2022 FORMULA 1 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP CONSTRUCTOR STANDINGS
0 Comments
2022 Formula 1 World Championship Drivers' Standings
FORMULA 1 GRAN PREMIO DE LA CIUDAD DE MÉXICO 20222 - Race Results
This month, United States President Joe Biden warned that the world could face Armageddon if his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, were to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. You would imagine that such a prognosis would lead to urgent action to dial down the confrontation. Yet no effort is being made to move us back from that risk. On the contrary, governments on all sides are piling on more threats, more militarisation and more actions that are not just making nuclear war possible but are increasing its probability.
Last week, NATO began a round of nuclear exercises simulating the dropping of ‘tactical’ B61 nuclear bombs over Europe. Although these drills are presented as routine, they are occurring alongside parallel Russian exercises. It’s hard to imagine worse timing. Surely with concerns about Armageddon expressed at the very highest levels of power, these exercises should have been called off as a message that the West won’t contribute to escalating nuclear tensions? Instead, our leaders are systematically failing to reduce the risk. Still, there are powerful messages that should be listened to and acted upon. In August — even before Putin’s latest, thinly veiled nuclear threats — United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that the world is “one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation”. His words must serve as a wake-up call to leaders who pursue policies inexorably driving us towards nuclear war and to populations that are not yet taking action to stop these terrible dangers. Guterres warned that we are at a time of nuclear danger “not seen since the height of the Cold War”. He cautioned against countries seeking “false security” by spending vast sums on “doomsday weapons”. He said that the world had been lucky that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. But as he rightly stated: “Luck is not a strategy. Nor is it a shield from geopolitical tensions boiling over into nuclear conflict.” Indeed, we cannot rely on luck. And we must remember what nuclear use means and understand what nuclear war would look like today. An estimated 340,000 people died after the US dropped atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945. That included many who survived the immediate blast but died shortly afterwards from fatal burns. Others died because of the complete breakdown of rescue and medical services that had also been destroyed. And many more died when the impact of radiation kicked in, poisoning people and causing cancers and birth deformities. If that isn’t bad enough, consider this: The Hiroshima bomb was actually a small nuclear bomb in today’s terms. Current nuclear weapons — even the supposedly limited-range, battlefield-oriented ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons now routinely discussed in the context of the Ukraine war — are many, many times more powerful. The ones that the current exercises over Europe are designed for have variable yields of up to 20 times greater strength than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Equally worrying are the recent policies of nuclear weapons states. We had seen gradual reductions in nuclear weapons for a few decades. Now we are seeing modernisation programmes on all sides, with the US planning an upgrade of missiles that can deliver nuclear weapons, France launching a project to build a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and Britain, India and Pakistan preparing to increase their nuclear arsenals.
FORMULA 1 GRAN PREMIO DE LA CIUDAD DE MÉXICO 2022 - Top 10 Qualifying Results
¹ Grid penalty
The United States decided to speed up the deployment of B61-12 nuclear bombs in Europe. Politico reports this with reference to its own sources. The deployment of the upgraded thermonuclear gravity bombs was scheduled for the spring of next year, but now, they are due to arrive in December 2022. US officials shared this with NATO allies during a closed-door meeting in Brussels this month. Such a move requires replacing outdated B61 nuclear bombs with a newer B61-12 version in various storage facilities in Europe for potential use by the U.S. and allied bomber and fighter jets. Politico notes that this decision comes amid increasing tensions over Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It is noted that the modernization of the B61 nuclear bomb program has been openly discussed in the US budget documents and public statements for many years. Pentagon officials state that this is necessary to ensure the modernization and safety of the aviation nuclear weapon arsenal. They are convinced: the current steps are not related to current events in Ukraine and were not artificially accelerated. B61 nuclear bombs have been in service with the United States since 1968. Currently, the B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, and B61-11 modifications are being used. B61-3 and B61-4 belong to tactical ammunition, and they are used with F-15E and F-16C fighter jets. B61-7 and B61-11 bombs are considered strategic and are used with B-2 and B-52 bomber jets. The development of B61-12 has been ongoing since 2012. In 2018, the Department of Nuclear Safety and Security approved its project. The upgraded bomb should replace the B61-3, B61-4, and B61-7 currently in service with American combat aircraft. he B61-12 bomb received a 50 kilotons warhead and became high precision: a controlled tail rudder is installed on it, which will significantly increase accuracy and abandon the use of a brake parachute.
Audi has reached a milestone on the road to the FIA Formula 1 World Championship, selecting Sauber as a strategic partner for the project and planning to acquire a stake in the Sauber Group. The partnership will see the traditional Swiss racing team competing as the Audi factory team from 2026 onwards, using the power unit developed by Audi for the pinnacle of motorsport. Following the announcement of its Formula 1 entry at the end of August, Audi’s confirmation of its strategic partner marks the next milestone in the company’s entry into the premier class of motorsport. While Audi will create the power unit at the Audi Motorsport Competence Center in Neuburg an der Donau, Sauber will develop and manufacture the race car at its site in Hinwil (Switzerland). Sauber will also be responsible for planning and executing the race operations. With around 30 years of competitive experience, Sauber is one of the most renowned and traditional teams in Formula 1.
“We are delighted to have gained such an experienced and competent partner for our ambitious Formula 1 project,” says Oliver Hoffmann, Member of the Board for Technical Development at AUDI AG. “We already know the Sauber Group with its state-of-the-art facility and experienced team from previous collaborations and are convinced that together we will form a strong team.” For example, Audi Sport has already regularly used the Sauber Group’s high-tech wind tunnel in Hinwil, just under four hours away by car, during the successful Le Mans era and the development of Class 1 touring car for the DTM. “Audi is the best partner for the Sauber Group,” says Finn Rausing, Chairman of Sauber Holding. “It is clear that both companies share the same values and vision. We are looking forward to achieving our common goals with a strong and successful partnership.” Development of the power unit, which consists of an electric motor, battery, control systems and a combustion engine, is already in full swing at the facility of the specially founded Audi Formula Racing GmbH in Neuburg an der Donau. More than 120 employees are already working on the project. “Sauber is a first-class partner for the use of the Audi Power Unit,” says Adam Baker, managing director of the company. “We are looking forward to working with an experienced team that has helped shape many eras of Formula 1 history. Together, we want to write the next chapter starting in 2026.”
CBS News joined the division's Deputy Commander, Brigadier General John Lubas, and Colonel Edwin Matthaidess, Commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, on a Black Hawk helicopter for the hour-long ride to the very edge of NATO territory — only around three miles from Romania's border with Ukraine. From the moment Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, his forces have advanced northward from the Crimean Peninsula, a Ukrainian region that Moscow illegally seized control of in 2014. For more than seven months, Russian troops have tried to push along the Black Sea coast into the Kherson region, aiming to capture the key Ukrainian port cities of Mykolaiv and Odesa.
Their goal is to cut off all Ukrainian access to the sea, leaving the country and its military forces landlocked. That threat, so close to NATO territory in Romania, is why one of America's most elite air assault divisions has been sent in, with some heavy equipment. "We're ready to defend every inch of NATO soil," Lubas told CBS News. "We bring a unique capability, from our air assault capability… We're a light infantry force, but again, we bring that mobility with us, for our aircraft and air assaults." Skirting northward along Romania's Black Sea coast, the Black Hawk eventually touched down at a forward operating site where U.S. and Romanian troops were pounding targets during a joint ground and air assault exercise. The tank rounds and artillery fire were real. The drill was meant to recreate the battles Ukraine's forces are fighting every day against Russian troops, just across the border. The war games so close to that border are a clear message to Russia and to America's NATO allies, that the U.S. Army is here. "The real meaning for me, to have the American troops here, is like if you were to have allies in Normandy before any enemy was there," Romanian Major General Lulian Berdila told CBS News, referring to the landmark World War II battle on France's north coast. The American forces have been establishing a garrison at the Romanian military's air base. In all, about 4,700 soldiers from the 101st Airborne's home base in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, have been deployed to reinforce NATO's eastern flank. Matthaidess told CBS News that he and his troops were the closest American forces to the fighting in Ukraine. From their vantage point, they've been "closely watching" the Russian forces, "building objectives to practice against" and conducting drills that "replicate exactly what's going on" in the war. "It keeps us on our toes," he said. The "Screaming Eagles" commanders told CBS News repeatedly that they are always "ready to fight tonight," and while they're there to defend NATO territory, if the fighting escalates or there's any attack on NATO, they're fully prepared to cross the border into Ukraine.
2022 Formula 1 World Championship Drivers' Standings
History records that on October 16, 1962, then-US President John F. Kennedy received information from the CIA about the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. This event was the formal beginning of the Cuban Missile Crisis — the first, and for a long time, the only event in world history that brought humanity to the brink of nuclear war. Back then, cool heads – who had not yet forgotten the horrors of a real war – were able to prevent a catastrophe. Whether today's leaders will show the same restraint is far from certain. Rhymes and echoes Nineteenth century American humourist Mark Twain famously said, “History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes.” Pakistani-British historian Tariq Ali is credited with a similar take: “History rarely repeats itself, but its echoes never go away.” Either could have been referring to today’s Russia-Ukraine conflict, which seems to be rhyming with, and echoing, a perilous episode from 60 years ago and 6,000 miles away – the Cuban Missile Crisis. Observers who recall the US-Soviet showdown of October 1962 can only hope that the latest confrontation between Washington and Moscow doesn’t require as much luck to avert a potentially planet-ending nuclear war. The similarities – rhymes and echoes – are evident. For starters, the Ukraine and Cuban crises were both rooted at least partly in the same principle: A superpower can’t stand idly by when a geopolitical rival upsets the security balance between them. In 1962, the trigger was the secret placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba, right on America’s doorstep. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who ironically grew up in what was then Ukraine, saw the move as a way to protect the island against a US invasion after the failed Bay of Pigs assault in April 1961, as well as a tit-for-tat response to the Pentagon’s deployment of Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy, which positioned Washington’s nuclear warheads to hit the USSR's territory in as few as ten minutes. At the time, the long-range missiles in Soviet territory took hours to fuel up and fire, meaning a delayed response to a US first strike. “Since the Americans have already surrounded the Soviet Union with a ring of their military installations, we should pay them back in their own coin and give them a taste of their own medicine so that they find out for themselves how it feels to live as a target of nuclear arms,” Khrushchev was quoted as saying by Aleksandr Alekseev, then Moscow’s ambassador to Cuba. US President John F. Kennedy didn’t see it that way when a U-2 spy plane spotted surface-to-surface missiles in Cuba on October 16. As Ukrainian-born author Sergey Plokhiy wrote in his 2021 book, ‘Nuclear Folly,’ Kennedy was initially inclined to order an attack on the missile sites, which easily could have escalated into a Soviet response and, eventually, mushroom clouds on both sides. The American president wasn’t yet aware that the Soviets had already shipped nuclear warheads to Cuba. Nor did he know that the USSR had 43,000 troops on the island, as well as tactical nukes that could be used to destroy a US attack force. But Kennedy knew that having Soviet ballistic missiles just across the Florida Straits – Havana is only about 1,100 miles from Washington and 230 miles from Miami – was intolerable and potentially gave the USSR the ability to win a nuclear war with the US. Russia has raised similar concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion. The Western military bloc was formed to ensure collective security against the USSR, but instead of reaping a peace dividend after the Soviet collapse in 1991, it has expanded to 30 states, nearly doubling in size. It also placed strategic weapons in Eastern Europe, which Moscow perceived as a threat. As if those moves weren’t provocative enough, NATO has also pledged to eventually push into Ukraine and Georgia, which would expand its reach into two former Soviet republics on Russia’s borders. Tensions escalated further when a US-backed coup overthrew Ukraine’s elected government in 2014, setting off a war between Kiev and separatists in the Donbass that left an estimated 14,000 people dead even before Moscow began its military offensive last February. Some observers have blamed the US and NATO for provoking the conflict. “As the one who started the Ukraine crisis and the biggest factor fueling it, the US needs to deeply reflect on its erroneous actions of exerting extreme pressure and fanning the flame on the Ukraine issue,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said in July. Pope Francis claimed in June that World War III had already been declared and reiterated his claim that NATO may have triggered the crisis. He cited an unidentified world leader who told him that the bloc was “barking at the gates of Russia” and pushed back against criticism that he had failed to condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin. NATO isn’t just a casual association of states. As UK cabinet minister Sajid Javid noted in February, shortly before the Russian offensive started, an encroachment on one member is an encroachment on all. He even referred to the 30 member states as “NATO territory,” as if the bloc were one giant nation. In terms of security, it may as well be one country. As Article 5 of the NATO treaty states, an armed assault on one member is considered an attack on all. That was a heavy responsibility when NATO started with 12 close allies. It has become a far more precarious pledge with expansion eastward. A dust-up in Skopje or Tallinn, even if justifiable, could have just as much potential to trigger a nuclear conflagration as an attack against Berlin or Paris. And what if one of the little brothers is a bad actor, essentially provoking a fight that the big brothers are bound to finish? From Russia’s perspective, Ukraine would pose just such a risk. Putin has accused Kiev of committing “genocide” against Russian speakers in Donbass, and Ukraine has failed to implement the Minsk agreements, the protocols brokered by Germany and France to bring peace to the region. Russia also has called for the “denazification” of Ukraine. Moscow’s envoy to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, tried to explain Russia’s security concerns to a CBS News interviewer just four days before tanks rolled across Ukraine’s borders. Geopolitical rivals mustn’t trample on the principle of 'indivisible security', meaning neither NATO nor Russia should be allowed to strengthen its own security at the expense of the other party, he said. In that context, adding Ukraine to NATO would be “not possible for us to swallow,” Antonov explained. His next comment made clear why such tactics aren’t in the interest of NATO member states, either: You’ll see that there’s no space for us to retreat World War I was supposed to have taught politicians that hair-trigger alliances can bring unintended consequences, such as when the assassination of an Austrian archduke in Sarajevo set off a global conflict that killed or maimed 40 million people. The resulting carnage was so devastating that it was supposed to be “the war to end all wars,” though tragically, rival blocs were going at it again – with even more deadly consequences – just 21 years later.
North and South Korea have exchanged warning shots off their western coast, accusing each other of breaching their maritime border amid heightened tensions over Pyongyang’s weapons tests. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said it broadcast warnings and fired warning shots to repel a North Korean merchant vessel that crossed the Northern Limit Line (NLL), the de facto sea boundary, at approximately 3:40am local time on Monday (18:40 GMT Sunday). North Korea’s military said it fired 10 rounds of artillery warning shots towards its territorial waters, where “naval enemy movement was detected”. It accused a South Korean naval ship of intruding into North Korean waters on the pretext of cracking down on an unidentified ship.
“We ordered initial countermeasures to strongly expel the enemy warship by firing 10 shells of multiple rocket launchers near the waters where the enemy movement occurred,” the North Korean People’s Army said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency. JCS said the North Korean artillery firings breached a 2018 inter-Korean accord on reducing military animosities and undermines stability on the Korean Peninsula. It said the North Korean shells did not land in South Korean waters but that it is boosting its military readiness. There were no reports of clashes, but the poorly marked sea boundary off the Korean Peninsula’s west coast is a source of long-running animosities between the two countries. It is the scene of several bloody inter-Korean naval skirmishes and violence in recent years, including North Korea’s shelling of a South Korean island and its alleged torpedoing of a South Korean navy ship that killed 50 people in 2010.
2022 FORMULA 1 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP CONSTRUCTOR STANDINGS
FORMULA 1 ARAMCO UNITED STATES GRAND PRIX 2022 - Race Results
|
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|