Romania significantly extends no-fly zone on Ukrainian border. The Ministry of National Defence of Romania has strengthened limits on aircraft and drone flights near to the border with Ukraine, extending the no-fly corridor out to 20 to 30 kilometres. In response to the increasing Russian attacks on Ukrainian ports, there was a necessity to enhance previously implemented measures the Ministry of Defence of Romania announced. This will enable more effective monitoring and control of airspace usage. The airspace has been restricted to within a minimum 20 to 30 kilometres from the Ukrainian border with a maximum altitude limit of 4,000 metres inside the prohibited area. The previous no-fly limit was set at only 8 kilometres along the Ukrainian border at a minimum altitude of 1,000 metres. The Ministry clarified that these restrictions would not apply to civilian aircraft flights to and from the Tolsia-Danube-Delta airport area or to state aircraft and air transport operated by the SMUD Emergency and Rescue Service. The Ministry of Defence of Romania has discovered wreckage that originated from Russian drones on three separate occasions recently. The most recent discovery occurred on September the 13th following a Russian attack on Ukraine's Odessa region. On that day, residents of villages in the Tolsia district received an RO Alert warning of an air threat message for the first time during a Russian drone attack on the Odessa region. The message included a warning about the potential risks from falling drone debris with the following message as reported by the local publication Digi24. There is a possibility of objects falling from the air. Please remain calm and seek shelter in basements or civilian defence shelters. If no shelter is available, stay indoors away from windows and external walls.


A thrilling win for Stevens in the night as they rally for a 67-59 overtime victory over Lebanon Valley, Glenn Clark with head coach Jackie Boswell. Coach of all the numbers from the night, the one that jumps out at me, between the second half and overtime you forced 25 turnovers. What did you do defensively to get your way back into this game? Well, I mean, I kind of laid into them a little bit at halftime. I thought our defense was passive. We still are in the mindset that offense is going to be what really turns it around and it's not. But it's the defense that sparks that offense, which is clearly the case because we get all the steals and then we shoot 50-something percent in the fourth quarter. So I thought that they did a really good job of handling the halftime and coming out there and buying into the defense and rallying together.  They're cheering for each other. I mean, to have a freshman step up and hit the free throw to have the sophomores come up and play the way that they did and hit some shots down the stretch. I mean, that looks good for us. Coming up the freshman, what a coming out party for Aaron Dixon tonight. Did you know that this was on the way of a game like this? We did. We did. We see her every day in practice. The conversation after the other day was, you know, come out and play with a lot of confidence. And I thought that she did that. And I thought she made some really good decisions, you know, and pass the ball when she needed to, but to be able to make that free throw when the game's on the line, that's good. Coach, you guys scored 15 points in the first half. You were out of it early in the second half. What does a win like this say about your team, this program, to battle through all of that and come away with a gutty victory? Well, I've said it my whole time here. You know, the players that we bring in, they care about each other. They care about this program. They work hard. They hate losing. And so sometimes you just got to sit back and you got to hope that they find a way and figure it out. And I felt like they did that today because it's either we do what we've been practicing or we take our lumps. And you guys got to make the choice. And I thought with a young group like this, to be able to step up and say, no, we're not going to take any more lumps. I thought that was really positive for our future. And if I could point out one player in particular, their fortitude, Emery Giselski, started 0-for-7 in this game. And then in overtime, had a huge shot that she made and was knocking down free throws. Can you explain that someone who, despite everything, is there making the plays when you need an overtime? Well, I think when you interviewed her the other day and you talked about it, she's an offensive-minded player. And we are fortunate to have multiple offensive-minded players. And you need that. As much as I'm preaching the defensive end, you get the defense, and then you make the right decisions. And a shooter, you can't know your 0-for-7. You just got to keep going. And you got to find the open person. I thought she did a lot of other things in the game, which actually kept her on the floor. And then eventually it's going to fall. It's going to fall. Shoot or shoot. That worked out. This was a fun night, coach. This was an awesome victory. Congratulations. We'll see you back later on Saturday. All right. Great. Thank you. You get overtime for this? Yeah, I think I get paid. You and I are in the same boat. You know what though? You get overtime for overtime every time. Thank you. Thank you. She's Jackie Boswell. I'm Glenn Clark. Go MustangSports.tv.


Hey guys, welcome back to my YouTube channel. This is Daniel Rosal here. For this video today, I want to talk about why if you are a YouTuber or a recording artist or anyone else who owns a microphone, why you may want to own also a white noise machine or at least a white noise app on your phone. Now, this is actually not my idea at all. I'm only passing on info from the audio grates from Curtis Judge, whose YouTube channel I'm an enormous fan of. The other YouTube channel I really love for everything audio related is sound speeds. I'm going to put links to both those guys in the video description because I've just learned so much from both of them. But something that Curtis Judge does in a lot of his videos and I never thought about doing myself and then I realized I totally could because I happened to own a number of white noise machines is using a white noise maker to learn the polar pattern or the pickup pattern of your microphone. Now, I explained in one of these videos recently, I bought this Audio Technica AT 2020 a couple of months ago and I did what probably a lot of people do when they buy microphones. You take one look at the user manual and the polar pattern diagram which has all the degrees and you say, okay, I got it. It's this type of microphone and you throw it in the bin. And that unfortunately was a bad move because I was watching another YouTube video a couple of nights ago on the top mistakes you do not want to make with the Audio Technica AT 2020 starting with not using phantom power. And there I was thinking I'm very smug. I don't need to watch this video. And tip two was make sure you're not speaking into the back of the microphone. And I said, lo and behold, I am speaking into the back of this microphone. Now what would have saved me from this fate would have been to stick on a pair of monitoring headphones after I bought this microphone and do a white noise test, which is what I'm going to do now. So here's my friendly white noise generator. I own the Lectrofan. I use it to block annoying noise going on outside my office, which happens probably about 30% of the time. But if you don't want to use a dedicated standalone white noise generator, you could totally just use your phone. And for the purpose of this demo, I just have it. I have my Lectrofan plugged into a power bank here. Now I'm going to turn this on in a second. The idea of learning the polar pattern with this is you want to bring your white noise machine around the microphone so you can figure out firstly where the pickup is good. Secondly, how good the off-axis rejection is. In other words, the areas that are supposed to be outside the polar pattern, how good is it actually rejecting saying what kind of a difference is it. Now for instance, if I was smarter when I went into owning the AudioTechnica AT2020, I would have learned two things. Firstly, this is what's called a side address microphone, which means you're supposed to speak into the side. In fact, possibly a little bit too high. It's not a top or end address microphone, which would be a microphone that's intended to speak in here.  I'm going to firstly put the white noise maker here so you should be able to see how the audio sounds coming from its intended position in the front and side address. Secondly, I'm going to move the white noise maker here so you guys can hear how much worse the audio sounds when I am speaking from the front. Secondly, I'm going to move it to the sides of the microphone so that you can hear how that off-axis rejection is from both side directions. Finally, I'm going to bring the white noise machine right on top, simulating speaking into the microphone incorrectly as if it were a top address microphone. And finally, just so that you can hear the difference between speaking right up to the microphone, I'm literally almost touching the phone. And speaking at a distance, I'm going to bring the microphone to a few commonly recommended speaking differences. Distances, one of them is going to be four fingers. Then I'm going to do one fist. And then I'm going to do about two fists, which is probably the way I'd naturally tend to, the kind of natural distance I would tend to keep if I had it set up like I do now on my desk. So let's go.  So that that was back pickup. And now we're going to do front pickup the wrong side of the microphone. I can actually bring it around so you can hear the difference clearly. This is front. I hope that was useful. So now we're now we're going to compare front pickup with and this is again a side address microphone. We're going to compare side address with incorrect top or end address. I can just see looking at the level meter here that the difference is keeping roughly the same distance between the microphone and the white noise generator, much more efficient pickup in the side address as intended. Finally, let's take a quick listen to the off access rejection and going to it shouldn't be any different based on the polar pattern. We're going to pick, put the white noise generator firstly in the back, then I'm going to move over to the right side, then the left side, and then just to wrap up this comparison, I'm going to move it all around 360 degrees so you can hear all the differences. Yeah, I've accidentally changed the type of white noise, but it shouldn't make a difference. This is more like brown noise, deeper frequencies. Finally, let's just use this guy for a proximity test. I'm going to test the proximity of the picker pattern and it's intended pickup area at the front of the microphone and also in the back. Actually, I'm just going to track. I'm just going to test the front one fist, two fists. Here we go guys. That is how that is why it may be useful if you're trying to learn the polar pattern of your new microphone to have a white noise generator either using one of the apps on your phone or buying a standalone white noise generator, move it around, look at the polar pattern diagram and then move your white noise generator as you monitor the audio or as you record and play back listening to the differences between the various sides just so you can get a good feel for where the intended pickup zone of the microphone is, how good it is at rejection and other characteristics of the microphone that it may be useful to know before you go and record a bunch of audio with it. Hope that video was useful if you do want to subscribe for more videos about videography, audio and related subjects. Do consider hitting that subscribe button. Thank you guys very much for staying with me and watching this video.


If I may, since this is the world policy conference and quite frankly speaking, I'm not qualified to be making any policies, but I think President Macron has a forum, which is Tech for Good. And if you look at the positive aspects that our industry can create and solve so many challenges in the society that we are going to be facing, from climate change to food shortage to challenges for curing cancer and health disease, honestly, yes, I'm the ambassador for the semiconductor industry, so I should speak good about it, but I think it's incumbent to all the leaders that are gathered here to have a policy about semiconductors because of the good that it can bring to their societies, besides the economic and the sovereignty issues, the value that it can bring by educating the workforce to have a stake in their future. Because the future more and more is being mapped by technology and by the way semiconductors are changing different applications from agri-food to life sciences, as Hendo very well mentioned. I think between genomics and proteomics, we are getting a complete map of the human body and honestly without semiconductors, that would have never been possible. So I think it's incumbent to all the leaders to think and craft a policy that is holistic for innovation and semiconductors and not too many people in venture and financing are as versed in semiconductors as the two of you, so I'm glad that we are loaning some of our talent to the finance industry to help. Thanks Max. I think it's a very good transition to maybe open the door for questions in the floor. I would like to stop here a little bit and see if you have questions that we could take on. Good morning, Stan Kuzmo, Capgemini. Yesterday we heard about China and Taiwan. This morning we heard that TSMC is an important player in this industry. So two questions. What would be the potential consequences on your industry, on this industry? Should China take control of Taiwan, number one? And number two, what is being done to anticipate? Number two is? I didn't hear number two either. Number two is what is being done to anticipate that potential scenario? Okay. So we want to start. Hendo, you want to start? Did you get the question? Sure. Thank you. I hear the question. The reality is that if something negative happens to supply chain from Taiwan, the consequences are dramatic and drastic. And the reason is that if you look at the advanced technologies, TSMC has 90% of the market. And yeah, we do have attempts right now by Intel, by Samsung to build capacity. But if you look at the total capacity of TSMC in 5 nanometers and below, it's 300,000 waifus a month. 300,000 waifus a month. So CHIPS Act will not solve that problem. The activities in Europe, frankly, will not solve that problem. So there's really nothing significant being done today if there is drastic reduction in supply chain from Taiwan in the next three to five years. And that's a problem. And we think that the cost of addressing that can be up to $200 billion. But again, we think it's important to prevent it from happening, which requires diplomacy. And we do see lack of diplomacy in many areas at the present time, unfortunately. So since this is a World Policy Council, maybe there you have some smart people that can actually address this problem and provide diplomatic solutions. Because there are really no solid economic solutions in place at the present time. Yeah, I think I want to answer that question. Leading edge, what's so-called leading edge technology, about 15 years ago, there was 10 plus companies who were competing for who's the first on leading edge. And the semiconductor technology develops in so-called nodes, it takes steps. And every step of the way, two to three of the companies fell off the wagon. They weren't able to keep up with the speed of development in the semiconductor industry. And that has led to the point where now it is three or some say two and a half, I don't care, three companies left that are really fighting for leading edge and TSMC is clearly leading the pack. Why do I say that? If somebody would have wanted to prevent the current situation, somebody would have needed to step in 20 years ago, at least 20 years ago. We haven't done that. And that's why we are where we are. Now a lot of things are done, probably the most effective one is bringing TSMC's capability into several other places. Several things are done, but it takes years, three to five at least, to be somewhat less dependent on the currency as compared to the current situation. So that's just a matter of the fact. And all we can do is do whatever we can to really grow our independence or become less dependent from the current situation. And a lot of efforts are done. And I agree with, I wouldn't probably formulate it as drastically as Handel does, as to the chips acts are not going to cut it, but they will be a contribution, but they will not be sufficient. It needs a lot more than that to really grow that independence or come, you can formulate it more positively to strengthen the capability of the rest of the world in comparison to what is in Taiwan. By two cents, first of all, I encourage you to believe in the good of people. I'm a naturally optimistic person, even though bad news sells better commercials, I hope you can focus on the good. Yes, if you're going to scenario plan and scenario for the worst case scenario, if there is a disruption in supply from Taiwan on the most advanced nodes, considering that the most advanced node production in Taiwan sums up to 80 plus percent. Yes, we will have globally a problem. That said, I agree with Helmut, the chips acts intention is to remedy that. And let's hope that that's a remote possibility that the chips act just remedy that. Farthermore, you have to realize how did we get here. Semiconductor industry was maximizing cost for the last 40 years. And as a result, you wake up in the United States, I live in San Francisco, the birthplace of integrated circuit, and we found ourselves with absolutely zero manufacturing in California. Well, it was because we wanted to optimize for cost. Today, the optimization needs to be based on other factors. And the industry with veterans like you guys are working on reshifting it without truly sacrificing the cost and the benefits that it's brought with it. So we are working in the industry very diligently. I just came from Hendole, Iowa in Honolulu two days ago in a conference of CEOs. We are as an industry focused on making sure we plan for the worst case scenario, but we are also conscious that some of the geopolitical tensions are outside our control. Thank you. Maybe there is another question in the middle. Good morning, Jean-Pierre Cabisson from Hong Kong Baptist University. I have a question to the whole panel, maybe more to Hendole. Do you think the restrictions introduced by the Biden administration in terms of semiconductors transferred to China will help the U.S. to keep an edge over China? That's my first question. The second part of the question is about the European manufacturers or designers of semiconductors. How much Europe can stay away or stay outside of these restrictions and what the U.S. is doing to prevent China from catching up? Hendole, do you start? Thank you for the question. I think the U.S. CHIPS Act has some positives. It basically does recognize the importance of semiconductors. The amount of funding for manufacturing is like 39 billion. There are 500 applicants, though, for funding. I think it's really good that the leaders understand the importance of semiconductors. We see the same thing in Europe, basically again, an understanding of the importance of semiconductors. What China is doing is accelerating development of mature technologies and trying to do what companies do in advanced technologies in more mature technologies. An example is the May 60 of Huawei, which was done pretty much with full China technology. It's 7 nanometers. Apple right now is a 3 nanometer, so two or three generations behind. China is putting big emphasis into trying to be as self-sufficient as possible. We think of the next three or four years that's going to work. Among the term, though, there will be problems. I think it's really good that the world really understands the importance of semiconductors. What we do see in Europe, and we actually do work with some European companies, we do see a high level of innovation. Right now, ST, Micro, is the leader in silicon carbide. This is for autonomous vehicles. They're actually a leader by a significant amount. The difference between number two and number one is pretty big. Maybe Infineon might dispute that, but again, that's our opinion. Europe is also very strong, as I said, in sensors. Sensors are really important in terms of applications. I think it's really very good that we are getting this political attention, but the costs, though, of participating in advanced technologies are so high. An example for you is that to put in capacity of 50,000 wafers a month in 2 nanometers costs $30 billion. For 28 nanometers, 10 years ago, it was $3 billion, 10x. The cost of participation is going up.  I'm very positive in the fact that we are recognizing the problems, and there are specialty areas that do not require advanced technologies that basically have very high growth. In addition to silicon and carbide, we see gallium nitride having high growth. Basically, the sensors, as I mentioned, have high growth potential. I think the recognition, and I agree, we should have looked at this problem 20 years ago, but we are looking at it now. Hopefully, we can not have significant political supply chain disruptions, because, frankly, if there is disruption from Taiwan, it's going to be bad for China as well as for the US and also for Europe. It's going to be bad globally. Hopefully, same minds will not result in catastrophe, but again, I think when you plan certain things, you have to look at different options, the optimistic, realistic, pessimistic, and very pessimistic. Again, hopefully, we won't have catastrophe, but again, I think, as Helmut said, we should have planned this 10 years ago or maybe 20 years ago, but we are now doing things. Maybe in the future, we'll be in better shape. Thank you. Maybe the last question. Yes, the last question. Yes, we are talking about semiconductor, but where are we with a superconductor? Are we still very far from or are we almost there? Well, first of all, as it was mentioned before, this industry has been, it should get the Nobel Prize for genius inventions over the last four years. So, we are diligently working on new materials. I was with the CEO of Intel two weeks ago, and he was not joking, saying that we are using only one third of periodic table. We still have two thirds to go, and we will definitely go there. I think supercomputers goes as Francois is working on it, his quantum computing platform. Right now, the latest and the greatest is about 100 qubits that is being produced, but quite honestly speaking, I think Francois team is counting on 50 to 100 qubits, and sandbox is one of the best out there. We are working as an industry to bring supercomputers because right now what sandbox is doing on drug discovery, what would have taken a number of years, it's being done in less than four hours with that number of qubits. So, the industry is making humongous progress, but what is needed for the progress is to have an environment that innovation can happen, and the geopolitics is only getting in the middle of it, creating redundancies across the globe, getting in the middle of it, not being able to collaborate with the best minds, gets in the middle of it, but as an industry, since I'm an optimist, I would say stay tuned to this channel. Yeah, and maybe as a quick conclusion, I mean, I think that you will understand that this industry is really supporting the next 20, 30, 40 years in terms of applications that will be around us, and we have all these verticals that are really supporting by semiconductors, and clearly innovation is at the bottom of it. Innovation brings leadership, and there is a new parameter today, I mean, this leadership is also equivalent to sovereignty. So, if you want to play even in the policy world, I mean, it's very important now to be very, very active into this industry. There is room, okay, there is room because this industry is now, as we said, transforming itself. We are moving from globalization to regionalization, and we believe that the Gulf region has a big place to take on this race. So, that's the end of it. Thank you very much for attending this. Thank you, everyone.


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today in the third episode of Signs of Our Time, we're joined again by Professor Ajaz Ahmed, one of the leading Marxist intellectuals in the world. Ajaz, welcome. Thank you. Today I thought we should talk about the United States and China. There's been, of course, an escalation of words between the two countries. Recently, presidential envoy of Donald Trump with the very special name of Marshall Billingsey made a comment where he said that the United States has at one previous time, he meant with the USSR, with the Soviet Union, has previously spent an adversary, and these are his words, previously spent an adversary into oblivion. And he says that the United States is prepared to escalate the arms race with China in order to spend it into oblivion. This is a comment again by US special presidential envoy Marshall Billingsey. Where are we now in this what appears to be escalating war of words between the United States and China? Between the United States and the Soviet Union, there was an immense disparity of material power, which in favor of the United States. The USSR was emerging out of the Second World War, having lost about a third of its population, actually, and all of its industrial base, so to speak. The Soviet Union was actually a very poor country coming out of the Second World War, even before that. So throughout that period, the Soviet Union was in fact materially far, far more so that the expenditure on defense against the United States and NATO and so on and so forth, was an immensely large part of the, it did in fact means, mean that you could not build a consumer society, you could not, it meant an immense amount of hardship for the Soviet people and for the Soviet state, and there's no question about that. Secondly, the Soviet Union also took it upon itself to its great glory to support as many national liberation movements with arms and money and so on, as it could possibly do across continents. So that was a very different kind of situation. Not only that, it also committed itself to helping countries develop their independent economy and military power. Egypt is a classic case of that, a tremendous amount, and when the Egyptians actually wrote off, just refused to pay the debts and so on, the Soviet Union could do nothing. Anyway, what you have now is that the United States is still the largest economy in the world, no question the most powerful, the most deeply structured financial system and so on and so forth, so one should not underestimate the power of the United States, but it is now at a very different point in history where the overall trajectory is that of U.S. decline relative to other powers in the world. It is now a highly indebted economy. Its economic power very largely centers on the power of its currency, which is effectively the, I mean, we live in a dollar standard economy the way the world wants you to live on. So, but yet that is very vulnerable. Whereas the, so that what you have is that in economic terms this is on the whole a declining power. China is on the other hand a rising power economically and most fundamentally it is the world's most productive economy. It's the most productive economy and it is the only truly organized economy so far as the great powers are concerned. So, and its military posture is of a very different kind. Where it has, it is increasingly matching and even in some areas exceeding the United States in technological power. At the same time its entire military structure is actually a defensive nature. So, you cannot outspend China, the United States has been actually undermining its own economy through all these wars that it has been fighting at a time when it's actually economically declining. So that very many of the internal crises of the United States in my view are connected precisely to the kind of disbalance in the United States where it is essentially a military industrial economy devoted very much to military at the expense of internet social development. China on the other hand has been able to create an admirable balance between the development of the economy for its own population as compared to the United States. You know, it is remarkable something like 90% of the Chinese population actually owns its own homes and by and large not a mortgage or anything like that. Whereas home ownership in the working class in the United States and not only the working class, military classes is declining and it has become in fact a source of household indebtedness which means that households cannot spend on other kinds of consumption the way they could if they were homeowners and so on and so forth. So that is one thing that you cannot. The other thing that is very important to understand in this is that, you know, the US through its belligerence has created a situation has forced China and Russia into a very close strategic partnership and between the great development of military technology in Russia and in China itself, the super solid field and so on. China has something like 165 supercomputers to America's 25. You know, so in the technological fields, the disbalances of a different order and thanks to this very great strategic relationship that that the Americans have actually imposed on on that, you have you have an interesting situation. China has a tremendous industrial base. Russia has a tremendous industrial base for military development for weapon systems and so on and so forth. At the same time, it has an enormous amount of oil. Now China does not want to become dependent on Russia for oil and therefore it is looking for all kinds of sources for petroleum and gas and so on including Saudi Arabia, Iran and other and so on. But there is that that the great weakness of China is actually resource scarcity in particularly energy but all other resources and that is the only strength the Americans have. The military strength in the South China Sea. That is a real threat to China and how that will shape up we shall see because that will also develop on the kind of alliances China versus the United States are able to create and how those other countries see their future and so on. The real weakness for China is really the American power in the South China Sea in which now Indians are trying trying to tag on to their industry. Let's just go into that a little bit because I agree with you that the vulnerability is in resources particularly energy resources. It's also clear that the United States strategy seems a little uneven because China continues to be the biggest trading partner of the United States. So you're going to war essentially with your major trading partner. This is quite different than the US USSR entanglement. It's quite different but what was very chilling to me just a few days ago was the defense minister in Japan Tara Kono made a statement saying that Japan is no longer interested in merely having a missile defense shield but Japan might want to produce weaponry or bi weaponry which gives it a first strike option first strike capability. We've seen aggressive moves from the United States. We've seen the Australians make some noises. This is the first that we've seen Japan be so clear about its ambitions for first strike. What's your thought about that? Japan was the great colonial power in the area and Korea, China were part of the empire or part of China's part of the empire. So the Southeast Asia this this was also what the Japanese thought of the co-prosperities here and so on. Behind that was a very powerful tradition of militaristic state militarism of very strong kind going back to their old traditional feudal past but right into the Second World War and so on. So there is that side of the ruling class in Japan which is not still yet for that time it used to be a great power in the area and now since with the rise of China so I'll come to that. The second thing I think one has to remember is that from being a great colonial power it became a it was it lost a war and the modern Japanese state is a result of that American defeat of Japan and occupation of Japan. Some of it still continues which whether or not Japanese call it occupation or not but the so so so there's that so I would say that Japan has always had ambivalent relationship with the with the United States. There throughout the period when the Soviet Union was still there Japan saw itself right next door to the Soviet Union saw itself as really being dependent of the United States for its defense architecture against the Soviet Union. Now you know different things happening on the one hand North Korean nuclear power is directed against the Americans Americans and that means American presence both in South Korea and in Japan Okinawa and all and North Koreans are threatening that if the Americans take any military action against them we shall retaliate against you know their retaliation will come in Japan and also North Korea. So first strike capability against who that is that is one question where does the threat a military threat of that kind come so they on the one hand have to resolve their relationship with the United States. Now the other thing that occurs to me is that there is a kind of a right wing patriotic sentiment in Japan which has been for a long time clamoring to rebuild its own independent military capability to build its own independent nuclear force etc etc in conjunction with the United States but so even now this defense minister and how they and so on what they're saying even now is in conjunction with the United States you know so on the other hand there is left liberal opinion in Japan which is opposed to this dependence in America all together. So I think this latest statement of rejecting that missile defense and wanting to build its own we have to see where it goes because the rejection of the missile defense may come about and the building of that capability may not come about so it actually makes Japan somewhat more independent of the United States because this business of that missile defense is something that is threatening both North Korea and and China and there must be some people in the strategic establishment in Japan who must be saying that why get deeper into this because this is actually what is posing the threat to us you know there must be some realism in some circles in Japan that your real threat is that because of your involvement with the American increasing you're making yourself more more vulnerable to North Korea and so on so we have to wait and see just where it goes in terms of Japan. How interesting that that's that is a very interesting analysis and I hope you'll come back and pick this particular point up. Ejaz Ahmed, thanks a lot.


The Queen has been graciously pleased on the occasion of Her Majesty's birthday and on the advice of Her Majesty's St Lucia Ministers to approve of the following honours in the Birthday Honours List 2019. CBE, Commander of the British Empire, Rick Wayne for services to entertainment, professional bodybuilding, advocacy and journalism. OBE, to be Ordinary Officers of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Maya Shiriki for services to business. MBE, to be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Dr. Owen Osbert Gabriel for services to medicine. Cleo Gregory Lord for services to entrepreneurship and business. Margaret Robert Steele for services to broadcasting. British Empire Medal, BEM, Civil Division. Gasper Alfred Peter David Shalmine for services to education. Pamela Mary Devaux for services to charity. Joseph Riley Dolcy for services to the St Lucia Fire Service. Vincent McDomb for services to entertainment. Mary Pierre for services to the community. Mary Joan Smith for services to entrepreneurship and business.