to stop it, from a technical standpoint.What you CAN do -- if you are a superpower -- is stop it through deterrence. This is the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction at work. If you cannot obliterate an enemy so severely that their second-strike capability is completely removed (i.e. a complete decapitation strike), you've lost -- they'll retaliate against you, and casualties will be enormous on all sides (a gross oversimplification; for more see Deterrence theory, Second strike, and Massive retaliation). This is acceptable to nobody, so the political trade-offs dictate that no attack will be launched. This applies equally as much to air strikes using conventional weapons as it does to nuclear warfare.For non-superpowers, you don't have deterrence as a factor -- it's simply not a credible threat. Your deterrence comes through diplomacy, economic and political factors, and generally not being a threat to other nations. For countries that choose to be hostile actors and ignore these factors, there's little they can do -- for instance, Iraq under Saddam Hussein: the nation never recovered their military capability after the first Gulf War; or Iran, whose diplomatic isolation has prevented them from acquiring advanced weaponry capable of seriously threatening attacking U.S. forces (and doing so would result in the destruction of their military, placing them at risk from their neighbors, and destabilizing the region....yet another reason that detente and deterrence is almost always preferred to outright destruction). I could literally write volumes about deterrence and threats of military action as a factor in international relations, but the tl;dr version is this: if you see anyone glibly, but seriously, suggest that we should unilaterally attack another country and that there would be no real repercussions for doing so, go ahead and laugh them out of the room, because they have no idea what they're talking about.Liked this answer? I regularly write long-form answers on topics of comparative military analysis, defense acquisitions, the intelligence community, military strategy and tactics, and more. You can follow me here: Dan Rosenthal. Also, please consider following my blog, Leif's Longboat, where I repost my best answers and occasionally add new content that doesn't fit neatly into a Quora question. Thanks a lot, and stay frosty, my friends.