|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it.
How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama.
|
Should note that everything being discussed here should note that the US Military is always at least 30 years ahead of what is currently viable or visible, meaning there is always a successor and further R&D being developed and another one to replace that.
Anyways...
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration projects the United States could draw 35 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2050, in a new report released Thursday.
The amount of wind power in the U.S. is already on the uptick, with wind representing 30 percent of newly installed electricity-generating capacity in the period from 2009 to 2013. In the "Wind Vision" report, the Department of Energy projects that the country could do even more going forward by installing up to 11 gigawatts of new wind-generating capacity each year between now and the middle of the century. That would bring the U.S. to 400 total gigawatts of such capacity installed across the country -- enough power for 100 million homes, according to the Energy Department's estimates.
The DOE outlines a path to 35 percent, beginning with 10 percent by 2020 and rising to 20 percent by 2030.
The growth in wind power will also help reduce the emissions that cause global warming, they project, helping avoid 12.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been created if that new capacity had been in fossil fuel power. That would save $400 billion related to the costs that stem from climate change, according to the DOE.
They project that the shift to wind power would cause a 1 percent increase in electricity costs through the year 2030, but would produce cost savings of 2 percent by 2050. The report, DOE writes, "concludes that it is both viable and economically compelling" to increase wind-generating capacity to those levels.
The White House touted the report Thursday, saying that expanding wind power will also help support more than 600,000 jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing and transportation. "Wind energy continues to be one of America's best choices for low-cost, zero-pollution renewable energy, and in an increasing number of markets, may be the cheapest source of new energy available," the White House said in a statement.
Source
|
Looking through the executive summary of that report in the linked source I find this early on:
NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
which makes this report sound less than fully official.
|
thats standard legal language to prevent lawsuits by people claiming they relied on the report to their detriment. i wouldnt read too much into it .
|
On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama.
Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
meh. this wind stuff doesnt excite me
|
On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one.
Don't be a fear monger. Even worst case scenario Iran did get a nuke they wouldn't have the tech to hit the US with it for many years. Hell North Korea hasn't even solved that yet.
|
On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one.
Firstly, I am more inclined to believe the mossad source than Netanyahu during an election campaign. So I don't even believe they would be a year away.
Secondly, hyperbole much? A year away means Israel has 365 days worth of bombing runs from the moment they throw inspectors out and crank up the centrifuges to further refine their uranium for actual weapons grade material.
|
On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one.
Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year.
But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq.
|
On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq.
What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events?
Not the Mossad or Bibi
|
On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi
Ok so the year might be a part of the deal (pending negotiations).
Still doesn't really have me worried since a year is a long enough time to react if they turn to making a weapon.
Assuming they want to work on a weapon.
Assuming them having a nuke is bad, Yes i know nuclear weapons are bad and I would feel better if none existed at all but when countries like Pakistan, North Korea and Israel already have them, meh what is one more.
|
On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Show nested quote +MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision.
Is that supposed to be funny or something?
|
On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi
I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons.
|
The pitch is simple: For no cost, a private company will help collect fines and fees owed to cities. These for-profit firms, called probation services companies, don’t charge cities anything.
Instead, these companies put citizens who can’t afford to pay fines, such as traffic tickets, on payment plans that slam them with exorbitant fees, and then illegally threaten people with jail time if they fail to make payments, according to a federal lawsuit filed Thursday by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The lawsuit alleges that an Atlanta-based company called Judicial Correction Services (JCS) and the city of Clanton, Alabama, violated federal racketeering law and Alabama state law by putting citizens on what is known as "pay-only probation" -- basically, threatening citizens with jail time if they can't pay fees and fines.
According to the lawsuit, Clanton resident Roxanne Reynolds was put on a payment plan with JCS because she couldn’t pay $1,632 in traffic tickets, court costs and a failure-to-appear fine. A mother of three and already struggling financially, Reynolds fell behind on her payments after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and had to miss three straight months of work at her job at an auto-parts plant.
Reynolds eventually paid her debt to Clanton, but it took her 15 months and cost her four days in jail and $610 in fees paid to JCS, according to the suit.
The monetary toll was huge, but so was the emotional burden, Reynolds told reporters in a conference call arranged by the SPLC on Thursday. "Every time I left the JCS building I was so scared that I would break down and cry,” she said.
Essentially, Reynolds had funded the collection of her own fines by paying a private, for-profit company 37 percent more than she owed to the city, according to the suit. Reynolds' experience is an example of what the fine-collection industry calls the "offender-funded model" of fine collection.
JCS initially declined to comment on the case, but asked The Huffington Post to call it back. HuffPost left a message that was not returned and attempted to leave additional messages, but the company's voice mailbox was full. The law firm representing the City of Clanton did not respond to a request for comment.
The SPLC suit says JCS created plans with minimum monthly payments of $140, $40 of which were fees paid directly to JCS.
Source
|
On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something?
I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you?
On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons.
That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about.
|
On March 14 2015 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The pitch is simple: For no cost, a private company will help collect fines and fees owed to cities. These for-profit firms, called probation services companies, don’t charge cities anything.
Instead, these companies put citizens who can’t afford to pay fines, such as traffic tickets, on payment plans that slam them with exorbitant fees, and then illegally threaten people with jail time if they fail to make payments, according to a federal lawsuit filed Thursday by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The lawsuit alleges that an Atlanta-based company called Judicial Correction Services (JCS) and the city of Clanton, Alabama, violated federal racketeering law and Alabama state law by putting citizens on what is known as "pay-only probation" -- basically, threatening citizens with jail time if they can't pay fees and fines.
According to the lawsuit, Clanton resident Roxanne Reynolds was put on a payment plan with JCS because she couldn’t pay $1,632 in traffic tickets, court costs and a failure-to-appear fine. A mother of three and already struggling financially, Reynolds fell behind on her payments after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and had to miss three straight months of work at her job at an auto-parts plant.
Reynolds eventually paid her debt to Clanton, but it took her 15 months and cost her four days in jail and $610 in fees paid to JCS, according to the suit.
The monetary toll was huge, but so was the emotional burden, Reynolds told reporters in a conference call arranged by the SPLC on Thursday. "Every time I left the JCS building I was so scared that I would break down and cry,” she said.
Essentially, Reynolds had funded the collection of her own fines by paying a private, for-profit company 37 percent more than she owed to the city, according to the suit. Reynolds' experience is an example of what the fine-collection industry calls the "offender-funded model" of fine collection.
JCS initially declined to comment on the case, but asked The Huffington Post to call it back. HuffPost left a message that was not returned and attempted to leave additional messages, but the company's voice mailbox was full. The law firm representing the City of Clanton did not respond to a request for comment.
The SPLC suit says JCS created plans with minimum monthly payments of $140, $40 of which were fees paid directly to JCS. Source
aside from the obvious, i wonder if they broke the law given that they are essentially representing themselves as police officers, which is illegal in most places for private citizens to do. calling themselves probation officers and wearing handcuffs on their belts to meetings.
|
On March 14 2015 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Should note that everything being discussed here should note that the US Military is always at least 30 years ahead of what is currently viable or visible, meaning there is always a successor and further R&D being developed and another one to replace that. Anyways... Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration projects the United States could draw 35 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2050, in a new report released Thursday.
The amount of wind power in the U.S. is already on the uptick, with wind representing 30 percent of newly installed electricity-generating capacity in the period from 2009 to 2013. In the "Wind Vision" report, the Department of Energy projects that the country could do even more going forward by installing up to 11 gigawatts of new wind-generating capacity each year between now and the middle of the century. That would bring the U.S. to 400 total gigawatts of such capacity installed across the country -- enough power for 100 million homes, according to the Energy Department's estimates.
The DOE outlines a path to 35 percent, beginning with 10 percent by 2020 and rising to 20 percent by 2030.
The growth in wind power will also help reduce the emissions that cause global warming, they project, helping avoid 12.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been created if that new capacity had been in fossil fuel power. That would save $400 billion related to the costs that stem from climate change, according to the DOE.
They project that the shift to wind power would cause a 1 percent increase in electricity costs through the year 2030, but would produce cost savings of 2 percent by 2050. The report, DOE writes, "concludes that it is both viable and economically compelling" to increase wind-generating capacity to those levels.
The White House touted the report Thursday, saying that expanding wind power will also help support more than 600,000 jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing and transportation. "Wind energy continues to be one of America's best choices for low-cost, zero-pollution renewable energy, and in an increasing number of markets, may be the cheapest source of new energy available," the White House said in a statement. Source
Meh. Wind has had a high growth rate for decades. There isn't much of a story here beyond Huff 'n' Puff pushing identity politics.
|
On March 14 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Should note that everything being discussed here should note that the US Military is always at least 30 years ahead of what is currently viable or visible, meaning there is always a successor and further R&D being developed and another one to replace that. Anyways... WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration projects the United States could draw 35 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2050, in a new report released Thursday.
The amount of wind power in the U.S. is already on the uptick, with wind representing 30 percent of newly installed electricity-generating capacity in the period from 2009 to 2013. In the "Wind Vision" report, the Department of Energy projects that the country could do even more going forward by installing up to 11 gigawatts of new wind-generating capacity each year between now and the middle of the century. That would bring the U.S. to 400 total gigawatts of such capacity installed across the country -- enough power for 100 million homes, according to the Energy Department's estimates.
The DOE outlines a path to 35 percent, beginning with 10 percent by 2020 and rising to 20 percent by 2030.
The growth in wind power will also help reduce the emissions that cause global warming, they project, helping avoid 12.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been created if that new capacity had been in fossil fuel power. That would save $400 billion related to the costs that stem from climate change, according to the DOE.
They project that the shift to wind power would cause a 1 percent increase in electricity costs through the year 2030, but would produce cost savings of 2 percent by 2050. The report, DOE writes, "concludes that it is both viable and economically compelling" to increase wind-generating capacity to those levels.
The White House touted the report Thursday, saying that expanding wind power will also help support more than 600,000 jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing and transportation. "Wind energy continues to be one of America's best choices for low-cost, zero-pollution renewable energy, and in an increasing number of markets, may be the cheapest source of new energy available," the White House said in a statement. Source Meh. Wind has had a high growth rate for decades. There isn't much of a story here beyond Huff 'n' Puff pushing identity politics.
Also, the story leaves out the cost effects of millions in government subsidies for wind power.
|
On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about.
Re: first point. Stop trolling.
Re: second point. Ok, great. But why didn't you just link that WSJ article in the first place instead of assuming that everybody here is a mind reader? Either way, my second point from earlier still stands: a year breakout time is 365 days worth of time for Israel, the US and Europe to bomb Iran straight back into the stone age.
If you're worried about them doing it in secret: there is absolutely nothing that the presence or lack of a treaty can do to stop them from sneaking around and building nukes in secret. That's what inspections and intelligence services are for. The latest reports from all of these is that Iran is currently not actively pursuing the building of nuclear weapons. Keeping them a year away seems quite okay, and if there are signs that they are (again) actively trying to build a nuke and thus breaking the treaty, then we can return the sanctions, and throw in some carpet bombing their nuclear facilities for good measure.
|
Can we agree to ignore hannahbelle
I'm increasingly suspicious that she's actually Sarah Palin
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
