|
Chilichimp posted:So am I reading this right? The right-wing has been duped into believing the democrats were funded by George Soros... so they started laundering Russian money through PACs to gain "even footing?" That's how the GOP works. They accuse a Democrat of doing something wrong, then do it themselves and say it's okay because "Democrats do it too."
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:There is not a significant chain of command between the two people signing off on it and the missiles going off. The system is designed specifically to avoid one. Yeah, it's been brought up multiple times but none of the nuclear launch officers will protest an order. If they do, they are just replaced with the person below them.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:What I love about 4 is how the entire plot is one extended (and according to the writer intentional) jab at the plot of 3. If that's what he wanted he shouldn't have made the antagonist of FC4 a dictator who gleefully talks about murdering people's families to force compliance and is holding a 20+ year-old grudge and making bullshit Freudian excuses for his behavior wherin he holds an entire country responsible for the actions of one person (which is also his fault because he's the one who abused that person's trust to take over the country in the first place). Instead it just becomes "wow turns out everyone is bad but if you get the special ending then I guess you, the person with no experience running a country, will make things ok somehow!"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:If that's what he wanted he shouldn't have made the antagonist of FC4 a dictator who gleefully talks about murdering people's families to force compliance and is holding a 20+ year-old grudge and making bullshit Freudian excuses for his behavior wherin he holds an entire country responsible for the actions of one person (which is also his fault because he's the one who abused that person's trust to take over the country in the first place). Instead it just becomes "wow turns out everyone is bad but if you get the special ending then I guess you, the person with no experience running a country, will make things ok somehow!" It's a video game, ANGRY Ed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Cant waste time on hangups! It's more that the system was designed with two assumptions: (1) you may be launching in response to a USSR launch and/or first strike and so time may be of the essence and/or significant chunks of the chain of command may be dead and (2) the credibility of the deterrence depends on the USSR believing that if the President gives the orders the missiles will launch and that they won't be stopped by someone in between refusing to end the world.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Write a loving article, god drat. You could, but no one would read it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Tax returns are coming in slower than expected and we're running out of money
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Tax returns are coming in slower than expected and we're running out of money Print the coin
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Apoplexy posted:It's a video game, ANGRY Ed. Apoplexy posted:Don't you rag on 4. 3 was pretty awful, but 4 had some great characters and moral bleakness that should permeate any civil war setting. Game spoilers: The Bad Guy had a totally good reason for starting being bad. The Good Guys are following the footsteps of a baby-murdering rear end in a top hat. The 'Good' Good Guy is a religious nutcase who consigns his neice (I forget if Sabal and the girl whose name I can't remember are related) to religious forced child marriage if he wins. The 'Grey' Good Guy Who's A Gal is a loving psycho who literally conscripts children to continue fighting their civil war while turning Kyrat into a narco-state. It's a video game, Apopolexy 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
A nuke on NK would have serious ramifications on my Korean MMORPGs and Japanese waifu pillows.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
CBO score dropping at 4:30 PM EST: https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/867470018002505728
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:It's a video game, Apopolexy I am literally apoplectic with rage at your quoting of me earlier in this thread as a response.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:All is well Wel thank God! The political anxiety was just eating me up! I'm happy a really lovely poll has cleared that up....
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
quote:1 His administration and the GOP are actively working to:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's more that the system was designed with two assumptions: (1) you may be launching in response to a USSR launch and/or first strike and so time may be of the essence and/or significant chunks of the chain of command may be dead and (2) the credibility of the deterrence depends on the USSR believing that if the President gives the orders the missiles will launch and that they won't be stopped by someone in between refusing to end the world. Good explanation thanks. We can add that to the Democratic agenda when they retake control, what an out of date system. Why havent any reforms been done on it?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So am I reading this right? The right-wing has been duped into believing the democrats were funded by George Soros... so they started laundering Russian money through PACs to gain "even footing?" No, it's more likely they realize that they've been dwindling in numbers and are resorting to every trick in the book (including russian money) to try to fight that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
lol, are any of those facts in dispute?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They barely investigated. They couldn't find the email (because it didn't exist), then proceeded to continue to act as if it was real while not, say, interviewing the named people. I once again am in absolute awe that Team Trump looked at how spiteful the FBI can be, how damaging they were to Clinton, and decided 'You know what, boys? Let's piss the guy the FBI likes off as much as humanly possible. Really rub it in there.'
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Good explanation thanks. We can add that to the Democratic agenda when they retake control, what an out of date system. Why havent any reforms been done on it? I actually don't have any problems with this system, we just need to stop electing literal loving madmen.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
This is like a direct hit by a hurricane. Lots of speculation and noise, then silence at 3:30 ET as the eye passes over us and everyone is furiously reading as fast as they can, then twitter blows up as the other side hits
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
So the bill is going to pass reconciliation rules, right I know we are at the beginning of the Mattering but that doesn't mean that the other shoe isn't just about to drop
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I actually don't have any problems with this system, we just need to stop electing literal loving madmen. It's actually loving stupid to empower one person, any person, with the ability to destroy the world. You should have huge problems with this system.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/owillis/status/867459845225689089 https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/867335894616985601
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:So the bill is going to pass reconciliation rules, right Unless the bill saves 2 billion dollars over 10 years, no.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I once again am in absolute awe that Team Trump looked at how spiteful the FBI can be, how damaging they were to Clinton, and decided 'You know what, boys? Let's piss the guy the FBI likes off as much as humanly possible. Really rub it in there.' I've said it before but pissing off law enforcement, secret service and the media is beyond retarded.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:It's actually loving stupid to empower one person, any person, with the ability to destroy the world. You should have huge problems with this system. Yeah I'm pretty loving nervous that the only check on Trump's power to end the world in hellfire is literally God
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Good explanation thanks. We can add that to the Democratic agenda when they retake control, what an out of date system. Why havent any reforms been done on it? Russia still has that capability and has been violating some arms control treaties so there's still a great amount of concern there (though to be fair, we may have started it by all of the ABM work and ending the ABM treaty), and as much as people have disliked various presidents since the end of the Cold War none have been actually insane so nobody ever really needed to contemplate "but what if the President is a tiny-handed temperamental idiot with a small child's understanding of consequences?". Democrats, like Obama, have been more into trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and just generally end the threat of nuclear war without really contemplating the idea we might start it. I suspect that will change.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Cant waste time on hangups! According to Cold War estimates, there are approximately ten minutes between the time when a potential nuclear launch is detected and the time when a retaliatory strike can be ordered with maximum possible effectiveness; beyond that point, the first nuclear impacts will begin while you're still prepping silos. It also takes approximately 8 minutes to determine the launch trajectory of an ICBM using Cold War technology with accuracy(and actually modern systems aren't as much faster as you'd think). There is literally no time for there to be any checks and balances on the launching of nuclear weapons if you want any kind of deterrence. The Russian system works the same as ours, but has an additional step in the chain of command in case the President is too drunk. Old Kentucky Shark fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
I could be wrong but isn't "reducing nuclear weapons" code for getting rid of obsolete small nukes for much bigger ones in practice?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:It's actually loving stupid to empower one person, any person, with the ability to destroy the world. You should have huge problems with this system. I don't have a problem with this system because other countries have nukes and their control over when/where they're fired doesn't differ a whole lot. This system was devised as a deterrent to a nuclear missile launch against the US. It's a credible threat. While I'm okay with revising the system for offensive/pre-emptive/strategic use of nuclear arms, the MAD doctrine only works if the trigger can be pulled before we're all dead anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:It's actually loving stupid to empower one person, any person, with the ability to destroy the world. You should have huge problems with this system. The idea was that during the cold war, if the USSR launched nukes at the US we had maybe 40 minutes before we started a 'brave new world', and the POTUS did not have time for formally call congress to get a war declared. Now they should update the RoE that POTUS can only launch nukes if we are attacked in kind and not for any other reason.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Yeah I'm pretty loving nervous that the only check on Trump's power to end the world in hellfire is literally God Well, we're hosed
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/867472652331610112
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:It's actually loving stupid to empower one person, any person, with the ability to destroy the world. You should have huge problems with this system. The issue isn't if one person should have it. One person does have it, and there's nothing we can do to change that: Putin (or his predecessors at the Russian Federation or the USSR). The question is, given that reality, how do you set up the American end-the-world trigger? Deterrence worked to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in war after World War II. But we are now at the point where the USA has no real fear that anyone is interested in starting WWIII, and our nuclear launch systems should be modified to reflect that. Really, the sticking point is that Russia no longer really has any claim to great power status besides its nuclear arsenal and so it's not willing to give it up or seriously reduce it below Cold War status.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
What a lying gently caress. He said at the town hall he divested of all his Health Care stocks....
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/867475355216609280
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:According to Cold War estimates, there are approximately ten minutes between the time when a potential nuclear launch is detected and the time when a retaliatory strike can be ordered with maximum possible effectiveness; beyond that point, the first nuclear impacts will begin reducing any country's ability to launch their own missiles. It also takes approximately 8 minutes to determine the launch trajectory of an ICBM using Cold War technology (and actually modern systems aren't much faster). There is literally no time for there to be any checks and balances on the launching of nuclear weapons. The counterpoint to this though is, we have enough nuclear weapons to end the world several times over precisely so that even if we are hit we can retaliate. Also, ICBM nuclear submarines exist for precisely this reason: so not all of the nuclear weapons are on land where they can be nuked. We can redesign the system to still provide concrete and certain deterrence, while placing some barrier between Trump and the end of the world. mcmagic posted:What a lying gently caress. He said at the town hall he divested of all his Health Care stocks.... He did. At a profit. Afterwards 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:According to Cold War estimates, there are approximately ten minutes between the time when a potential nuclear launch is detected and the time when a retaliatory strike can be ordered with maximum possible effectiveness; beyond that point, the first nuclear impacts will begin reducing any country's ability to launch their own missiles. It also takes approximately 8 minutes to determine the launch trajectory of an ICBM using Cold War technology (and actually modern systems aren't much faster). There is literally no time for there to be any checks and balances on the launching of nuclear weapons. Don't forget the 3rd part of our nuclear triad, subs. That, at least in theory, gives the President more breathing room when it comes to launching a retaliatory strike since the Russians can't first strike a submarine. It also allowed us to stop relying on bombers as our backup plan in case the Soviets knocked out our silos since bombers like to crash. I know we still have land based silos, but I wouldn't be surprised if those are getting phased out in favor of sea. And at least we're no longer trying to stick nukes on railroad cars.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Malthus wasn't wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Good explanation thanks. We can add that to the Democratic agenda when they retake control, what an out of date system. Why havent any reforms been done on it? ...first, before you do the anything, learn the basics of Mutually Assured Destruction and why we use it. The whole point of the system is to make it so no nuclear capable country ever even thinks about attacking us with nuclear weapons. Getting rid of first strike, or making first strike require a much longer chain with multiple checkpoints, is a good idea. The nukes being able to go up quick is not.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 21:24
|
|
