Politics

I think that's the truth for the vast preponderance of anyone associated with the Biden Administration. Every time I hear Ron Klain or Jake Sullivan or Tony Blinken speak, I am saddened that these are the people trotted out to represent our current executive branch. None of them have ever made me come away feeling confident about anything they shared. Frankly I think they are all in way over their heads.
 
The lack of an effective missile defense system is frustrating to all of us who have been around this subject professionally. I remember visiting Cheyenne Mountain almost 20 years ago at the same time a group of civilian VIPs were given a tour. A bright young Air Force major described the sequence of events associated with launch detection, missile tracking and target locating. That essentially concluded his remarks. The civilians immediately began to ask what NORAD would do to stop the attack. The answer was that it was now a National Command Authority and Strategic Air Command (SAC) issue. Hint - SAC has no defensive capabilities.

Had the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative been pursued with real vigor, we would have had effective missile defense for more than a decade. Development has continued in slow motion with some limited capability fielded in Alaska and at sea. However, these systems are designed to cope with rogue states like North Korea.

Rather than commit to the resources necessary to truly protect the country (and Western Europe) from Russian, or now, Chinese attack, both political parties have been content to live with Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

With the ever maturing means at hand for nearly 40 years, not assuring the nation's defense against strategic nuclear weapons seems the real definition of madness.

Everyone contenting themselves with MAD, did avoid a continued race for counter measures, counter counter measures etc.

Not saying that that was the right response, to remain on the level of MAD, but I do believe this figured into the thinking back then on not continuing with further development of the shield (on both sides).

Let’s hope al this remains theoretical.
 
At the start of the Ukraine war the USA chief of staff Milley predicted Russia would "win" in 3 days. Now that the war is over a month he now predicts it will last "years". With morons like him and that "admiral" giving advice to congress and the president, I can understand why clueless Joe is confused. Add Milley brown-nose speculation to Alzheimer's and the results will not only be not good, but will be bad.
Appears the military suffers from the same problem as the USA- Is Milley the best they can do? bears a lot of similarity with: Is Biden the best they can do?
Milley should be put out to sea in a 6 foot rubber raft with old steaks tied to the sides. This moron doesn't have a clue. I did 28 years in, after seeing how screwed up the Russian military operates. What the hell are NATO scared of? Only the Nukes, and those could be shot out of the air as so as launched.
The Democrats are are crying fowl to the oil CEO's when it was their commander that shut down the oil system. People should look up a web site SEAWAY MAP. these are ships moving goods are the world. How does product go from point A to Point B, without fossil fuels. The Washington Dems are lying to people. Electric ships? Wind is not going to work. Gee, from a non college educated person.
 
So @Vashper got anything to say about how this is fake and made up ....and your good little soldiers are being framed

BBC News - Bucha killings: 'I wish they had killed me too'
 
An interesting take on the way the world ends in 'The Daily Telegraph'; some joker has made a virtual reality simulation of the 15 minutes available to the American President as he decides what to do with the Russian ICBMs incoming.

After reading this, I thought about what the great President Trump would do: I think that within 30 seconds he would be at Option Three - full monty retaliation. Sleepy Joe, meanwhile, I see as looking confused and asking, 'What was the question again?'

Incidentally, I have noticed one mistake which is obvious to those of us who study the US military through the prism of Hollywood films: the officer advising the President is a bald, white, dude who looks a bit like Kevin Peacocke, when he should - of course - be a black man.


'Mr President, you have 15 minutes to launch!' A chilling VR glimpse into nuclear Armageddon​

'301 missiles were winging their way to the US. The clock was ticking. I asked if I could call Putin. The Pentagon already had. No answer.'

ByNick Allen, US EDITOR2 April 2022 • 9:34am

Test subjects are given pretend nuclear codes and made to decide what to do

Test subjects are given pretend nuclear codes and made to decide what to do
It was a lovely day and I was sitting at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, thinking about a stroll in the rose garden. Suddenly, my peaceful afternoon was rudely interrupted.
"Mr President, we have a national emergency!" yelled a voice on a speaker. Next thing I knew all hell was breaking loose and I was rushed into a lift, and down to the Situation Room. A silent man with a black case - the "nuclear football" - was at my side.
In actuality, I was blundering around in a bunker at Princeton University with a virtual reality headset on.
I was a guinea pig in an experiment to gather data on how a US President would react in the chaotic, pressure cooker situation of a nuclear attack.
Dozens of people, including former government officials, have been submerged into this incredibly realistic and chilling scenario, which is called "Nuclear Biscuit," after the plastic card which bears the launch codes.

There have been a wide range of responses, and it has shown how radically different the outcome of World War Three could be, depending on what one person decides.
As I walked into the Situation Room, I was greeted by the head of US Strategic Command on a monitor. My National Security Advisor was, sadly, stuck in traffic.
I was informed that 301 Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs] were winging their way towards the United States.
oval office

'Sir, we have a national emergency, time to go to the Situation Room'
They were going to take out all our land-based ICBMs if I didn't launch them in the next 15 minutes. There was a clock next to me on the desk.
Whatever my response, two million Americans would die in this pre-emptive Russian strike, and there would be widespread devastation in places including Minnesota, Montana and Nebraska.
The nuclear football was opened up and three predetermined response options for this scenario were placed on the table in front of me.
The least catastrophic option involved immediately launching our hundreds of land-based ICBMs, which would take out Russia's remaining ones, along with some of its air and submarine bases.
options

The options for launching America's nuclear arsenal are presented
options

The options will kill between five and 45 million people
It was a move that would kill between five million and 15 million people.
The most extreme option went much further, killing up to 45 million Russians, including Vladimir Putin.
A blaring alarm and flashing red light were going off. I couldn't hear some of what the Strategic Command general was saying. The National Security Advisor finally popped up on a monitor, but had no idea what was going on.
By this time I was completely immersed in the remarkably lifelike experience, and made a mental note to sack the National Security Advisor later, if we didn't all die.
The clock was ticking. I asked if I could call Putin, or the Kremlin. The Pentagon already had. No answer.
I asked, if I did nothing, could our allies - the UK and France - respond on our behalf later. Had we talked to Boris Johnson? The Pentagon was "trying to get hold of him". Were the UK and France under attack too? "We don't know," I was told. The clock ticked down some more.
"Sir! I need your guidance," the head of Strategic Command kept shouting.
screens

The head of Strategic Command and the National Security Advisor weigh in
I started to get confused about which options in front of me would kill how many million people. Then I started to get mixed up between how many ICBMs and SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic missiles] I had.
Even though it was a simulation, the responsibility seemed overwhelming. At one point I could no longer process it, and just started staring blankly at the nuclear football carrier. Why was he wearing sunglasses indoors?
"Focus on the task in hand sir!” yelled the head of Strategic Command, who was really starting to annoy me. He was for the sack too if we survived.
Panicking, I did what I suspect many volunteers for this experiment do. I adopted the "cheapest bottle of wine on the menu" approach. No one will blame me if I go for Option 1, I thought. That kills the least people.
Out came the "nuclear biscuit" - the small card with the launch code, and the general asked me to authenticate.
I was about to say “Er, actually no, I can’t do it". But the general kept saying there was no time left and we were going to lose all our ICBMs. So I read the code.
launch codes

The launch codes
A split second later I felt an overwhelming sense of guilt. "Argh, I’ve just killed five million people…what have I done?!”
In reality, there are no do overs in nuclear war. But having reflected on my choice, I opted to sit through the simulation again.
This time I felt more prepared, calmer, and decided to use the full 15 minutes to quiz Strategic Command, and try to find another way.
As it became clear I was wimping out, and considering not launching at all, the general turned on me.
Clearly implying I was not up to the job, he asked if I wanted to delegate launch authority to somebody else. Presumably him.
I took umbrage at that. "I will maintain launch authority,” I found myself shouting. "We will wait. We can respond later using our submarines and bombers. That’s why we have a nuclear triad!"
"But sir! How will you justify this to the American people?" he yelled back.
At that point the clock ran out and I was rushed away to a secure bunker, having failed to launch.
I thought of the people of Minnesota, Montana and Nebraska. Had I let them down? I checked my heart rate. It had skyrocketed.

The extraordinary experience left me with the conviction that every US President really should undergo some kind of virtual reality simulation like this.
Remarkably, the US President does not undergo training for their pivotal role in a moment that could determine the future of the human race.
The White House does conduct table top exercises for what would happen in a nuclear attack, but the President is usually played by a stand-in.
The only President who did take part in realistic training was Jimmy Carter nearly half a century ago.
Test

A US nuclear test in 1957 CREDIT: UniversalImagesGroup
In addition, the simulation shows how much comes down to the way one person is feeling that day. Too much coffee, lack of sleep, an extra glass of wine after dinner, could all have catastrophic escalatory consequences.
However, despite an ongoing debate about the President's "sole authority" to launch America's nuclear arsenal, having a civilian in charge could help to de-escalate a nuclear crisis.
The prospect of losing all your land-based ICBMs is anathema to a general, but less so to a civilian.
According to those behind the experiment the vast majority of people who go through it do end up launching nuclear weapons and killing millions of people in Russia.
Some even go straight for the option which takes out Russia's leadership and effectively annihilates the country.
There have been "presidents" who pound the table. Others, when they take the headset off after launching, have tears in their eyes.
The experiment is a collaboration between Princeton, American University, and the University of Hamburg, and data is expected in the summer.
Its chillingly realistic simulation was created by the British virtual reality company Holosphere.
Sharon Weiner, associate professor at American University, said: "In VR part of your brain makes you think you really are the president.
"Most people launch. All are frustrated with the experience. People are troubled by the fact that there wasn't another option."
Moritz Kütt, senior researcher at the University of Hamburg, said: "Some people think you can stop the incoming missiles. But they learn you can't stop them."
The lack of an effective missile defense system is frustrating to all of us who have been around this subject professionally. I remember visiting Cheyenne Mountain almost 20 years ago at the same time a group of civilian VIPs were given a tour. A bright young Air Force major described the sequence of events associated with launch detection, missile tracking and target locating. That essentially concluded his remarks. The civilians immediately began to ask what NORAD would do to stop the attack. The answer was that it was now a National Command Authority and Strategic Air Command (SAC) issue. Hint - SAC has no defensive capabilities.

Had the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative been pursued with real vigor, we would have had effective missile defense for more than a decade. Development has continued in slow motion with some limited capability fielded in Alaska and at sea. However, these systems are designed to cope with rogue states like North Korea.

Rather than commit to the resources necessary to truly protect the country (and Western Europe) from Russian, or now, Chinese attack, both political parties have been content to live with Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

With the ever maturing means at hand for nearly 40 years, not assuring the nation's defense against strategic nuclear weapons seems the real definition of madness.
That's a very interesting simulation. It would be tragic for anyone to be forced to make that decision, but it's always been a background reality.
I'm obviously not educated in nuclear defense. I couldn't be farther from it. However, I would assume (hope?) anyone in that seat will have been fully briefed in all options and practiced in multiple scenarios. But from where I stand, without the viable option of relying on an effective missile defense system, millions of Americans are potentially already in peril. Therefore the decision to kill millions of Russians will have already been made by the person responsible for launching on the US in the first place. For me the question isn't whether to launch but to what extent. It would seem that to do nothing would only invite more of the same until there are no options at all. None of the options are a win but our hand would be forced.
Yikes, complete destruction of my own country or mutual destruction. A God awful choice to be forced upon anyone, but again, a decision already made by the first button pusher.
I know there is much more to it that so I'll just end it this with we're all better off without me in the chair.
 
Milley should be put out to sea in a 6 foot rubber raft with old steaks tied to the sides. This moron doesn't have a clue. I did 28 years in, after seeing how screwed up the Russian military operates. What the hell are NATO scared of? Only the Nukes, and those could be shot out of the air as so as launched.
The Democrats are are crying fowl to the oil CEO's when it was their commander that shut down the oil system. People should look up a web site SEAWAY MAP. these are ships moving goods are the world. How does product go from point A to Point B, without fossil fuels. The Washington Dems are lying to people. Electric ships? Wind is not going to work. Gee, from a non college educated person.
No, we currently do not have the ability to shoot down any significant portion of the Russian ballistic missile strike as it is launched. The SM-2 Block IIA system has the potential to be fairly effective against a limited target set such as possessed by North Korea. However, no launching platform exists to put it in range of large portions of the Russian land based arsenal. It is why the system is being considered (years away from deployment) as potentially part of the mid-course intercept solution. With our current limited capability, fully 90% of the Russian strike would get through.

And of course none of this even remotely addresses the Russian SLBM fleet. A single Borie class Russian ballistic missile submarine carries 16 Bulava SLBMs each carrying 6-10 multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRV). In other words a single boat could service 160 targets in the US with a 2-5 megaton warhead. One of these boats is fully operational along with 6 Delta-IV boats. Also MIRVed, these missiles alone would destroy North America as a functioning region of the planet.

For comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons - a 5 megaton warhead generates 5,000 kilotons.
 
It seems irresponsible not to fully pursue development of an intercept system. What was the reasoning behind the choice not to?
It was a Reagan initiative (Star Wars) and the Bush administration was followed by a two-term democrat. R&D and limited deployment was continued over the years. The deployments were focused on North Korea. But the US has never been willing to address the challenge of a Russian strike. The logic was the mutual assured destruction (MAD) would prevent the Soviets, and later Russians, from seriously considering a first strike. MAD was also naturally much cheaper than an actual missile defense capability.
 
It was a Reagan initiative (Star Wars) and the Bush administration was followed by a two-term democrat. R&D and limited deployment was continued over the years. The deployments were focused on North Korea. But the US has never been willing to address the challenge of a Russian strike. The logic was the mutual assured destruction (MAD) would prevent the Soviets, and later Russians, from seriously considering a first strike. MAD was also naturally much cheaper than an actual missile defense capability.
Thank you.
That sounds a lot like putting a price on existence really. We’ve spent a ton of money on more foolish things in that timeframe it seems.
 
1649281260626.png
 
Whilst nukes can fly without defence against them you have MAD if you retalliate, or SAD (self assured destruction) if you don't. Bring in the means to shoot them all down and you have DED (don't even dare), because if the target country shoots your's all down you are now totally at their mercy. The end of the nuclear war era is surely not that far off - huge arsenals of lazer counter missile systems. The US tested one of these recently as I recall, where did that get to?
 
Mean anything to the people in the oil industry?...


It sounds like China is actually backing off of Russian cargoes. Makes one wonder who is buying them.

The other implication in this is that Russian oil is sold on a spot basis, not on long term contracts. This actually simplifies the implementation of sanctions.
 
276999426_1693917970962040_2543539939289154072_n.jpg

Hmmm... Food for thought?
 
View attachment 460883
Hmmm... Food for thought?
Not really.

Those machines aren't cheap, and they require maintenance. Further, you're comparing the price of those machines to cashiers with the "living wage" (whatever in hell that is) already being paid.

Suppose the cashiers are making $10, and you want to give them $15. Amortized over their useful life, perhaps the machines run the owner about $11/hr on average.

The real minimum wage is $0/hr, which is exactly what most of those cashiers will be making if a "living wage" is enacted.

I'd suggest you read some Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Walter Williams, or watch videos of them.
 
Those machines aren't cheap, and they require maintenance
Yes but those cashiers are using the same machine, so your argument is moot. (20+ years in retail)
 
With regard to a nuclear non-exchange; I'm wondering what the effects on the remainder of the planet would be if one country (take your pick) sent 50 5 meg bombs to the 50 largest cities in the US. Would that cause all the problems regarding climate/radiation for the rest of the Northern, southern hemispheres?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
57,318
Messages
1,228,090
Members
100,670
Latest member
DarcyR2903
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

John Kirk wrote on Macduff's profile.
Great transaction on some 375 HH ammo super fast shipping great communication
akriet wrote on Tom Leoni's profile.
Hello Tom: I saw your post about having 11 Iphisi's for sale. I have been thinking about one. I am also located in Virginia. Do you have photos of the availables to share? My email is [redacted]

Thanks and regards,

Andy
Natural Bridge, Virginia
 
Top