This is a silly bluff, though. The options are not just nuclear war or Russia is destroyed. The third, vastly preferable alternative is that Russia withdraws from a pointless foreign invasion and takes a ding as a nation but doesn’t come close to being destroyed. They’ve done it time and time again, they didn’t glass Afghanistan or the West for losing that conflict, this isn’t much different.

It is basically arbitrary but a consensus is the metric century (62 miles for those of us in the USA), 100Km, is pretty standard.

There is a detectable atmosphere which extends out beyond the Moon, it isn't enough to breathe or even protect from the solar wind and solar radiation but it does stretch out into "space"

Someone else pointed out that those are the cases that make headlines. Maybe my perception was wrong.

[deleted]

> Does it fluctuate due to earth’s topography or relative moon position (like tides)?

No, the definition of "space" is based on altitude above sea level, not local topography. In other words, there's not an extra "air mountain" above Mount Everest.

The Moon does pull on the atmosphere as it does the water, but this effect is negligible and also does not affect where space is defined to begin.

> Geography would have a very negligible effect at that altitude. It's a fixed altitude above sea level and doesn't fluctuate

But just because it's an arbitrary human definition. There are dynamics in the upper atmosphere that matter for some purposes, but the atmosphere in the sense of "has dynamics that matter sometimes" extends far into what we think of as "space".

Side note, but my MIL with Crohn's can poop out something 20 min after she eats it if her digestive system is a bit testy with her.

US Air Force says it's 50 miles.

FAI says it's 100 km (62 miles).

Both are just "round numbers" that kind of make sense, but have no precise physical reason to be exactly that.

Good question. The atmosphere just gets thinner and thinner the higher one goes.

The US defines space as above 50 miles. The rest of the world defines it as 100km, which is ~60 miles.

Not too far off.

*this is the older definition, I might be temporally wrong.

We have defined it precisely for ease of convention and discussion but its really fuzzy

FAI (International Aeronautical Federation) defines it as 100 km up above mean sea level. NASA and the US Armed Forces use 80 km above sea level.

These are just round convenient numbers to have a threshold. The atmosphere thins steadily as you get higher and higher up so there's no magic line where you're definitely in atmosphere below it and definitely in space above it. The 100 km definition for space comes from an estimate that above that height you'd need to be traveling at orbital velocities to generate enough lift to stay aloft so at that point you're orbiting not flying through the air so its a spacecraft not an airplane.

Aside from a couple test planes like the X-15, most things either operate well under that level (U2 and SR71 could hit about 25km) or well over that level (Low Earth orbit is generally 300-2000km)

The definition is pretty much arbitrary, but it's generally considered the point at which the atmosphere becomes too thin to support conventional flight. In Europe it's considered 62 miles (100km), NASA considers it to be 50 miles (about 80km).

Geography would have a very negligible effect at that altitude. It's a fixed altitude above sea level and doesn't fluctuate

Heck, Russia was accused of doing that very thing in Ukraine prior to the current war.

Because in the modern world nations trade weapons to each other all the time for profit aswell, would that then mean that the seller of these weapons were at war with any nation that happened to fight the one who bought from them?

But technically it is a form of warfare, but the big players don't want to risk a direct confrontation because of those big, nasty weapons called nukes, which can blow up several cities in one shot and leave a poisonous ruin for a few centuries afterward....its just too costly for the big ones to face off directly...for the moment.

But...if there somehow was a way to not only successfully detect and intercept every missle that your enemy could fire, and somehow synchronize a surprise assault on a global scale to take out every sub and nuke sat an enemy has in one strike...then the bets would be off.

Don't say this could be impossible either, the Ukraine alone has become very good at intercepting most of what Russia fires at them, but some still get through, and in the case of nukes, only one has to successfully reach target to kill millions in one go.

Along those lines, there are some concerns about citizens fighting as volunteers in a war. The line between 'volunteer' and regular troops being sent in under the pretext of volunteer can be blurred. In the Korean War, hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens 'volunteered' to join the North Korean forces. With officers and their equipment, too. McArthur wanted to use nukes to stop them. He got relieved of his command instead.

Ahh this makes sense

Also LEO. Can confirm. Humidity and geographical location will have a lot to do with the state of the body. Also, if dogs are present... Well... Dogs need to eat and they're gonna eat.

Well that's just nonsense, the Axis intentionally went to war knowing it would draw in the Western powers. Nazi Germany in particular specifically wanted another world war in order to reorder the world in their favour, much as they interpreted the First World War to have reordered the war in the Entente's favour.

If you want to argue that no-one wanted the First World War and it only occurred as a result of brinksmanship gone too far then you can certainly make that case. I wouldn't agree, but you could make that case.

No, not biologically related.

So I am related to her?

Bicarbonate should tend to make the pH neutral, not alkaline.

Ok thank you

Your explanation is actually a bit confusing. State it again with only relevant people to the relation you want to know.

This is my attempt at it: your first cousin once removed has a husband who has a brother that has a step daughter?

You have no relation to the step daughter, not even a legal one. Your relation stops at your first cousin once removed husband who is your first cousin once removed by marriage.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Information about a specific or narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc.) are not allowed on ELI5 (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

What would she be then? Just legal ties or something else?