- #71
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
In the era of a disgraced press, shouldn't the phrase "most [unamed] experts agree... [ambiguous, absent context blah blah blah] is dangerous" be on the editor's shall-not-use list?
This just in... http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear/index.html(CNN)Politicalzoobyshoe said:Then there's North Korea, perhaps the craziest of all.
1oldman2 said:This just in... http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear/index.html(CNN)Political
uncertainty in the United States and in South Korea could give North Korean leader Kim Jong-un "an apt time" to develop nuclear weapons "at all costs by the end of 2017," a high-profile North Korean diplomat who recently defected to South Korea said Tuesday.
Then of there are the "other players in the game"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/asia/china-aircraft-carrier-pacific/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/asia/india-icbm-test/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/27/politics/kim-jong-un-donald-trump-nuclear/CNN said:North Korea has recently stipulated a dual nuclear-economic development policy to be part of the ruling party's official platform, but in reality, the decision puts nuclear development at the top priority, he said.
"Following the ruling party congress in May, Kim Jong-un made it a party policy to finish nuclear development within the earliest time possible," he told the news agency.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in October that it's a "lost cause" to try to get North Korea to surrender its nuclear weapons.
"They are under siege and they are very paranoid. So the notion of giving up their nuclear capability, whatever it is, is a nonstarter with them," Clapper said in remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "The best we could probably hope for is some sort of a cap."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/asia/india-icbm-test/index.htmlCNN said:India has somewhere between 100 to 120 nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists -- more than North Korea, but less than China and a similar amount as Pakistan.
Specifically, the development is likely most worrying for China -- with a range of more than 5,000 kilometers (more than 3,100 miles) the Agni-V is India's longest-range and puts Beijing within striking distance.
Pakistan, India's historical adversary, was already in range before the Agni-V, according to IHS Jane's, a military analysis company.
Before the Agni-V and its predecessor, India's longest-range missile could barely reach mainland China, says Ajai Shukla, a former Indian army colonel and a columnist at India's Business Standard.
You're right. I reread the whole piece and there's no indication of what experts they're referring to or how they were polled.mheslep said:In the era of a disgraced press, shouldn't the phrase "most [unamed] experts agree... [ambiguous, absent context blah blah blah] is dangerous" be on the editor's shall-not-use list?
Prideful said:When's the last time a major country has just up and disappeared?
They didn't disappear though, they just became something else. I mean didn't they? Am I even referring to it as a "they" correctly? I forget what the USSR actually was.Vanadium 50 said:That would be the USSR in 1991.
Prideful said:They didn't disappear though, they just became something else.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I really don't consider the USSR disappearing as a country disappearing. The USSR is a bad example anyway, it was only a country for 69 years and was it ever really a country anyway?Vanadium 50 said:When countries disappear, they always become 'something else'. If you are requiring that they disappear and don't become anything else, I guess the best edxample is Brigadoon. Maybe Atlantis.
Analysts agree that Kim is far from the unstable madman many present him to be. In fact, Ko, the former South Korean Foreign Ministry official, called the North Korean leader "cautious and calculating."
For instance, Ko said, Kim knows he can use the annual string of US-South Korean military exercises, involving thousands of troops and the latest US weaponry, to his advantage.
"He demands from his people and subordinates complete obedience to his leadership, because the country is on the verge of imminent invasion from the US and South Korea," Ko said. "He creates cohesion and unity among his people in facing the invasion."
While he keeps his people in line with talks of an impending invasion, he keeps his adversaries off balance by talking peace.
"Kim continues to pursue a peace treaty with United States," explained Bennett, the RAND expert. "And if he succeeds in getting such a treaty, it is entirely possible that US forces would be withdrawn from South Korea within a few years, likely to never return."
In other words, Kim wins if US troops get off his doorstep.
This seems to be the common thread throughout history, amazingly the general public hasn't gotten around to questioning that rhetoric.zoobyshoe said:the indispensable leader
Vanadium 50 said:When countries disappear, they always become 'something else'. If you are requiring that they disappear and don't become anything else, I guess the best edxample is Brigadoon. Maybe Atlantis.
This isn't the case at all, your perspective is most important for this thread to be more than a lot of "us against them" flag waving. Your points and thoughts are a refreshing break from the news feed crap we all get sold on the average.Robertphysics said:Sadly nobody seems to care here about my remarks.
Just to clear something up, I never used the word "sad" in relation to Russia I said I was sad they thought they had to continue ancient practices to continue being a country. Nor did I ever even use the word "paranoid", but I wouldn't consider that wrong.Robertphysics said:P.S. I don't think the Russians are paranoid because of the dissolution of the USSR , some of them actually wanted it ,some didn't, The satellite countries probably wanted it more for a number of advanced reasons. My parents and grandparents went through both world wars and the rise of the USSR and the fall of it , the fall of thew USSR was nothing compared with the death smell and terror of war and for those who got unlucky or did wrong stuff the purges of Stalin.
I think it is a misconception to assume Putin works out of paranoia of loosing something , i think he rather works with the idea of gaining as much as he can and using the situation , the ordinary folks , well we just live along and mind our own business as always as has been since the beginning of time.
I don't agree with "...exactly the same." Collecting phone records and internet search history is not equivalent to furthering nuclear offensive capabilities.Robertphysics said:Ok he may be manipulating and using situations but then again isn't the US doing exactly the same? The NSA spying on US enemies and even allies , collecting of phone records and net search history , building billions of servers houses to store all this data , why isn't anyone calling that paranoid ?
I understand "over the top" to mean "more than what is necessary". I'm not sure how something can simultaneously be "over the top" and "logical".If you ask me it may be over the top but I see the logic behind it.
...Putin is fully justified in his complacency. Contra Barro, there is no reason to think that a new arms race would replicate the Cold War, with the U.S. using its economic superiority to force the Russians into a competition they are bound to lose. By Trump’s own account, the main global problem isn’t Russia but http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/26/trump_media_wont_say_radical_islamic_terrorism_because_they_dont_want_to_offend_president_obama.html Iran, and China.
More broadly, going back to at least 1987, Trump has believed that it is in America’s best interest to join forces with the Soviet Union to fight emerging powers. In a recently resurfaced interview from 1987 with Ron Rosenbaum, Trump laid out the case for the world’s two major superpowers to work as a team. “Most of those [pre-nuclear] countries are in one form or another dominated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union,” Trump told Rosenbaum. “Between those two nations you have the power to dominate any of those countries.” Trump then suggested that Pakistan, which at that point didn’t have nuclear weapons, could be prevented from doing so by the U.S. and Soviet Union’s “powers of retaliation.”
Wminus said:The only way the US can threaten the strategic balance and MAD is by trying to negate other nations' nuclear arsenals by building defensive weaponry, ie expanding the missile shields. This WOULD force Russia to respond by building better weapons and hence trigger an arms race.
Prideful said:When's the last time a major country has just up and disappeared?
I'd have to go with Crimea, 2014, on that one Alex.Vanadium 50 said:That would be the USSR in 1991.
That's fair, although considering it was taken by the country I'm referring to throughout this conversation I think that just bolsters my original point. Whole countries don't just get taken over left and right in the modern day. Especially during this age of information.mheslep said:I'd have to go with Crimea, 2014, on that one Alex.
The specific case of Russia has a long history that is supposed to inform us that they have a built-in, generational fear of foreign conquest. The Nazi invasion cost the Soviets 20 to 40 million lives and in the prior centuries the great power games threatened the lagging development in Russia While I don't doubt that history plays some part, there is no real threat of a massive foreign invasion. The only real threat to the Russian federation is a further self-dismantling.Prideful said:That's fair, although considering it was taken by the country I'm referring to throughout this conversation I think that just bolsters my original point.
What is it about Twitter or Facebook that could stop Putin from sending some divisions into, say, Finland (again)? Expulsion of 32 Russians? No, the main deterrence is that the Fins destroyed a Soviet division the last time it was tried. The stage props of the New World Order (the UN, the EU) are now seen for what they are.Whole countries don't just get taken over left and right in the modern day. Especially during this age of information.
mheslep said:The specific case of Russia has a long history that is supposed to inform us that they have a built-in, generational fear of foreign conquest. The Nazi invasion cost the Soviets 20 to 40 million lives and in the prior centuries the great power games threatened the lagging development in Russia While I don't doubt that history plays some part, there is no real threat of a massive foreign invasion. The only real threat to the Russian federation is a further self-dismantling.What is it about Twitter or Facebook that could stop Putin from sending some divisions into, say, Finland (again)? Expulsion of 32 Russians? No, the main deterrence is that the Fins destroyed a Soviet division the last time it was tried. The stage props of the New World Order (the UN, the EU) are now seen for what they are.
The internet exists is a fact; fewer wars is a fact when compared to the first half of the 20th century. The 'therefore' is not a fact but an assertion. Societal evolution (for the better) is an assertion. That Internet traffic is mostly porn and used by ISIS to radicalize and recruit is partial evidence contradicting the idea that society is evolving for the better via the Internet. More likely, the general improvement in living conditions enabled by trade and technology, the expansion of democracy, and especially the military hegemony of the western democracies are all responsible for the decline of war.Prideful said:... I only brought up the age of information because I meant that society is evolving. Becoming more and more connected and less hostile towards different ideas. Which leads to fewer conflicts and therefore wars...
NBCNEWS said:In May, Trump even suggested he could support South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia, who are not currently nuclear powers, arming themselves with nuclear weapons for their own defense.
CNN's Anderson Cooper asked the Republican presidential nominee, "So if you said, Japan, yes, it's fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?"
Trump agreed.
"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen, anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time," Trump insisted, despite a 25-year trend in which numerous nations — Libya, South Africa, Iraq, and former Soviet republics — have been denuclearized.
"They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely," Trump said. "But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them."
wiki/Normal_Accidents said:System Accidents
"Normal" accidents, or system accidents, are so-called by Perrow because such accidents are inevitable in extremely complex systems. Given the characteristic of the system involved, multiple failures which interact with each other will occur, despite efforts to avoid them. Perrow said that operator error is a very common problem, many failures relate to organizations rather than technology, and big accidents almost always have very small beginnings.[2] Such events appear trivial to begin with before unpredictably cascading through the system to create a large event with severe consequences.[1]
Normal Accidents contributed key concepts to a set of intellectual developments in the 1980s that revolutionized the conception of safety and risk. It made the case for examining technological failures as the product of highly interacting systems, and highlighted organizational and management factors as the main causes of failures. Technological disasters could no longer be ascribed to isolated equipment malfunction, operator error or acts of God.[3]
Perrow identifies three conditions that make a system likely to be susceptible to Normal Accidents. These are:
The system is complex
The system is tightly coupled
The system has catastrophic potential
David Reeves said:This has been happening for years. See the video I posted in which Putin explains this. The Russian response to NATO missile defense is not to duplicate it, but to overwhelm it with more and better offensive missiles. Putin warned years ago this is how he would respond. He said Russia would not tolerate a defensive system that would neutralize the Russian nuclear threat. NATO went ahead and Putin responded. I think any sane leader would do the same.
Now Trump is saying he wants to greatly expand the American nuclear arsenal. The other party does not seem to be promoting peaceful relations with Russia. None of this makes me feel safer.
The only way to guarantee we won't be vaporized by nukes is to eliminate the nukes. This is what we should be suggesting to our leaders. Returning to Prof. Winterberg's statement, I do find one flaw. He says it may take an all-out thermonuclear war for people to realize a world government is necessary. This assumes there will be people left after such a war. But if the nuclear winter scenario is correct, there won't be for long. To paraphrase Monty Python, we will be bereft of life, pushing up the daisies, and resting in peace. We will have ceased to be.
Therefore, our best survival strategy is to get rid of the nukes before we use them in war. But this would require an agreement between every country that has nukes. No one is going to get rid of their nukes if even one other country keeps theirs. As Prof. Winterberg said, it seems Utopian.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/
https://www.rt.com/news/346076-turkey-cavusoglu-missile-defense/
1oldman2 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicleTesting of the Peacekeeper reentry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of an individual warhead.
Interesting links, thanks zoob. I was only referring to "Star wars" in general, or more broadly, defense against the incoming nukes. Since the USSR went bankrupt and our government has had to deal with "disclosure" there has been a wealth of interesting reading on nuclear warfare planning, defense as well as targeting. What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved). It still seems most likely the real threat is going to be a "wildcard" attack that sets the whole thing in motion. Strange how defense and offense are so closely linked in this situation, they seem to be one and the same.zoobyshoe said:
1oldman2 said:What I see is that either sides military would not only have been willing but very enthusiastic to launch a first strike if they weren't restrained by M.A.D. (I don't think that mindset has improved, all that has improved is the tech involved)