Everybody Peters, I’m coming to you from California. A lot of people have written in some questions about US military strategy in light of the Ukraine war and perhaps hostilities with the Chinese. Back during the Cold War, the United States maintain a military policy of being able to fight two and a half wars, the idea that’d be two major conflicts with the Soviets. And you know, we still need enough dry powder to fight like a small brush fire conflict. And the post cold war era that’s basically shrunk down to one, the idea that the United States is assets are now more concentrated than they used to be. And that means they need to be more focused. And so if we end up into a conflict with the Russians and the Chinese at the same time, am I concerned that we can’t pull that off, and the short version is no. Now the nature of the conflict in Ukraine is one where the United States feels and can’t become directly involved, because the risk of a nuclear escalation be huge. And that means we’re supplying the Ukrainians to fight the war force by from a certain point of view. And in doing so, to this point, the military assets that are being transferred are things that we don’t use, most of this is equipment that dates back to the 70s in the 80s, that was decommissioned in the 90s in the 2000s. And honestly, the United States doesn’t think of that as part of its balance sheet in terms of its order forces, it’s stuff that we had to dispose of, actually, so in many ways, Ukrainians are saving us money in a weird sort of way. That means that the army is still available to do whatever with all of the equipment that it would use. Anyway, there hasn’t been anything taken off the topic make separate, maybe there’s some ammo, and we’re already producing five times as many artillery shells a day as we did before the war, so I’m not really overly concerned there. In addition, if we do get into a clash with the Chinese, which I don’t think we will, but if we do that is going to be primarily a naval fight. So it’s entirely possible, if not necessarily recommended, that the United States could be involved in a land war on the western end of Eurasia while being involved in a naval war on the eastern end. And the sort of military supplies that go to those two different types of forces are ones the United States is perfectly capable of providing simultaneously. So while I’m not advocating for a war with either power, and I don’t think a war with either power is likely, United States actually is capable of doing both of those at the same time, this is not chewing and walking. This is doing two radically different things with radically different command structures, and especially military assets that don’t necessarily need to be in the same place at the same time. All right, hope that makes a few people feel that a little bit better about a few things. See you guys next time.