Rivalarrival

They would raise more awareness and facilitate more productive discussion and alienate fewer people and have a tangible, measurable effect by taking direct action against car dealership and gas stations.

The kind of "discussion" they have most "facilitated" is how to increase the penalties for impeding traffic. Their only "success" has been winning enough support for legislators to increase penalties and enforcement for "impeding traffic"

I would be more likely to sympathize with JSO if they engaged in direct action against the oil industry instead of the general public. Stopping ambulances and electric cars in traffic does not get the world to abandon oil.

If you're going to commit a criminal offense regardless, at least target something that actively supports or benefits from the oil industry. They could go full Robin Hood, robbing businesses that support the oil industry and anonymously donating the proceeds to environmental causes. They could threaten car dealerships that sell ICE vehicles. While it is certainly illegal to burn down a gas station, at least that would be an attack on the object of their protests rather than the general public.

Nothing wrong with their stated cause, but their actions don't support that cause.

If "poisonous" are parallelograms and "venomous" are trapezoids, "toxic" would be quadrilaterals in general. (Can't use square/rectangle analogy, because squares are a type of rectangle, and venom/poison is not a type of poison/venom.)

Aside from that, there aren't too many rules on "toxic".

Poison and venom will both cause serious acute injury with the possibility of immediate death. Both can be considered "toxic".

Just to be confusing, "poison" and "poisoning" can have substantially different connotations. For example, the heavy metal "lead" would not normally* be considered a "poison". Lead would generally be considered "toxic".

But, repeated exposure to lead to the point that it causes physical symptoms is referred to as "lead poisoning".

Same thing with mercury: it would be considered "toxic"; it wouldn't normally* be considered a poison. But repeated exposure to mercury would be considered "mercury poisoning".

(* If a third party were to deliberately introduce lead or mercury into the body of an individual, the substance would then be considered a "poison".)

If you kill a snake and decide to chew on the venom glands, would they be considered poisonous or venomous?

Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which was invented in 1846 and available from refineries long before diesel (1894) and gasoline (1892). Refineries were producing fuel that jets could burn long before jets existed. Most military aircraft can burn diesel or ordinary kerosene if jet fuel isnt available, they just need to be careful to avoid gelling, which can occur in the cold air at high altitude.

GPS is needed for a certain degree of precision in standoff weapons. Without it, they have to rely on laser or TV guidance, or dead reckoning. The ring laser gyros and accelerometers they use in their inertial guidance systems are far more accurate than the guidance systems used aboard V1 and V2 rockets, which were themselves surprisingly effective.

GPS is not required for navigation of manned aircraft: they can rely on terrestrial radio beacons or dead reckoning with their own inertial navigation systems.

I can't think of a weapons system that actually requires Internet access.

Homonyms are where two words are spelled the same, yet carry different meanings. Both the possessive and contractive forms of "it's" are now homonyms. I have spoken.

Agreed. The possessive and contractions should be homonyms, both carrying the apostrophe. "Its" would be the nonsensical plural form of an inherently singular word: "This "it", that "it", and those "its" over there...".

The good news is that all words are made up. We can, indeed, use the same "it's" for both the possessive form of "it" and the contraction of "it is".

An Hero. Become one.

(That's not actually directed at you; you reminded me of the meme. Don't actually become an hero.)

Well, have a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILES!

I don't think modern Rangers hold significant advantage over WWII rangers. I think they would actually be a detriment, as the WWII rangers were familiar with the technologies available in that time period. Those modern rangers do carry more radios than the entire invading force had during D-Day. But, any base you send will have plenty of radios to issue.

My first thought was Norfolk. They've got enough ASW assets to stop the U-boats that were decimating the convoys. Yeah, they won't be able to rearm modern weapons or repair/replace certain damaged systems, but with the U-boats out of the way, the original fleet would have been much more successful. Even after the modern weapons are exhausted, the C3/ISR capabilities of the future fleet will greatly enhance the operations of the past.

My second thought is Wright Patterson AFB, home of the US Air Force museum. Designers get to tear apart aircraft that wouldn't be built until after the war, but not so advanced that they exceed the past nation's ability to produce. They get turbine engines 4 years early, and figure out all the transonic effects thet kept them from breaking the sound barrier. Turboprop-powered heavy bombers, flying higher and faster than anything the Axis can throw at them. Turboshaft powered submarines, destroyers, PT boats, helicopters, tanks

Third thought is to skip straight to the endgame and try to accelerate the Manhattan project. It might be a bit of a stretch to call it a "military base", (and it's not on the list above) but we could send them the Savannah River site. They get more plutonium than they know what to do with. With enough plutonium, they can afford to drop demonstration bombs in unpopulated areas of both the Asian and European theaters, possibly without needing to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki. We can avoid the need to invade both Japan and Germany.

Any base we send would have modern computers and some programmers. The German Enigma code could be brute-forced in a matter of hours on a modern computer. That alone is going to shorten the war in Europe by months to years.

Whoops! My bad.

Ok, I don't think you read what I wrote.

Everytime you read "Starlink", I want you to think about a flashing anti-collision beacon on a radio tower. Because that is what a Starlink transceivers looks like to every ELINT operator aboard, and on every nearby ship. Imagine a ship with a giant red blinky light on it, because that's what an ELINT technician would be seeing.

She would have had to have recruited every ELINT technician and supervisor aboard every vessel they sailed with to make this happen.