There still safe guards. There is still trained officers who work the system whocan prevent a rogue launch.
A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
We're not talking about terrorists taking over a silo and trying hotwire a nuke.
BaronIveagh wrote: A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
That's not true. There was a thing recently, a retired officer who used to be part of strategic command man a nuclear facility was asked about a launch order from the president. He said that strategic command could reject an order to fire a nuke if it failed to meet the standards of proportionality and military necessity.
How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question.
BaronIveagh wrote: A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
That's not true. There was a thing recently, a retired officer who used to be part of strategic command man a nuclear facility was asked about a launch order from the president. He said that strategic command could reject an order to fire a nuke if it failed to meet the standards of proportionality and military necessity.
How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question.
I am pretty sure one of those officers, somewhere (Somewhere, being within the nuclear tripod of subs, silos, and bombers) would comply. All it takes is one to be launched for there to be a big problem.
You’re asking that nuclear war is averted only by people in the chain of command refusing to comply with an order given. That’s a big ask, some will, some won’t.
I'm pretty sure that its a long chain of individuals, regulations, and standards that all have to be met before any missile can be launched. Hollywood and the movies make it seem like the President orders a nuclear strike, and it just happens. There has to be checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing from happening.
Tamwulf wrote: I'm pretty sure that its a long chain of individuals, regulations, and standards that all have to be met before any missile can be launched. Hollywood and the movies make it seem like the President orders a nuclear strike, and it just happens. There has to be checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing from happening.
Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here. The reason was that, say in the event of Russia launching first, you wouldn't have time to get a bunch of people on the phone to give the OK. Nuclear launches by necessity had to have a single person be able to give the order.
All that gets done with the nuclear launch codes is a chain of verification of the code itself to make sure its authentic. Not to verify that there is a 'legitimate' reason to launch.
There can’t be too many ways to disrupt the order given by the president otherwise it would be too delayed or prone to break down during a war preventing retaliatory strike.
The circumstances under which nuclear launches are made against another nation should be absolute last resort in desperate situations, and won’t undergo a series of people giving the nod or committee gathering to decide whether to follow the instruction.
In the UK our nuclear subs have a letter to open when the country has been attacked, which give instructions. The crew can refuse to obey, but the orders are there to be followed and no one else is involved in the decision. What is in that letter is only known to the PM.
Are we sure that nuclear launches are a "one man decides" affair? I would assume that they are far too dangerous and deadly an affair to have that choice down to one person in the whole country alone.
Sure during times of war or rising hostilities like the Cold War they might well have already made the choice to use them IF others were launched; ergo that the committee had made a choice and that all was needed was a trigger. But currently I can't imagine that the USA is in a state of heightened alert to use its nuclear weapons. The only country rattling the nuclear cage is N Korea and chances are they won't have dozens of them to launch; it would be one or two. Plus the country is tiny and impoverished; you'd not need a nuclear retaliation.
Granted Trump is a wildcard; but I can't imagine that the US military has left the choice to launch or not only in his hands.
history often ascribes many actions to an individual, but many times that's only the short history books that record it as such; whilst in reality they only achieve their end goals via committee/multiple agreeing parties. Even Kings of old still had to have alliances and agreements with lords and the like in order to undertake their orders.
BaronIveagh wrote: A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
That's not true. There was a thing recently, a retired officer who used to be part of strategic command man a nuclear facility was asked about a launch order from the president. He said that strategic command could reject an order to fire a nuke if it failed to meet the standards of proportionality and military necessity.
How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question.
I don't know about now, but they didn't have that luxury during the height of the Cold War. If you got the go-codes to launch/scramble, you did it. You didn't take the time to decide if it was "militarily necessary" or "proportionally correct".
They had enough failsafes and procedures to ensure that it would be legit if the balloon went up. So, the idea that somebody in the U.S. command structure (including the President) going rogue, or that there was a high-risk of accidental nuclear war, is mostly the fear fodder of anti-nuclear activists and Hollywood.
I doubt a Dr. Strangelove scenario could play out today, as we no longer live under the Cold War era fear of nuclear attack hanging over our heads as a means of influencing the thinking of the various commanding officers overseeing the "buttons". As long as those officers are more like Stanislav Petrov and less like General Jack Ripper, we should be good.
Easy E wrote: I am pretty sure one of those officers, somewhere (Somewhere, being within the nuclear tripod of subs, silos, and bombers) would comply. All it takes is one to be launched for there to be a big problem.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You’re asking that nuclear war is averted only by people in the chain of command refusing to comply with an order given. That’s a big ask, some will, some won’t.
Yeah, I agree with both of you, hoping that an officer will refuse an order coming from the president is an unreliable control at best. I was just pointing out that such additional steps exist, and it isn't as simple as "the president says launch so everyone else in the chain just pushes the necessary buttons". Which is an unfortunately common position.
Grey Templar wrote: Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here.
This is complete junk of the junkiest junk. And it gets posted even after it's been explained that its complete junk.
So no, Grey Templar, the officers in strategic command are not just button pushers who can apply no judgement to any order coming from the president. That's pure tosh. Those have an explicit legal requirement to refuse any order which fails proportionality and military necessity. I not only posted this above, I gave a link to an interview with an officer who previously worked in missile command said that exact thing.
The reason was that, say in the event of Russia launching first, you wouldn't have time to get a bunch of people on the phone to give the OK. Nuclear launches by necessity had to have a single person be able to give the order.
This justification relies on believing in a world where the President would be aware of Russian missile launches, but missile command would be totally in the dark. It doesn't work like. Nothing works like. Nothing could ever work like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: There can’t be too many ways to disrupt the order given by the president otherwise it would be too delayed or prone to break down during a war preventing retaliatory strike.
The circumstances under which nuclear launches are made against another nation should be absolute last resort in desperate situations, and won’t undergo a series of people giving the nod or committee gathering to decide whether to follow the instruction.
It's not a committee decision. Did you read the article I posted above? The president decides, and the recipients of that order are expected to follow it, but also trained that like all orders this must meet the standard of proportionality and military necessity, and if it doesn't they should refuse. So if the great orange one sent through an order saying 'I'm sick of Kim calling me a dotard, nuke the whole country', then missile command would not only be expected to refuse the order, they would be legally required to do so and protected afterwards from any punitive action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Are we sure that nuclear launches are a "one man decides" affair?
One man makes the order, but military personnel given that order have an obligation to only follow that order if it is lawful.
Grey Templar wrote: Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here.
This is complete junk of the junkiest junk. And it gets posted even after it's been explained that its complete junk.
So no, Grey Templar, the officers in strategic command are not just button pushers who can apply no judgement to any order coming from the president. That's pure tosh. Those have an explicit legal requirement to refuse any order which fails proportionality and military necessity. I not only posted this above, I gave a link to an interview with an officer who previously worked in missile command said that exact thing.
The generals could object to and refuse to carry out the order, but such a decision would just result in them being relieved of duty and having a replacement put in place, who would push the button. And the ultimate decision is STILL the Presidents to make.
And even if a general does object, or even try to countermand the order, he cannot successfully do that.
Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said. “But it would be too late,” he said.
Ultimately, the generals can only advise the president on the use of the weapons, but he has the final call.
But if a President's order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal, there's no one who can stop him.
Not the Congress. Not his Secretary of Defence. And by design, not the military officers who would be duty-bound to execute the order.
Grey Templar wrote: You clearly didn't read the article you posted very carefully.
No, I read the article. I understand it. The problem here is that you came in and posted something that was completely wrong, and now as part of your backtracking you are trying to re-invent my argument in to something that'll give you space to cover your own mistake.
The generals could object to and refuse to carry out the order, but such a decision would just result in them being relieved of duty and having a replacement put in place, who would push the button. And the ultimate decision is STILL the Presidents to make.
And even if a general does object, or even try to countermand the order, he cannot successfully do that.
Here's me saying stuff;
"How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question."
"...hoping that an officer will refuse an order coming from the president is an unreliable control at best. I was just pointing out that such additional steps exist, and it isn't as simple as "the president says launch so everyone else in the chain just pushes the necessary buttons"."
I was explaining that there are controls in place beyond 'if the president says push the button you push the button'. Because a lot of people seemed to think that's all there was to it. This doesn't mean the US has a system that will certainly stop any foolish order to launch. But it does mean people claiming there is no system are totally wrong.
But if a President's order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal, there's no one who can stop him.
This is my favourite bit of your post. You included it to try and rebut my point, but what it actually says is a clear rebuttal of your own original nonsense. Let's go back and get your original claim;
"Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here."
Then look at the quote from the article;
"But if a President's order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal..."
"If". "determined to be sound and legal". Oh well you look at that, a process of review to see if the president's order is legal. Huh. A check on the president's order, one of those things you said there was none of it. Fancy that.
Except who determines if it is "Sound and Legal"? Not Congress, not the military. The President is the one who makes that call. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the one carrying the launch codes around.
Maybe there is a secret checklist of things which determine that that we civilians have no knowledge of, but that's pure speculation.
Just to use North Korea as an example, we are technically at war with them. Launching Nukes against them would be very much legal. And "Sound" is a matter of interpretation.
Grey Templar wrote: Except who determines if it is "Sound and Legal"? Not Congress, not the military. The President is the one who makes that call. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the one carrying the launch codes around.
"can be refused by the top officer at US Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal" And yes, it is that officer who is making the determination.
Maybe there is a secret checklist of things which determine that that we civilians have no knowledge of, but that's pure speculation.
"the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use"
Just to use North Korea as an example, we are technically at war with them. Launching Nukes against them would be very much legal. And "Sound" is a matter of interpretation.
The legality of the order isn't determined based on a formal declaration of war. If a country the US is not at war with starts launching missiles, the US doesn't need a declaration of war from congress before responding. What it needs is for the order to show military necessity and proportionality'.
So, for instance, "NK has fired an ICBM at Hawaii that might be carrying a nuke, and is believed to be prepping another one so nuke the place in to nothing"... lawful order, there is military necessity and the response is proportionate.
Whereas "Kim called me a dotard again, so nuke in to nothing"... not a lawful order, as there is no military necessity, and nukes are not a proportionate response to rude words.
I think the difference here is the one between having legal authority and exercising it and whether or not having authority is meaningful if your exercise of it is easily circumvented.
Of course I think that article is needlessly sensational. I doubt anyone can predict how that scenario will play out who or it happen. There are too many variables.
Edit wow feth
autocorrect. Bargirls? How did it get that from articles?
Tamwulf wrote: I'm pretty sure that its a long chain of individuals, regulations, and standards that all have to be met before any missile can be launched. Hollywood and the movies make it seem like the President orders a nuclear strike, and it just happens. There has to be checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing from happening.
Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here. The reason was that, say in the event of Russia launching first, you wouldn't have time to get a bunch of people on the phone to give the OK. Nuclear launches by necessity had to have a single person be able to give the order.
All that gets done with the nuclear launch codes is a chain of verification of the code itself to make sure its authentic. Not to verify that there is a 'legitimate' reason to launch.
Couldn't they have invented checks against first strike orders? One thing launching retaliatory. Another making first strike.
Ah well. If they have nothing then odds of world end within 3 years is pretty high. Trump might not be able to order first strike with conventional but if he can with nukes then oh dear oh dear.
So no, Grey Templar, the officers in strategic command are not just button pushers who can apply no judgement to any order coming from the president. That's pure tosh. Those have an explicit legal requirement to refuse any order which fails proportionality and military necessity. I not only posted this above, I gave a link to an interview with an officer who previously worked in missile command said that exact thing./quote]
Of course said article said also:
Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.
“But it would be too late,” he said.
So guess we are hoping if Trump goes nuts he doesn't phrase it well enough that SOME launch crew would decide to follow. He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably. Especially if he's aware of this law. Ensures better odds of at least one following orders and then rest would follow as more nukes would be heading US's way.
Grey Templar wrote: Except who determines if it is "Sound and Legal"? Not Congress, not the military. The President is the one who makes that call. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the one carrying the launch codes around.
Maybe there is a secret checklist of things which determine that that we civilians have no knowledge of, but that's pure speculation.
Just to use North Korea as an example, we are technically at war with them. Launching Nukes against them would be very much legal. And "Sound" is a matter of interpretation.
Nukes are not an option with North Korea. We have better things to use if they want to keep playing chicken with ICBM's.
Three reasons why-
China.
South Korea.
The targeting.
For china- China is a major trade partner, there is a very good ongoing diplomatic effort going on. and not just between the US and China. IIRC, Kim does this every year, roughly around the same time. He can be equated to that crazy old man that shouts at the imaginary cats, or yells at the kid to get off his lawn. Except THIS time, this president isn't playing by the same playbook as the "Pay them, and they will go away" of the past.
South Korea- South Korea has it's own issues going on, and in the EAST, Face is everything. THEY have to be where the rubber hits the road. We can go in there, but I can tell you that it is in a ... different roll then you think it is. I won't go into it, because you need to go do your homework on the issue. Add that to a new SK president, who needs to step up and show his leadership, or lose face, and lose the party. IE Politics... Trust me, the South Koreans can hold their own.
The Targeting- The space of Korea is on par witht he east coast of the united states. IIRC, they said once that the country was as big as The east coast of Florida and Georgia. You can't drop a nuke on that, or you get to shoot your own foot. It doesn't work that way. Like I said elsewhere- there are plenty of fun and interesting things to use on a mass army/ lacking technology, and the development of 1960-1970. These people are messed up. A far better option would be to get them to the table and develop a left and right limit, with a harder lined diplomatic effort then has been going on in the past.
Notice my red for effect. The answer to your question is Yes. Yes there is.
There are of course 3 deal breakers. Non Negotiable. If you do one of these three things, you will ride the White line. Other then that, NK is not capable of the three.
Secondly, Nuking these poor things is on par with kicking the crap out of a fat kid. The leadership of NK is already doing the heavy lifting for us. WHY double down on their misery.
Third. You have to consider the source of your... "Information". If no one has told you- That entire story is garbage. Whoever wrote it is full of crap, and has done zero in terms of homework, aside from make up their version of facts. As for legality- Nukes are a military option. NSC is on hand to develop the options for the president to work with. there are a lot of options on the table, and plenty of departments and sections, subsections, and personnel that work in the business that the "I'm a crazy mofo and I'm gonna nuke ya, cause you piss me off!!!" option is not one of them. Just like everything else in the hollowed halls of .gov, there is a procedure for everything.
The other aspect is to consider that the USA would gain nothing using a Nuclear weapon(s) on North Korea. Sure it would cause a lot of damage, but the fallout could easily spread onto China and S. Korea and other neighbouring countries; so suddenly you've harmed allies/trading partners/your own forces in S.Korea.
Then you've also irradiated a block of land in N.Korea; and chances are the way that country is setup you've likely hit the capitol or one of the fewer major urban areas; so you've basically decimated a key area if you were then to follow up the strike with invasion.
Then you've also lost face internationally in a major way. This isn't the end of WW2 where there was a huge deep-seated hatred of the enemy. If anything using a nuclear weapon now would have the USA torn with protests at the action. The political "fallout" would likely be catastrophic both internally and externally.
Also the USA has access to many other weapons that they can use to result in similar levels of destruction and "shock and awe" to N.Korea; but which wouldn't have the huge baggage that using a nuclear weapon would have.
tneva82 wrote: So guess we are hoping if Trump goes nuts he doesn't phrase it well enough that SOME launch crew would decide to follow. He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably. Especially if he's aware of this law. Ensures better odds of at least one following orders and then rest would follow as more nukes would be heading US's way.
We're hoping Trump doesn't go nuts. Anything after that is a 6+ save at best.
Overread wrote: The other aspect is to consider that the USA would gain nothing using a Nuclear weapon(s) on North Korea. Sure it would cause a lot of damage, but the fallout could easily spread onto China and S. Korea and other neighbouring countries; so suddenly you've harmed allies/trading partners/your own forces in S.Korea.
Then you've also irradiated a block of land in N.Korea; and chances are the way that country is setup you've likely hit the capitol or one of the fewer major urban areas; so you've basically decimated a key area if you were then to follow up the strike with invasion.
Then you've also lost face internationally in a major way. This isn't the end of WW2 where there was a huge deep-seated hatred of the enemy. If anything using a nuclear weapon now would have the USA torn with protests at the action. The political "fallout" would likely be catastrophic both internally and externally.
Also the USA has access to many other weapons that they can use to result in similar levels of destruction and "shock and awe" to N.Korea; but which wouldn't have the huge baggage that using a nuclear weapon would have.
Not to mention that North Korea is very, very close to China and Russia and that they would get very very nervous when their early warning systems pick up missiles heading in their direction. Would they risk being too late by waiting with retaliation until they have certainty that the strike is not aimed at them? I don't know. But certainly launching nuclear weapons into that area is an incredible risk.
Also, if there is a war, I do not think South Korea will allow the US to use very destructive weapons. After all, once the North Korean regime would be gone, the area would become the South Korean government's responsibility. In light of reunification they probably want to limit damage to infrastructure and people as much as possible. The costs of reunification would already be high enough without a destructive war. Either way, the US has much more to gain from precision strikes than from nukes or other highly destructive weapons. The goal of a war would be to remove the North Korean regime from power, not to destroy North Korea.
That is why I do not fear that a nuclear war is about to break out. I don't see anyone who would benefit from using nuclear weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably.
IDK. With how fond he is of hyperbole and grand, dramatic statements, Trump really seems like the kind of guy to be a fan of "no kill like overkill".
'Commander, I order you to launch our nukes at North Korea. I want the TOTAL ANNIHILATION of North Korea. Total. We have many nukes, the most nukes. We need to use all of our nukes to show the amazing power of our great nukes to the world. Those who say that launching all our nukes would leave us vulnerable are LIARS. Other countries will be too afraid of our fire and fury to do anything against us.'
Overread wrote: The other aspect is to consider that the USA would gain nothing using a Nuclear weapon(s) on North Korea. Sure it would cause a lot of damage, but the fallout could easily spread onto China and S. Korea and other neighbouring countries; so suddenly you've harmed allies/trading partners/your own forces in S.Korea.
Then you've also irradiated a block of land in N.Korea; and chances are the way that country is setup you've likely hit the capitol or one of the fewer major urban areas; so you've basically decimated a key area if you were then to follow up the strike with invasion.
Then you've also lost face internationally in a major way. This isn't the end of WW2 where there was a huge deep-seated hatred of the enemy. If anything using a nuclear weapon now would have the USA torn with protests at the action. The political "fallout" would likely be catastrophic both internally and externally.
Also the USA has access to many other weapons that they can use to result in similar levels of destruction and "shock and awe" to N.Korea; but which wouldn't have the huge baggage that using a nuclear weapon would have.
Not to mention that North Korea is very, very close to China and Russia and that they would get very very nervous when their early warning systems pick up missiles heading in their direction. Would they risk being too late by waiting with retaliation until they have certainty that the strike is not aimed at them? I don't know. But certainly launching nuclear weapons into that area is an incredible risk.
Also, if there is a war, I do not think South Korea will allow the US to use very destructive weapons. After all, once the North Korean regime would be gone, the area would become the South Korean government's responsibility. In light of reunification they probably want to limit damage to infrastructure and people as much as possible. The costs of reunification would already be high enough without a destructive war. Either way, the US has much more to gain from precision strikes than from nukes or other highly destructive weapons. The goal of a war would be to remove the North Korean regime from power, not to destroy North Korea.
That is why I do not fear that a nuclear war is about to break out. I don't see anyone who would benefit from using nuclear weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably.
IDK. With how fond he is of hyperbole and grand, dramatic statements, Trump really seems like the kind of guy to be a fan of "no kill like overkill".
'Commander, I order you to launch our nukes at North Korea. I want the TOTAL ANNIHILATION of North Korea. Total. We have many nukes, the most nukes. We need to use all of our nukes to show the amazing power of our great nukes to the world. Those who say that launching all our nukes would leave us vulnerable are LIARS. Other countries will be too afraid of our fire and fury to do anything against us.'
Maybe tactical strikes?
Not city busters but some targets may be too well dug in for regular ordience and require nuclear anti bunker and regular tactical nuclear missiles aka cruise and such.
A precision volley of tactical nukes could obliterate a entire army, or raise a entire facility to ruins in a matter of hours from firing to impact.
It's been real enough that Congress is having hearings on whether to revoke the Presidents authority to do it.
Her's the kicker, ladies and gents, reffering to Seb's article...:
"Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer...said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.
“But it would be too late,” he said. "
So, effectively, after the fact we can all argue if it was legal, but the nukes would already be on their way.
You'd need the Davy Crocket to be on the lower end of possible yields for the MOAB to even equal it. And I don't think anybody makes nuclear devices that small anymore.
MOABs would definitely get used in the event of the Korean war going hot again. They are perfect bunker busters, but they don't really hold a candle to nukes.
Would N. Korea even have enough viable and dangerous bunkers that would require a nuclear attack to break them open? I would think that much of their military and infrastructure wouldn't require ordinance of a nuclear weapon magnitude to break.
Ergo that you don't need to use a nuclear weapon to win a war in the first place.
Overread wrote: Would N. Korea even have enough viable and dangerous bunkers that would require a nuclear attack to break them open? I would think that much of their military and infrastructure wouldn't require ordinance of a nuclear weapon magnitude to break.
Ergo that you don't need to use a nuclear weapon to win a war in the first place.
I dont think you would want to bunker bust with nukes anyway considering the aftermath means you couldnt push up on the ground.
Id assume thermobaric weapons are in order for that sort of thing.
Aye, any use of nuclear weapons basically hinders any ability to rebuild after and is a serious risk during the war if you're going to have people on the ground fighting. Also this isn't like WWII were the aftermath effects were not fully appreciated.
I really just can't see the gain for the US to actually use a nuclear weapon in todays world; especially against an opponent like N. Korea.
Overread wrote: Would N. Korea even have enough viable and dangerous bunkers that would require a nuclear attack to break them open? I would think that much of their military and infrastructure wouldn't require ordinance of a nuclear weapon magnitude to break.
Ergo that you don't need to use a nuclear weapon to win a war in the first place.
You're mixing needs and wants. Nelson said it best. "Gotta nuke something."
<--- Kronk is not advocating nuking. I'd rather just keep ignoring the fether.
Crazyterran wrote: If you want to cause tons of damage, wouldn't a moab do mostly the same thing without the baggage of fallout?
Big as MOABs are, you can't erase a city with one.
Overread wrote: Aye, any use of nuclear weapons basically hinders any ability to rebuild after and is a serious risk during the war if you're going to have people on the ground fighting. Also this isn't like WWII were the aftermath effects were not fully appreciated.
I really just can't see the gain for the US to actually use a nuclear weapon in todays world; especially against an opponent like N. Korea.
Use air bursts. Good for depopulating the area without contaminating everything for hundreds of miles, as the majority of fissile material is destroyed in the fireball.
There were enough studies on how long troops could survive in areas effected by Nuclear Fallout to make it a consideration. Safe periods, and the upper limits of course.
Though the issue today's potentially that our modern kit isn't built to deal with that sort of warfare like it was in the Cold War, despite leaps in technology. I'd imagine it fell off the budget.
I do remember reading a rather good sci-fi series set in a world where Nuclear weapons were normalised. They were used to a limited surgical capacity before dropping off after people started playing silly buggers with dirty bombs. Not to say that's the way to go, but using a comparatively "clean" nuke as a one off in a conflict without escalating things may be the ...well politest way to go without escalating things. ...Though as in that series once one person starts doing it, even to a limited extent, that gives the green light for anyone to do it (presumably first the major powers, whilst being frowned upon, then anyone who happened to find one fallen off the back of a truck). China does wind up a glassed hellhole, along with the US dealing with the fallout (though the actual conflict's more traditional ...in as much as fighting over precious metals in Kazakhstan is conventional).
Elbows wrote: There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.
John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.
Elbows wrote: There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.
John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.
Just out of curiosity, what use is there for forms if all the people are dead? Shouldn't the government be more worried about its people than its forms?
Elbows wrote: There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.
John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.
Just out of curiosity, what use is there for forms if all the people are dead? Shouldn't the government be more worried about its people than its forms?
Well, not everyone is guarenteed to die, those living isolated/far enough away from areas that would be hit might survive. Plus everyone in government bunkers.
Realistically no government can protect all its people from something on that scale. Which is why setting up a mechanism to quickly have the ability to set back up and rebuild to help those people that survive it can be of importance. Without the government there is no guarantee the country would survive as an entity seperate from the people. So to preserve the country, making sure the government survives is very important.
Of course you could say something about the bureaucracy, but there is something to say for the fact that the country would survive because the entity that would hold it together does. Its a fascinating part of Cold War history and a debate on what role a government plays in making a country.
Also relatively speaking you can repopulate with very few people, with enough genetic diversity in the low hundreds. So in a sense its easier to have a government survive and then repopulate than have the survivors trying to set up the same government after its been destroyed.
Elbows wrote: There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.
John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.
Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff
Elbows wrote: There isn't a real reason to be concerned, but if it entertains you - by all means, keep at it.
John Sedgwick wrote:
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Look, I work in a bunker 300 feet underground, ensuring the preservation of government forms so that the records are intact even if ALL THE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. At the moment, as my bosses see it, Trump starting World War Stupid is the most likely scenario of 'the end' that is going right now. Since the US government pays the checks around here, then someone someplace thinks that this is real enough to dump over a million dollars a day on it.
Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff
Speaking of, I just saw an article pointing out the release of files from thee Pentagon that had spent 20 mil on UFO research between 2007-2012
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff
This is fair and I'm totally on board with preserving vital records for future generations especially if no one survives. There should be more than ruins left behind to say we were here. But yes. The US government wastes a lot of money on pointless crap. Like that Loony Tunes scheme to tie bombs to bats and drop bat-bombs over Tokyo, or that time we wasted hundreds of millions in a pointless drug ban (aka Prohibition).
Hey, if we didn't have prohibition, cool stuff wouldn't have happened like NASCAR and gangsters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum
While Prohibition did lead to crime, it was rather successful, leading to about a 70% alcohol consumption decrease, something that even continued after it had been stomped by the 21st Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It was also lead by Progressives and many Women's Suffragettes.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah, because it's not like the mighty US government ever wastes money on stuff
This is fair and I'm totally on board with preserving vital records for future generations especially if no one survives. There should be more than ruins left behind to say we were here. But yes. The US government wastes a lot of money on pointless crap. Like that Loony Tunes scheme to tie bombs to bats and drop bat-bombs over Tokyo, or that time we wasted hundreds of millions in a pointless drug ban (aka Prohibition).
To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I just found it hilarious that "someone (in the US government) thinks we should spend money on it so it must be a good idea" was actually used as an argument.
I certainly see the value in repositories of knowledge. Though a million bucks a day seems a bit excessive, that's equivalent to approximately 6000 wages for people earning a median wage.
O look at you, being a sissy, did I say something you don't like, boo ho.
Really? Let me take a crack at that before the mods shut down this thread.
You revile the government for social programs, but let's take a look at what a higher power thinks on this:
"Then the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God." Luke 11:39-42
"He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ Luke 14:14
The strongest rebuke I can think of for this whole sorry affair comes from another New York giant...
The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
In case you don't recognize it, it's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. While not a legal document, I don't see anything about background checks or 'except Muslims'.
O look at you, being a sissy, did I say something you don't like, boo ho.
Really? Let me take a crack at that before the mods shut down this thread.
You revile the government for social programs, but let's take a look at what a higher power thinks on this:
"Then the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God." Luke 11:39-42
"He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’ Luke 14:14
The strongest rebuke I can think of for this whole sorry affair comes from another New York giant...
The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
In case you don't recognize it, it's the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. While not a legal document, I don't see anything about background checks or 'except Muslims'.
Except the bible only implores people to privately care for the poor. It does not say that the government should do that. Its strictly something god calls upon individuals to do. The government is not, and should not be, in the business of baby sitting everybody. The government's sole business is in protecting it's citizens from external threats and from lawlessness within. Anything else is superfluous and optional.
Except the bible only implores people to privately care for the poor. It does not say that the government should do that. Its strictly something god calls upon individuals to do. The government is not, and should not be, in the business of baby sitting everybody. The government's sole business is in protecting it's citizens from external threats and from lawlessness within. Anything else is superfluous and optional.
"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." Psalm 72.
You were saying?
just, FYI: I looked up several versions of this, and they're broadly similar in most translations. It goes on later...
"For he will deliver the needy when he cries for help,
The afflicted also, and him who has no helper.
He will have compassion on the poor and needy,
And the lives of the needy he will save.
He will rescue their life from oppression and violence,
And their blood will be precious in his sight;"
I'd say that, no, the bible says that the king (probably Solomon in this case) and, thus, government, should care for the poor as well.
Except the bible only implores people to privately care for the poor. It does not say that the government should do that. Its strictly something god calls upon individuals to do. The government is not, and should not be, in the business of baby sitting everybody. The government's sole business is in protecting it's citizens from external threats and from lawlessness within. Anything else is superfluous and optional.
"Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor." Psalm 72.
You were saying?
It doesn't say he should give alms to the poor out of the kingdoms coffers. It says he should be a righteous and just ruler who doesn't oppress the needy, but delivers them from harm. Deliverance =/= giving hand outs.
It's certainly a good thing to give to the poor, but its not commanded of a king/government to do that. Its commanded that you not oppress them.
Charity isn't charity when it becomes mandatory in the form of taxes to fund social welfare. If the king personally gives money out of his personal funds that is good. But it's not commanded that he use the public treasury to do that, that is not the purpose of the public funds.
Except that was extremely common in that time period for Kings and governments of the time to do, it was expected, at least under certain conditions. The idea that there are things the government should or should not do as a matter of political philosophy would not have been something that occurred to anyone then. Rome for instance gave out free grain to the poor and threw feasts and publicly funded celebrations and food giveaways all the time. Ancient Israel engaged in routine debt cancellation for the poor, as well as land reform and redistribution (and a dedicated portion of tithes were set aside for the destitute). Most other ancient societies of the time did too, at least periodically. They didn't have the resources of modern states to attempt to comprehensively care for people, but attempts were absolutely made. Cancelling or alleviating debts of the poor was also a common thing routinely engaged in by ancient states. These were common things that it was assumed the state was engaged in, and the lessons of religion were ostensibly supposed to apply to those running the state (for which there was no concept of separation from the religion), charity being "forced" or not is not a concept anyone would have acknowledged at the time if engaged in by the state for the purposes of fulfilling such religious obligations, and being tithed (in some form or fashion under many different names) for the works of the church/religion (which included charity) was mandatory in many cultures for hundreds and thousands of years, be it Rome, Egypt, Israel, etc.
I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?
Hrm, I feel that's a deflection. Societies can agree that pursuing the same goals under different methods in different times and circumstances may still be valuable things to do. Defense of the state and people was an important religious duty as well as civil one too. That's nowhere in the same ballpark as advocating for the elimination of the separation of church and state, but it does mean that the state engaging in such activity isn't out of alignment with religious dictates and practices, coincidental overlap in the best interests in society isn't a bad thing. It's against the law to murder people, and is against the dictates of the bible too, and I think it's good both speak out directly in support of that, but it doesn't mean I think we should abolish separation of church and state.
The point was that pretty much all states of the time period when the bible was written engaged in charity and caring for people using resources from taxes and tithes, at least to some degree, and that the lessons and tenets or religion were seen as rules for the state as well as the individual, so they typically wouldn't have seen a need to explicitely spell that out in religious texts. The concept of separation of church and state didn't exist, it wouldn't have occurred to people, in fact religious dictates about charity were mandatory in law and action in these places, and thus the idea that it's not the role of the state (from the perspective of the religion) to follow religious dictates and stuff about charity not being charity if mandated by taxes/tithes doesn't hold water when put in context, the only difference is in modern society we just acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, from the perspective of the state, regardless of what the sky-wizards say even if they support the concept.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?
Hrm, I feel that's a deflection. Societies can agree that pursuing the same goals under different methods in different times and circumstances may still be valuable things to do. Defense of the state and people was an important religious duty as well as civil one too. That's nowhere in the same ballpark as advocating for the elimination of the separation of church and state, but it does mean that the state engaging in such activity isn't out of alignment with religious dictates and practices, coincidental overlap in the best interests in society isn't a bad thing. It's against the law to murder people, and is against the dictates of the bible too, and I think it's good both speak out directly in support of that, but it doesn't mean I think we should abolish separation of church and state.
The point was that pretty much all states of the time period when the bible was written engaged in charity and caring for people using resources from taxes and tithes, at least to some degree, and that the lessons and tenets or religion were seen as rules for the state as well as the individual, so they typically wouldn't have seen a need to explicitely spell that out in religious texts. The concept of separation of church and state didn't exist, it wouldn't have occurred to people, in fact religious dictates about charity were mandatory in law and action in these places, and thus the idea that it's not the role of the state (from the perspective of the religion) to follow religious dictates and stuff about charity not being charity if mandated by taxes/tithes doesn't hold water when put in context, the only difference is in modern society we just acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, from the perspective of the state, regardless of what the sky-wizards say even if they support the concept.
I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.
It doesn't say he should give alms to the poor out of the kingdoms coffers. It says he should be a righteous and just ruler who doesn't oppress the needy, but delivers them from harm. Deliverance =/= giving hand outs.
It's certainly a good thing to give to the poor, but its not commanded of a king/government to do that. Its commanded that you not oppress them.
Charity isn't charity when it becomes mandatory in the form of taxes to fund social welfare. If the king personally gives money out of his personal funds that is good. But it's not commanded that he use the public treasury to do that, that is not the purpose of the public funds.
Um, just a little fact about Israel and Judea: According to the oldest Biblical traditions, the second tithe was to be given to the poor in the third and sixth year of every sabbatical cycle. So, yes, part of their taxes was given to the poor.
Further, . In connection with the synagogue, there were two funds from which poor and strangers could obtain relief. The weekly money chest (quppah) served to support the local poor, who received a weekly allotment. The plate (tamḥui) was open to any person needing a meal, especially strangers.
The collection was made in the synagogues by at least two officers for the money chest. The distribution was carried out by three officers. There obviously was need to prevent suspicion of misuse of funds(theft or favoritism).
This office was considered burdensome, and the honors showered on its beholders did not always suffice to make it attractive.
It was an obligation for everyone to give to the fund (not necessarily cash). The courts could interfere and appropriate property to recover the sum due for charity.
I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.
Arguably, any society, even a modern one, is three missed meals away from anarchy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?
The sheer volume of potential issues with that plan is staggering, not the least of which being the sheer number of amoral 'fake' churches which would spring up to game the system.
I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.
Arguably, any society, even a modern one, is three missed meals away from anarchy.
Which is why it's so hilarious when someone rolls by with a reckon about how dumb the government is for having welfare programs. If you leave people to degradation and suffering then you'll wake up one day to find that your head isn't quite as securely connected to your shoulders as you'd want it to be. Haha.
Grey Templar wrote: I suppose you're OK then with eliminating the seperation of church and state? Or at leat giving all social welfare money to religious charities for them to distribute?
Hrm, I feel that's a deflection. Societies can agree that pursuing the same goals under different methods in different times and circumstances may still be valuable things to do. Defense of the state and people was an important religious duty as well as civil one too. That's nowhere in the same ballpark as advocating for the elimination of the separation of church and state, but it does mean that the state engaging in such activity isn't out of alignment with religious dictates and practices, coincidental overlap in the best interests in society isn't a bad thing. It's against the law to murder people, and is against the dictates of the bible too, and I think it's good both speak out directly in support of that, but it doesn't mean I think we should abolish separation of church and state.
The point was that pretty much all states of the time period when the bible was written engaged in charity and caring for people using resources from taxes and tithes, at least to some degree, and that the lessons and tenets or religion were seen as rules for the state as well as the individual, so they typically wouldn't have seen a need to explicitely spell that out in religious texts. The concept of separation of church and state didn't exist, it wouldn't have occurred to people, in fact religious dictates about charity were mandatory in law and action in these places, and thus the idea that it's not the role of the state (from the perspective of the religion) to follow religious dictates and stuff about charity not being charity if mandated by taxes/tithes doesn't hold water when put in context, the only difference is in modern society we just acknowledge that it's a good thing to do, from the perspective of the state, regardless of what the sky-wizards say even if they support the concept.
I would argue that the Romans, and other ancient societies, didn't give to the poor out of actually caring. It was purely so that the huddled masses didn't revolt. Bread and Circuses exists as a term for a reason.
Sure, such things are rarely one-dimensional, there's usually a range of factors that go into that, having people starving to death and disrupting social order is seen as a bad thing that needs addressing from an array of perspectives and for a variety of reasons from many perspectives. Hence why most organized societies, governments, and religions have generally supported and engaged in some level of social welfare and wealth redistribution, and such was very much seen as a role of the state, by both the state itself and the religion, on some level in pretty much every major civilization.
The other aspect to consider is that once you are "dirt poor" its very hard to climb up the social and economic ladder again without any outside help. As a result any society that abandons its poor will generally only grow the number of poor within their system.
And the poor do cost money to manage, yet will contribute very little toward the nations upkeep and prosperity. So you continue to create an ever bigger drain and problem upon your society.
Furthermore the more poor you have and the more living in poor living conditions the more you create environments ripe for the spread of disease and sickness which can easily spill out and affect your less poor segments of society.
Welfare/charity/tithes/whatever are there to try and be a safety net so that the most poor of the nation can at least attain a basic level of survival. The expectation is that, managed correctly, it should allow them to survive financial ruin and then, in time, restore themselves back to a position where they are net contributing to society once more.
Of course poorly managed systems can be open to abuse; from those who leach off the system directly and those who leach off it indirectly. But by and large they do function to help stave off the worst of poverty and the costs that come with it.
Ok folks, lets just take a breather here and remember this is not a thread about welfare programs. I'm struggling to see anything on the past page worth of posts that has anything to do with the ICAN Nuclear War Warning.
Skink thing is there isn't really much to discuss other than personal opinions on if we'll see a nuclear launch or not. So its no surprise the thread has kind of swayed into discussions on other fringe subjects .
That may be, but if this thread has nothing left to discuss and folks want to discuss the pros and cons of welfare programs they should just start another appropriately titled thread.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: That may be, but if this thread has nothing left to discuss and folks want to discuss the pros and cons of welfare programs they should just start another appropriately titled thread.
It'd be closed before anyone can post. The Dakka double standard is hard at work here, European Politics are A-OK (regardless of even the mods posting some pretty hypocritical stuff) but anything in the America's is off limits.
Back to the subject in hand, there's an embedded and translated response from the Korean media in this one:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I just found it hilarious that "someone (in the US government) thinks we should spend money on it so it must be a good idea" was actually used as an argument.
To be fair, that wasn't actually the argument. The argument was that government is doing this, and one senior (?) person employed in the project made an assessment of what is the most likely event that will cause their work to be necessary. That most likely event is Trump.
So the argument is more 'people who are paid to worry about this stuff think Trump is more of a risk than other threats, so there's probably something to that'.
Though a million bucks a day seems a bit excessive, that's equivalent to approximately 6000 wages for people earning a median wage.
There's going to be a lot of capital costs in addition to the labour. BaronIveagh mentioned being miles underground, which makes sense when its a site that's meant to survive nuclear war, but that makes it likely to be more capital costs than wages. And depending on the scope of what they're trying to capture and store, I could see the whole operation being several thousand people quite easily.
Is $365m a lot money. Yeah, its a huge pile of cash. But what sort of money should be spent on a insurance program to make sure some kind of record of the US survives a civilisation ending disaster? Across the country it works out about a $1 per person.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: It'd be closed before anyone can post. The Dakka double standard is hard at work here, European Politics are A-OK (regardless of even the mods posting some pretty hypocritical stuff) but anything in the America's is off limits.
I don't even necessarily agree with the US politics ban, but it isn't a double standard. That'd be like saying its a double standard that a guy on parole might get put in jail if he's busted doing something that an ordinary person might only get warned over. There's a history there. If European politics had been as problematic as US politics it'd be banned as well.
Hey, U.S. politics didn't lead to two World Wars (Even more if you include ones that spanned the globe before the term World War was coined). Therefore, Eurpoean Politics is obviously more dangerous and should be banned.
Regarding ICAN. I believe back int he days of Star Wars Missile Defense programs their was an idea of a GALPs (Global Accidental Launch System) that would use sophisticated satellites, interceptors, and other counter-measures to deal with the launch of a small number of missiles.
I am out of the loop on current Missile Defense capabilities, but do we have the technology to complete a GALPS style system now? Alsom what International Law/politics considerations would be required for a GALPS style system?
sebster wrote: BaronIveagh mentioned being miles underground, which makes sense when its a site that's meant to survive nuclear war, but that makes it likely to be more capital costs than wages. And depending on the scope of what they're trying to capture and store, I could see the whole operation being several thousand people quite easily.
Is $365m a lot money. Yeah, its a huge pile of cash. But what sort of money should be spent on a insurance program to make sure some kind of record of the US survives a civilisation ending disaster? Across the country it works out about a $1 per person..
I wish we had a thousand people. We have equipment for maybe a hundred. We have 35. Which, yes, blows my mind, and is exactly what the contractors advised our superiors AGAINST but rather than hire more people, we plod along, and will be finished in the next 20-30 years. Assuming that the caustic vapors, air locks, etc, don't get us all killed first.
To be honest, though, the thing that gets under my skin the most is the $2.50 candy bars and the five dollar sodas that all expired at least four months ago. Because vending machines in a government facility.
Easy E wrote: Hey, U.S. politics didn't lead to two World Wars (Even more if you include ones that spanned the globe before the term World War was coined). Therefore, Eurpoean Politics is obviously more dangerous and should be banned.
If only the mods had put a ban on secret treaties in the early stages of the 20th century
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: I wish we had a thousand people. We have equipment for maybe a hundred. We have 35. Which, yes, blows my mind, and is exactly what the contractors advised our superiors AGAINST but rather than hire more people, we plod along, and will be finished in the next 20-30 years. Assuming that the caustic vapors, air locks, etc, don't get us all killed first.
To be honest, though, the thing that gets under my skin the most is the $2.50 candy bars and the five dollar sodas that all expired at least four months ago. Because vending machines in a government facility.
Wait, what? 35 people, and you're going through a million dollars a day? Are you not including contractors in that head count, or is there some serious capital expenditure going on?
I'm assuming that the record rooms are temperature and humidity controlled with specialized lights meant to minimize damage to the records and possibly high end acid/Lignin free storage boxes and materials.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, I just found it hilarious that "someone (in the US government) thinks we should spend money on it so it must be a good idea" was actually used as an argument.
To be fair, that wasn't actually the argument. The argument was that government is doing this, and one senior (?) person employed in the project made an assessment of what is the most likely event that will cause their work to be necessary. That most likely event is Trump.
Are we really making the distinction between "the US government" and "a person employed to spend government funds.... probably also employed by the government"
Though a million bucks a day seems a bit excessive, that's equivalent to approximately 6000 wages for people earning a median wage.
There's going to be a lot of capital costs in addition to the labour. BaronIveagh mentioned being miles underground, which makes sense when its a site that's meant to survive nuclear war, but that makes it likely to be more capital costs than wages. And depending on the scope of what they're trying to capture and store, I could see the whole operation being several thousand people quite easily.
Actually Baron said 300ft, which is less than 100m, there's plenty of mines and caves around deeper than that.
If it was $1M a day during the digging and reinforcing of giant holes then that's not much, but you usually don't state construction costs as a "per day" thing, that's how you state ongoing costs so that's how I interpreted it.
Is $365m a lot money. Yeah, its a huge pile of cash. But what sort of money should be spent on a insurance program to make sure some kind of record of the US survives a civilisation ending disaster? Across the country it works out about a $1 per person.
Well it's only $365M if that's 1 years worth of work, which isn't terrible, but no such limit was given in Baron's post so I assumed that was just ongoing costs. Also that's a terrible way of justifying costs on a government project, because all those singular dollars add up across hundreds if not thousands of government projects.
Obviously I didn't do a detailed analysis on the costing, it just sounds too high to me. As a reference point the Eureka Tower in Melbourne cost $415M to build over the course of 4 years (even with our hideously high wages for labourers, I think the US pays its labourers less than us). It's almost 300m tall and at a guess would have maybe, what, 50 metres of foundations under that? Digging a hole, even a nice air conditioned hole with thick concrete walls, then paying some people to fill it with knowledge and catalogue it, $1M a day sounds expensive if it's for any extended duration.
LordofHats wrote: I'm assuming that the record rooms are temperature and humidity controlled with specialized lights meant to minimize damage to the records and possibly high end acid/Lignin free storage boxes and materials.
Archival stuff gets expensive.
There are probably a lot of computers down there too. Which would need cooling, and cooling is expensive.
There are probably a lot of computers down there too. Which would need cooling, and cooling is expensive.
Particularly since the microfilm is mostly that volatile acetate based crap that decays into caustic fumes in heat and or humidity. Open the wrong canister the wrong way and you WILL lose your eyes down here, as well as a lot of the skin on your face. Which is why NARA won't touch it.
Your government did not store them well in the 40's and 50'z and 60's so now it's a race to digitize 10 million miles of of film before it all goes to pot. Which is the entirety of SSA's documents produced since it's inception in the 1930's.
You'd think they'd give us a better budget for employees, but we're not allowed to hire people to replace losses except management. Part of some broader drive to reduce overhead. So lots of empty desks, which according to the contractor we hired, since we can't make our own recommendations, is a severe problem that is hampering our efforts. HQ says make do anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Yep. And if its meant to survive the apocalypse it probably has its own generator.
Quite a few of them, actually. We had one explode once. That was....exciting... underground.
If it was $1M a day during the digging and reinforcing of giant holes then that's not much, but you usually don't state construction costs as a "per day" thing, that's how you state ongoing costs so that's how I interpreted it.
Which is correct, the facility was originally built back in the 1960's by US Steel. The problem is the scale of it. Think that warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, now make it an underground facility miles across, since we hold over 10 million MILES of film. That's enough microfilm to go from Earth to the Moon 30 odd times.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Wait, so your records are Elder Scrolls? Contains a lot of knowledge but burns your eyes off if you try to read them the wrong way?
No, they're just on acetate film, which decays into acid vapor strong enough that it etches the image of the film reels into the sides of the film canisters. Open one too close to your face and it's just like Chlorine Gas, your lungs and eyes get coated in acid. And not the 'nice' kind.
feeder wrote: This is where the good Baron reveals they've not played the Elder Scrolls series
This is more like opening the Ark of the Covenant ala Raiders of the Lost Ark than the Elder Scrolls. You have to READ the Elder Scrolls, this gak does it by simple proximity.
Some future Archeologist will unpack this treasure trove of documents, break the seal and get killed by a face full of Chlorine gas. Hence, the "Curse of the Underground Archive Bunker" will start circulating amongst the public.
Easy E wrote: Some future Archeologist will unpack this treasure trove of documents, break the seal and get killed by a face full of Chlorine gas. Hence, the "Curse of the Underground Archive Bunker" will start circulating amongst the public.
Bonus points if the specific roll opened is documents from Congress, then we can call it the Ark of Congress for the movie!
