EPTSo about tim Walz. The scandal i dont fully understand but i dont think this is a huge loss for the democrats.Maybe someone younger can now be the candidate for the democrats.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5413
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
So about tim Walz. The scandal i dont fully understand but i dont think this is a huge loss for the democrats.Maybe someone younger can now be the candidate for the democrats. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18355 Posts
On January 06 2026 11:04 RenSC2 wrote: Part of the deterrence of MAD is that the leaders are being put in a no-win situation and may act irrationally. The leaders won't necessarily do what's best for the rest of the country. If they're already going to die, they may very well be irrational and vengeful. If we sent a missile to take out Putin and he knew he couldn't avoid it, his last act may be to order nuclear launches. Or he may have a dead-hand switch. Does he really care about Russia or would he prefer revenge against whoever killed him? I think someone like Putin could prefer revenge even at the cost of all other Russians. That's if you threaten the leaders directly, but that's just one of the red lines. Definitely the hardest, because the leaders might not rationally think about what is best for their people but, as you said, irrationally decide that if they're going to die, everybody else might as well too. But some of the closest points we were to nukes being launched during the cold war weren't when the leaders were directly threatened. Also, it wasn't complete lunatics. JFK seemed like a pretty nice fellow, and Khrushchev was definitely a lot more reasonable than Stalin. Yet the Cuban missile crisis happened. The world came 1 crazy sub commander short of nuclear annihilation (only 2 out of 3 were nuts enough). Simultaneously, the Cubans already had nukes and Castro claimed after the fact that he would've used them if the US had invaded, which is what the US army was calling for. But it wasn't a direct threat to Kennedy or Khrushchev that sparked it, just the red line that the US had drawn about nuclear warheads in Cuba. If Khrushchev had persisted in not believing the US were serious, the US would've responded with a (conventional) shooting war, and Castro or Khrushchev might have responded with nuclear retaliation, because such a response crossed their red line. Luckily, we'll never know: rational people prevailed. | ||
KwarK
United States44174 Posts
That has profound implications for the game theory. Let's say you have a 90% chance of nobody firing but a 10% chance of an escalatory exchange leading to a mutual full launch. In the 90% chance nobody dies but in the 10% chance everyone dies. So the probability weighted outcome is at about 10% deaths for the whole scenario ((0.9x0) + (0.1x1)). Let's say you'll suffer a few major cities but basically survive a second strike if you launch it with sufficient misinformation around it (at a time where it wouldn't make sense for you to launch and when false positive detection risk is high and when leadership is in turmoil). Say 5% of your population will die but most enemy missiles are never launched. Well that may well be rational to do. End the Cold War once and for all with a victory. 1x0.05. Essentially if a conflict is considered remotely possible then you want to skip all the intervening steps and be the one who starts it, out of the blue. Except, of course, both sides know this. Even when nothing is happening and both sides seem quiet, well, that's exactly the kind of time it'd make sense for them to attack, that's the most dangerous time, better be ready to go first. That gives us a negative feedback loop on our expected outcomes. The odds of making it through the whole Cold War without any kind of exchange go down and benefits of attempting a first strike go up. And since the other side know that the benefits for you attempting a first strike go up the odds of them attempting their own "unprovoked" first strike go up. That means the odds of making it through the Cold War without getting nuked at all go down and so the benefits of you attempting a very unprovoked preemptive first strike go up. After a while it becomes irrational not to attempt a first strike, especially given that rationally you're expecting them to attempt one on you. The other side knows you'd be irrational not to attempt a first strike and therefore they're likely to be attacked, they can't reduce the probability of your attack but they can reduce the damage it does if they strike first and so rationally they should strike first. You know this is the only rational conclusion they can make and so you know that they'll rationally launch their "counterstrike" ahead of your "first strike" and so rationally you better launch your first strike immediately. This is the problem minds like Von Neumann grappled with when they concluded that nuclear exchange seemed unavoidable. However leaders from both sides clung to the "irrational" hope that everyone could be saved. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11917 Posts
For example, the US launching nukes at North Korea looks very similar to the US launching nukes at Russia to Russians with Russian early warning systems. And most countries don't have a 1:1 nuke response policy. And all of the decisions are made by very stressed out people in a very short timeframe. If you are interested in a plausible scenario where one single nuke very quickly escalates to "we are all dead", i can once again recommend the book "Nuclear War - A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen. It seems to be based on a lot of research and talks with people who are involved with nuclear war planning at the very top level. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11917 Posts
There is no urgency to respond instantly at the first suspicion. The thread coming from the subs is so strong that you could wait to see where the rockets land. But this is indeed a situation in which it becomes difficult to predict how decission makers will react. Stated policy is not that. US stated policy is "launch on warning". Meaning they launch their counterstrike while incoming missiles are still in the air, instead of first absorbing the blast and then launching a counterstrike. Russia sometimes claims they don't have a launch on warning policy, and sometimes say they do. | ||
|
hitthat
Poland2347 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18355 Posts
On January 06 2026 14:16 RenSC2 wrote: So, Trump keeps saying that the USA is in charge of Venezuela, but we don't have any boots on the ground. We don't have a US friendly leader in charge either (it's Maduro's VP). We don't seem to have any plans at all. So how exactly are we in charge? I have a theory. I think Trump is going to try to rule Venezuela by threat. He's going to make a demand and threaten to kill/kidnap her if she doesn't agree to it. When she refuses, he follows through on the kidnapping/killing and then a new leader is put in place and the cycle repeats until they find someone who will follow his commands. At that point, the US gets whatever it wants out of Venezuela with very little direct risk. We're not going in to build anything... international contractors and local labor will build oil extraction infrastructure. We're not sending troops in to keep the peace. We don't give a shit about Venezuela at all, except as a place to extract wealth. Anything that goes wrong, the blame gets shifted to the Venezuelan "leader". Anything that goes right, Trump takes the credit. It's quite evil, but I can almost appreciate how Machiavellian(?) it is. If it wasn't for the total loss of good will around the world, I could call it intelligent (in an evil way). But that good will already seems to be gone anyways. Unfortunately, That Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies?" meme doesn't even apply anymore. We are. The long term consequences could be quite devastating, but that's for a future president to fix. The math doesn't really work out on that one. What is the US doing to keep Delcy Rodriguez in power in that scenario. She's a willing pawn for everything Trump wants her to do. Why should her VP/military general/opposition not get rid of her? Anyway, it's called a suzerainty, and it's also how Britain ruled large parts of India. I don't think modern conditions really allow it to work, but I'm not an expert. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17783 Posts
On January 06 2026 19:32 Simberto wrote: Stated policy is not that. US stated policy is "launch on warning". Meaning they launch their counterstrike while incoming missiles are still in the air, instead of first absorbing the blast and then launching a counterstrike. Russia sometimes claims they don't have a launch on warning policy, and sometimes say they do. Russia also has the "dead hand" system. In case their leadership gets removed somehow there's an automated system that will launch nukes at predetermined targets without any human intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5185 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17783 Posts
On January 06 2026 20:33 Uldridge wrote: That's so typical Russian you could've guessed it without mentioning who has the system lol US also has one  | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5185 Posts
But maybe that's racist of me, I'm willing to be called out. I won't defend myself, as I'm quite afraid of Russians and their archetypical ways, which I've based on the small minority of Russians I've seen act in their archetypical ways. This has devolved jnto a satirical bit it seems. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44174 Posts
On January 06 2026 20:05 Manit0u wrote: Russia also has the "dead hand" system. In case their leadership gets removed somehow there's an automated system that will launch nukes at predetermined targets without any human intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand You’re misunderstanding the system. It’s more like a scheduled email with launch authorizations that will be sent out unless cancelled. Like a blackmailer would use to prevent someone from killing them. ICBMs aren’t kept fueled at all times and can’t be fueled and launched by robots without human intervention. Skynet isn’t real. The individual human operated silos still rely upon humans following orders, the system merely ensures that the order is still sent in the event of a successful decapitation strike. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44174 Posts
The US didn’t need one because the launch codes were all 00000000. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11917 Posts
On January 06 2026 21:26 KwarK wrote: You’re misunderstanding the system. It’s more like a scheduled email with launch authorizations that will be sent out unless cancelled. Like a blackmailer would use to prevent someone from killing them. ICBMs aren’t kept fueled at all times and can’t be fueled and launched by robots without human intervention. Skynet isn’t real. The individual human operated silos still rely upon humans following orders, the system merely ensures that the order is still sent in the event of a successful decapitation strike. I'd argue that Skynet could still work, because if those humans are even remotely well-trained, if a legitimate launch order comes in, they won't question it and launch. So Skynet could simply send launch orders to the silos which would then be followed by the humans in those silos. So yes, technically not "no human interaction", but practically "no human launch order" is very similar to that. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22451 Posts
On January 06 2026 21:36 Simberto wrote: Current dumb AI is already good enough to fake people, Skynet would have no problems convincing the operators that the launch order is real and get them to carry it out.I'd argue that Skynet could still work, because if those humans are even remotely well-trained, if a legitimate launch order comes in, they won't question it and launch. So Skynet could simply send launch orders to the silos which would then be followed by the humans in those silos. So yes, technically not "no human interaction", but practically "no human launch order" is very similar to that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44174 Posts
On January 06 2026 21:36 Simberto wrote: I'd argue that Skynet could still work, because if those humans are even remotely well-trained, if a legitimate launch order comes in, they won't question it and launch. So Skynet could simply send launch orders to the silos which would then be followed by the humans in those silos. So yes, technically not "no human interaction", but practically "no human launch order" is very similar to that. This is the War Games movie premise. They test their very well trained staff by giving them a fake launch order. Many of the humans involved correctly identify that it doesn’t make sense for there to be a full nuclear exchange on this random day with no flashpoint conflicts and won’t launch without more info. This is seen as a failure in the system and so they want to pass even more control to a computer program. But in any case it’s an overcomplication. The British never needed this. If British nuclear subs on patrol can’t communicate with command for an extended period and BBC radio is unavailable they’re trained to conclude London was destroyed and nuke Moscow. You don’t need a dead hand system, second strike subs are already equipped for fully autonomous launch should the commander judge it necessary. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9226 Posts
On January 06 2026 20:03 Acrofales wrote: The math doesn't really work out on that one. What is the US doing to keep Delcy Rodriguez in power in that scenario. She's a willing pawn for everything Trump wants her to do. Why should her VP/military general/opposition not get rid of her? Do they need to keep her in power? The threat is towards the position rather than a specific person, someone replaces her they find themselves in the same conundrum. Sure, Trump threatening the acting president with a fate worse than Maduro's if she doesn't cooperate is likely a bluff. The US wouldn't snatch 5 presidents (without Maduro's baggage) in a row until they got an agreeable one. But they can't be sure of that, any would be president of Venezuela finds themselves in Trump's room on a metaphorical boat in the middle of the ocean, they can't say no because of the implication. What happens now is that everyone will drag their feet and delay. Delcy Rodriguez will be cooperative but as slowly as humanly possible. Any coup attempts/plots are shelved until things cool off, US attention is focused elsewhere and/or Trump is gone. The US oil execs will tell Trump he's a genius and thank him for this amazing opportunity, and then delay forever doing any work in Venezuela because it's foolish to invest in a fresh unstable clusterfuck on a worthless promise of infinite profits from the economically illiterate president. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On January 06 2026 18:29 pmh wrote: I knew i would regret this discussion. it was interesting and ty for all responses but i will remove my posts. So about tim Walz. The scandal i dont fully understand but i dont think this is a huge loss for the democrats.Maybe someone younger can now be the candidate for the democrats. Theres not much to understand. Somai people are black and immigrants so they make an easy target for trump. The fraud has been investigated and prosecuted for almost a decade now. It started before walz got into office. Its not really a loss for dems. Minnesota GOP is an active tire fire and there are a few people that could step into it, I think people want an active primary though. | ||
| ||
