US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7362

On April 20 2017 10:57 Belisarius wrote:

Presumably Bill Clinton had no place being in charge of whether to use the nukes in those submarines either, then.

On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables Mayor Jim Cason sat in his office overlooking the white-linen restaurants of this affluent seaside community and wondered when climate change would bring it all to an end. He figured it would involve a boat.

When Cason first started worrying about sea-level rise, he asked his staff to count not just how much coastline the city had (47 miles) or value of the property along that coast ($3.5 billion). He also told them to find out how many boats dock inland from the bridges that span the city’s canals (302). What matters, he guessed, will be the first time a mast fails to clear the bottom of one of those bridges because the water level had risen too far.

“These boats are going to be the canary in the mine,” said Cason, who became mayor in 2011 after retiring from the U.S. foreign service. “When the boats can’t go out, the property values go down.”

If property values start to fall, Cason said, banks could stop writing 30-year mortgages for coastal homes, shrinking the pool of able buyers and sending prices lower still. Those properties make up a quarter of the city’s tax base; if that revenue fell, the city would struggle to provide the services that make it such a desirable place to live, causing more sales and another drop in revenue.

And all of that could happen before the rising sea consumes a single home.

As President Donald Trump proposes dismantling federal programs aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, officials and residents in South Florida are grappling with the risk that climate change could drag down housing markets. Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher now than in 1992. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts sea levels will rise as much as three feet in Miami by 2060. By the end of the century, according to projections by Zillow, some 934,000 existing Florida properties, worth more than $400 billion, are at risk of being submerged.

The impact is already being felt in South Florida. Tidal flooding now predictably drenches inland streets, even when the sun is out, thanks to the region’s porous limestone bedrock. Saltwater is creeping into the drinking water supply. The area’s drainage canals rely on gravity; as oceans rise, the water utility has had to install giant pumps to push water out to the ocean.

The effects of climate-driven price drops could ripple across the economy, and eventually force the federal government to decide what is owed to people whose home values are ruined by climate change.

Sean Becketti, the chief economist at Freddie Mac, warned in a report last year of a housing crisis for coastal areas more severe than the Great Recession, one that could spread through banks, insurers and other industries. And, unlike the recession, there’s no hope of a bounce back in property values.

Citing Florida as a chief example, he wondered if values would decline gradually or precipitously. Will the catalyst be a bank refusing to issue a mortgage? Will it be an insurer refusing to issue a policy? Or, he asked, “Will the trigger be one or two homeowners who decide to sell defensively?”

“Nobody thinks it’s coming as fast as it is,” said Dan Kipnis, the chairman of Miami Beach’s Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority, who has been trying to find a buyer for his home in Miami Beach for almost a year, and has already lowered his asking price twice.

Some South Florida homeowners, stuck in a twist on the prisoner’s dilemma, are deciding to sell now—not necessarily because they want to move, but because they’re worried their neighbors will sell first.

On April 20 2017 08:18 Zaros wrote:


China might let the south and north reunite if it had greater influence over the south which it is gradually getting.

On April 20 2017 10:41 zlefin wrote:
I wonder what the tradeoff rate is on cost/space compared to the advantage of having a wider pool of candidates to choose from for positions. given the cost of a ship, having the best people for a crew is quite valuable.
space is tight on a sub, but it may not be quite as tight as it used to be in the past; raelly need more facts to decide.

It does sound like some of the ergonomic issues would help for short men as well.

On April 20 2017 10:48 KwarK wrote:
Any woman who can't keep her cool in the proximity of dicks, or man who can't keep his cool in the proximity of boobs, has absolutely no place working on a nuclear submarine.

On April 20 2017 14:56 a_flayer wrote:

Or anywhere else...

On April 20 2017 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:


Not being able to keep it in their pants isn't something that just started happening when women started serving on ships.

A non insignificant number of people in the US and on this forum are likely products of soldiers/sailors not keeping it in their pants.

The big one, is before women on ships, no one could mysteriously get pregnant. But there's plenty of 1/2 American bastards around the ports of the world.

On April 20 2017 17:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:

I never worked in the army and I'm a frenchman about to make a very french comment but I never quite understood why it's so terrible if two people have sex on a nuclear submarine, or actually anywhere else.

On April 20 2017 18:04 Simberto wrote:


The sex itself is not the problem. But in the military, you have a chain of command, which makes the whole situation feel a bit more abusive if a subordinate has sex with a superior.

Also, you are trapped together for a few months in a cramped space. Imagine having a messy breakup in that situation, and what that does for crew morale. Or any of the other relationship things that can often appear. Jealousy, unrequited love, etc... All of those are usually handled through just not meeting the other person anymore. If that is not an option, things can get ugly. I think it is a pretty good idea for morale on board such a sub to have a general policy that no crew-internal intimate relationships are allowed. To avoid all that messy stuff.

On April 20 2017 18:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:

That makes sense, and put it like that it sounds quite obvious. And also a bit unrealistic; you can't suddenly decide an attraction free, feeling free, sex free zone for months. We simply don't function like that.

On April 20 2017 18:41 Slydie wrote:


That makes no sense. There is a chain of command a lot of places, like airplanes, oilrigs etc. Not to mention, there is tonnes of gay sex and relationships in the military. Som even swich teams for a while in the lack of better options, I think we would all be gay if there were no women.

Excluding a gender is oldfanshioned, and should not be done anywhere.

On April 20 2017 18:53 Simberto wrote:


I am not saying that you should discriminate by gender. I am saying that you probably should have a policy of "No intimate relationships between crew" on board of submarines. That includes gay relationships. I, too, agree that you should definitively not exclude females from service on submarines just because of the possibility that someone might be attracted to them. That is obviously disgustingly sexist.

And i am pretty sure that in most situations, sexual relationships between a superior and his subordinate are a bit iffy, because of the power dynamic involved. It can sometimes be fine, but it can also easily be sexual harassment or extortion if one of the people involved has power over the other, like being able to fire them. In general, i think any organisation that has those kinds of power dynamics should better have some very clear rules on how to handle those things. And the safest set of rules is usually "Don't do it."

On April 20 2017 19:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why not simply make it that you have to be removed from someone command if you are or have been involved with him or her, and leave alone people of same rank to do whatever the hell they want with their ass?

On April 20 2017 19:13 micronesia wrote:

Suddenly changing someone's command prematurely based on their relationships is not something a military typically wants to do. People of the same or similar ranks can have relationships... the issue is keep the relationships out of the office. If sex with your partner isn't appropriate in the office building where you work, it's not appropriate on the sub (in this case) where a sailor works.

On April 20 2017 19:13 micronesia wrote:

Suddenly changing someone's command prematurely based on their relationships is not something a military typically wants to do. People of the same or similar ranks can have relationships... the issue is keep the relationships out of the office. If sex with your partner isn't appropriate in the office building where you work, it's not appropriate on the sub (in this case) where a sailor works.

On April 20 2017 19:23 Gorsameth wrote:

The obvious difference being you don't spend months on end without a break in your office.