|
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 October 22 2016 02:04 SoSexy wrote:
No comments on the massive ddos?
Dude, my entire day is fucked.
We have like 10 web apps that are have third party DNS providers and hundreds of clients that access them hourly. For trade documentation, compliance basically anything you submit electornically to CBSA and CBP before your shipments can cross the border. This is with 2 layers of DDOS protection. And im not talking some etsy seller here, its all big corporates.
I am getting absolutely boned right now.
|
On October 22 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 02:11 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 02:04 KwarK wrote:
The Republican elite will complete a book of ritual sudokus before they follow Trump into the abyss for a second time. He would run as an independent/3rd party. Look at the way he's been denouncing the GOP. Don't you think we could be looking at the rise of an actual relevant 3rd party built up from the Trumpeteers? On October 22 2016 02:04 zlefin wrote:
trumptv is a feasible plan, but it won't be enough to win presidency on the next election. he still just doesn't have the support level to win. Right now he doesn't have the support. Add four years of TrumpTV and perhaps more instability in the world (maybe partly due to Clinton's hawkishness), and the picture could change. But yeah, maybe four years is too soon, maybe its Trumps son who will take a stab at it in 10-20 years or so. But that's just wild speculation at this point of course. No, because it's a two party system. No matter how popular a third party becomes within their niche the most they can do is drag a major party to include more of their ideas in order to bring them back into the fold as part of the two party system. First Past The Post is a shitty electoral system for exactly that reason. If one coalition has 60% and the other 40% and the 60% coalition splinters then the 40% side will win election after election forever. At which point one of the two splinter parties will angle to steal some votes from the other by offering to incorporate some of their rival's policies within their own platform and suddenly we're back to two parties which are both broad coalitions. That's why the social conservatives are shacked up with the "no laws, no regulations" libertarians. They both know that they can't win without the other so they've made a bargain to vote together tactically. Tactical voting is the heart of a FPTP system, voting for exactly what you want is voting yourself into irrelevance. Instead you vote to say what you want in a first round and then politicians bid for you in the second round by offering policies that are like what you want. But the same politicians are also bidding for other peoples' votes and those people don't think the same as you so you end up with some of what you want and a lot of what you don't. But if you set the price at which you'll sell your vote unreasonably high then you just don't have a vote anymore. It's a balance.
all that means is that two parties is the Equilibrium... ie 3rd parties don't last long. but because parties are coalitions they can break apart and new parties can form to take their place.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is no "Republican Party" candidate for president for 2080 (I also wouldn't be surprised if there was)
I could easily see 2020,2024,2028, or 2032 all having a viable 3rd party candidate, the republicans losing because they are the primary ones losing votes to that candidate, and then the republican party going down the tubes over the next 20 years as its followers moved into the 3rd party and the democrats (and some democrats joined the 3rd party)
The same thing could happen to the Democratic party as well... so the 2080 election could well be the 'America First" v. "Progressive" (where the Progressive party is campaigning for lower tax rates, and the America First party wants lower tariffs)...[although it is more likely one of the two familiar parties will be around then, just because both dissolving would be really unlikely]
|
Whether Hillary is a good president or not depends wildly on what you want from your president. She'll satisfy Mohdoo or Plansix completely. She won't satisfy GH.
But of course, we can give it a demonic spin, that sounds like it won't poison the well at all.
|
I'll keep it kind of short and source-sparse since I'm still busy with the other response, but I just wanted to briefly talk about the missile shootdown issue.
So there's three basic phases of the launch of a nuclear missile, including an ICBM (intercontinental) or a SLBM (submarine). The boost phase is where it gains speed right after launch, lasting up to 5 minutes but is usually pretty short. The midcourse phase is where it approaches the target and lasts the longest. The terminal phase is when it is close to its target and begins to detonate, possibly splitting into multiple cluster missile if it's a newer model.
The boost phase is when the missile is slowest, but you can't really shoot it down because it's in enemy territory, you don't know where it launches from (submarines and mobile land launchers are portable, silos can be hidden), and a few other issues that make it a non-starter. The terminal phase is also a non-starter, because the rocket has reached its max speed (Mach 22+), it has begun to detonate, it might split into multiple warheads if it's a cluster missile, and just in general it's too late. As an aside, nuclear missiles have to go through their detonation sequence to set off a nuclear explosion; if you shoot it down early then you have a small environmental catastrophe on your hands but there are worse things that could happen.
So that just leaves the midcourse phase, and that's basically what missile interception focuses on. Problem is, it's hard to shoot down a missile that's traveling at full speed; it's routinely compared to shooting a bullet with a bullet. But that's only before you consider that there's more to it that that. There can be multiple missiles including some decoys, you don't know where the missiles are going (you need infrastructure to track the missile), the missiles can create fake targets to throw off the tracking, missiles can adapt and change their trajectory (and juke out an attempted missile intercept rocket), and you can damage the tracking devices easily enough to make the rest of the missiles have an easy time reaching their target. So it's like shooting down multiple bullets that can randomly change their trajectories, deploy fake bullets, and instantly annihilate you if even one of them hits, with a bullet.
The US has an organization called the Missile Defense Agency, which is working on missile defense. It's an expensive program, at $40 billion over the past decade, and its successes are lacking. They certainly don't appear to be a miserable failure, because they have some budgets to justify, but the reality is that they can sometimes shoot down missiles while knowing their exact trajectory, speed, etc. Sometimes. And in fact their record here is terrible and severely padded as well.
The LA Times had some good articles on the MDA program:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-20140615-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-missile-defense/
Russia has the S-500 program, but it's also unclear if it will have any success. The idea is to shoot down a lot of nukes with another nuke. No idea if that could work but it's an idea. I've yet to see enough progress on it to say that I believe there is any credible chance of repelling nuclear strikes though.
Long story short, no one really knows how to stop missiles with any degree of accuracy, not even for the ancient rockets, much less the fancy new stuff. Missiles are tough stuff.
|
This "shooting a bullet with a bullet" analogy rings false to me. I can't even imagine someone working on a "bullet shield" using intercept bullets. And yet we are spending billions on missile-based missile shields.
|
There's laser based missile shield attempts too, but those work worse than missiles.
|
On October 22 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:
There's laser based missile shield attempts too, but those work worse than missiles.
Missile defense does not work. The government knows this, everyone knows this. No one but public opinion and hippies believes this is possible.
So my guess is that they are given a budget of X, only get a budge of X/Y, and the rest is siphoned into actual useful projects.
|
On October 22 2016 03:23 IgnE wrote:
This "shooting a bullet with a bullet" analogy rings false to me. I can't even imagine someone working on a "bullet shield" using intercept bullets. And yet we are spending billions on missile-based missile shields.
it's a decent analogy; and such a bullet shield system might be made if the costs were right.
|
On October 22 2016 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:
There's laser based missile shield attempts too, but those work worse than missiles. Missile defense does not work. The government knows this, everyone knows this. No one but public opinion and hippies believes this is possible. So my guess is that they are given a budget of X, only get a budge of X/Y, and the rest is siphoned into actual useful projects.
It's a pointless money sink, yes. People profit and good jobs are made though, so I'm mostly ok with it.
|
On October 22 2016 03:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 03:23 IgnE wrote:
This "shooting a bullet with a bullet" analogy rings false to me. I can't even imagine someone working on a "bullet shield" using intercept bullets. And yet we are spending billions on missile-based missile shields. it's a decent analogy; and such a bullet shield system might be made if the costs were right.
The better solution is to shoot the people shooting bullets at you. This also applies to Israel and the Iron Dome, although they are politically constrained in that regard.
Of course with nukes, "shooting the people shooting bullets at you" is also called MAD.
|
United States44241 Posts
Does it depend on the tech of the missile at all? Could we shield against a NK missile when they unlock the secrets of 1940s German tech?
|
On October 22 2016 02:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 02:06 Dan HH wrote:On October 22 2016 01:44 IgnE wrote:On October 22 2016 01:12 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:09 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:04 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:03 WhiteDog wrote:
War is a great way to get out of any kind of economical problem actually. Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness. The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war. Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities. You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple). As Walter Bejamin says: All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets. While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage. so if massive wars are gone, the question is whether war has disappeared or whether it has changed form. so after nuclear weapons then what? peace for 25 years until capitalism convulses in the 70s. production capacity cannot be put to use. and capital's response is to what? it's not just a war on labor, it's reagan, the cold war, and massive military deficit spending. then we get bill clinton, relative peace, reduction of the deficit. until that is we get the convulsion of the dot com crash followed by the fortuitous war on terror which morphs into the multi-trillion dollar occupation of iraq. is benjamin irrelevant? or is it just a change of form?
From 1946 until 2007, two of the biggest recessions in the US were in the aftermath of the Korean and Vietnam war respectively, not before them. The dot com crash was more of an averted sneeze by comparison. I certainly wouldn't call Benjamin's work irrelevant to our days, but I don't see how recent US wars could have been caused by unused production capacity, if anything the US asserts itself despite the cost rather than for direct economic reasons. There doesn't appear to be a correlation between being in a recession and starting a war.
|
|
|
On October 22 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:
Does it depend on the tech of the missile at all? Could we shield against a NK missile when they unlock the secrets of 1940s German tech?
to some extent, yes. the best systems shoot them down shortly after launch, so they need ot be placed close.
it also depends on the number of missiles. for a nation as rich as the US, building a system to stop several missiles is feasible, stoping several thousand isn't.
|
On October 22 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:
Does it depend on the tech of the missile at all? Could we shield against a NK missile when they unlock the secrets of 1940s German tech?
It very strongly depends on the tech, but the problem is that even ancient tech can't be shot down with any degree of reliability with modern technology or any technology that is likely to be developed in the near future.
|
United States44241 Posts
I really enjoy the mental picture of the little Philippines showing up in China and going "if we combine our forces we'll be unstoppable, you and me against the world, equal partners against the imperialist Americans".
|
It doesn't work on a large scale, like in a Cold War type of context, and you don't exactly want it to either, because if you were developing a missile shield that was effective it could tip the balance and cause someone to start general nuclear war. But it's a smart contingency to explore for when the international community drops the ball on proliferation, like with North Korea. Or other isolated things like nuclear mutiny.
|
On October 22 2016 03:37 KwarK wrote:
I really enjoy the mental picture of the little Philippines showing up in China and going "if we combine our forces we'll be unstoppable, you and me against the world, equal partners against the imperialist Americans".
When you got balls as big as Duterte's you can do damn near anything:
![[image loading]](http://smoloko.com/wp-content/uploads/dutertePhillipinesmeme2.jpg)
|
On October 22 2016 03:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:
Does it depend on the tech of the missile at all? Could we shield against a NK missile when they unlock the secrets of 1940s German tech? to some extent, yes. the best systems shoot them down shortly after launch, so they need ot be placed close. it also depends on the number of missiles. for a nation as rich as the US, building a system to stop several missiles is feasible, stoping several thousand isn't.
If you can shoot them while they are in the boost phase that would be the best chance. NK is small so it might be possible if Russia and China cooperate with the NK issue. But all things considered it's probably best to just pressure NK to change since both Russia and China have some degree of political influence over NK.
|
Why not put a low yield nuclear weapon in the interceptor? Sure, the atmosphere will be wrecked, but it beats a warhead landing in a city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
