Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

No. I want to assume that no country is willing to sacrifice millions of their own civilians to start a war over anything that is not worth that loss of life.

Dictatorships don't mind it:

I forgot to mention.

They also need to have a military strong enough that it's actually capable of forcing a country with a nuclear arsenal to abandon the idea of simply defending itself with its conventional military.

Magister wrote:

Horse gak. The reality is peace will always be temporary.

Carry the biggest fething stick in your neighborhood... the less likely you'll get whacked

That's a great reality until someone comes up with a bigger stick. Or better yet, more people with bigger sticks.

That point aside, I feel it's all a bit pathetic that various segments of the species are still trying to kill one other because they believe in different religious* fairy tales.

It's almost like no one reads a history book anymore...


*Religion/Politics/Economics etc

Um... wars and killings have been cause by other things that religion.

o.O

As for who has the biggest stick? That's life yo.

Even then, those reasons are, historically, to get the populace to actually want to fight. Like most things, it comes down to profit at the end of it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Actually, no, that's not quite it.

See, the big nukes actually have zero danger to the ground from radioactive fallout, because the fallout goes high enough up into the atmosphere it just gets carried around the planet for long enough that by the time it finally comes back down, it is no longer dangerous.

I think the best example of why the link was BS was that it was worried about wiping out most of the ozone layer.

Nukes aren't powerful enough to do that. For that kind of damage you need a gamma ray burst that wipes out half of the planet instantly..

Or CFCs.

Nukes don't have to blow away the ozone layer if they throw up enough molecules into the atmosphere that can break down Ozone.

A nuclear detonation can produce Nitric Oxide, which can break down Ozone in a self-repeating chemical reaction.

The EMP devestation of a nuke would likely cause more death and strife than the actualy damage....

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Actually, no, that's not quite it.

See, the big nukes actually have zero danger to the ground from radioactive fallout, because the fallout goes high enough up into the atmosphere it just gets carried around the planet for long enough that by the time it finally comes back down, it is no longer dangerous.

I think the best example of why the link was BS was that it was worried about wiping out most of the ozone layer.

Nukes aren't powerful enough to do that. For that kind of damage you need a gamma ray burst that wipes out half of the planet instantly..

Or CFCs.

Nukes don't have to blow away the ozone layer if they throw up enough molecules into the atmosphere that can break down Ozone.

Breaking down the ozone layer is what the gamma ray burst would do to eliminate it.

Interestingly, it would also convert it into a nitrous oxide layer instead, because that's what ozone would break down into which blocks more visible light than ozone but also lets more UV radiation in. This would effectively turn Earth into an environment that could be described as "Hellish."

The destruction of our ozone layer like that though, would effectively end all life on Earth, as no living creature can handle the amount of UV radiation Earth would then be receiving from its own star. 80% increase in UV was way too low an estimate of the increase from a destroyed ozone layer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Actually, no, that's not quite it.

See, the big nukes actually have zero danger to the ground from radioactive fallout, because the fallout goes high enough up into the atmosphere it just gets carried around the planet for long enough that by the time it finally comes back down, it is no longer dangerous.

I think the best example of why the link was BS was that it was worried about wiping out most of the ozone layer.

Nukes aren't powerful enough to do that. For that kind of damage you need a gamma ray burst that wipes out half of the planet instantly..

Or CFCs.

Nukes don't have to blow away the ozone layer if they throw up enough molecules into the atmosphere that can break down Ozone.

A nuclear detonation can produce Nitric Oxide, which can break down Ozone in a self-repeating chemical reaction.

The EMP devestation of a nuke would likely cause more death and strife than the actualy damage....

A few precisely-placed nuclear blasts in the upper atmosphere would take out virtually every electronic device on Earth.

They got by that back when they were detonating nukes constantly because their computers were using vacuum tubes, which aren't as susceptible to EMP.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do believe that Obama was born in the US. That being said there is a little evidence to support the claim that he might have given up his US citizenship later in life.

When he was adopted by his Stepfather in Indonesia the school records there list him as a citizen (Indonesia does not allow duel citizenship). He also has traveled on an Indonesian passport (only available to Indonesian citizens, and thus the duel citizenship thing again). When he applied for college he listed himself as a citizen of Indonesia.

So, we have two possibilities. Either he gave up his US citizenship, or he is a rampant liar that abuses systems to further himself.

Various countries allow and don't allow dual citizenship.

If born in the USA the USA regards you as a US citizen regardless of your potential or actual possession of other citizenships, unless of course your parents were illegal immigrants in which case the law wants to be thrown out of the window

 Pouncey wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Actually, no, that's not quite it.

See, the big nukes actually have zero danger to the ground from radioactive fallout, because the fallout goes high enough up into the atmosphere it just gets carried around the planet for long enough that by the time it finally comes back down, it is no longer dangerous.

I think the best example of why the link was BS was that it was worried about wiping out most of the ozone layer.

Nukes aren't powerful enough to do that. For that kind of damage you need a gamma ray burst that wipes out half of the planet instantly..

Or CFCs.

Nukes don't have to blow away the ozone layer if they throw up enough molecules into the atmosphere that can break down Ozone.

Breaking down the ozone layer is what the gamma ray burst would do to eliminate it.

Interestingly, it would also convert it into a nitrous oxide layer instead, because that's what ozone would break down into which blocks more visible light than ozone but also lets more UV radiation in. This would effectively turn Earth into an environment that could be described as "Hellish."

The destruction of our ozone layer like that though, would effectively end all life on Earth, as no living creature can handle the amount of UV radiation Earth would then be receiving from its own star. 80% increase in UV was way too low an estimate of the increase from a destroyed ozone layer.

Yes, but Gamma Ray Bursts are amongst the most energetic phenomena in the Universe. So the effect of us getting hit by one which is suitably close (so, in our Galaxy, basically) is always going to be the complete devastation of our entire planet and there is absolutely nothing we could to to prevent it anyway.

We can attempt to prevent nuclear war and the main steps are to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and try to have leaders who understand the risks that nuclear weapons pose.

Around 2,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated since the development of the A-bomb. "Why aren't we all living in the Fallout universe by now?" I hear you ask.

Because the overwhelming majority of those detonations were performed UNDERGROUND, specifically to avoid spreading radioactive fallout all over the world. But why would they bother if the bombs now send radiation so high up into the atmosphere that the particles safely decay before they reach the ground?

Because the particles *don't* safely decay before they reach the ground. They spread so far and so wide that their concentration is below harmful levels (ie, there isn't enough glowy stuff in the area to harm you because it is so diluted) when it reaches Earth. However, that only holds true if you detonate one single, solitary bomb. One bomb spreads thin enough that the fallout is negligible. One Thousand bombs detonated at the same time throws so much radioactive fallout into the upper atmosphere that it will not safely dilute before reaching the ground.

Nuclear war will not result in a few large craters in cities and the rest of the world getting by on business as usual. Nuclear war is almost certainly the final curtain of the human race.

There is a very good reason why sane people have been trying to avoid it for 70+ years.

squidhills wrote:
Around 2,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated since the development of the A-bomb. "Why aren't we all living in the Fallout universe by now?" I hear you ask.

Because the overwhelming majority of those detonations were performed UNDERGROUND, specifically to avoid spreading radioactive fallout all over the world. But why would they bother if the bombs now send radiation so high up into the atmosphere that the particles safely decay before they reach the ground?

Because the particles *don't* safely decay before they reach the ground. They spread so far and so wide that their concentration is below harmful levels (ie, there isn't enough glowy stuff in the area to harm you because it is so diluted) when it reaches Earth. However, that only holds true if you detonate one single, solitary bomb. One bomb spreads thin enough that the fallout is negligible. One Thousand bombs detonated at the same time throws so much radioactive fallout into the upper atmosphere that it will not safely dilute before reaching the ground.

Nuclear war will not result in a few large craters in cities and the rest of the world getting by on business as usual. Nuclear war is almost certainly the final curtain of the human race.

There is a very good reason why sane people have been trying to avoid it for 70+ years.

I know of one nuclear test that wasn't performed underground. The Tsar Bomba, the world's most powerful nuclear bomb.

Since you obviously know better than me, please describe to me the effects that the 55MT Tsar Bomba had on Earth after it was detonated in the atmosphere.

 Pouncey wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Around 2,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated since the development of the A-bomb. "Why aren't we all living in the Fallout universe by now?" I hear you ask.

Because the overwhelming majority of those detonations were performed UNDERGROUND, specifically to avoid spreading radioactive fallout all over the world. But why would they bother if the bombs now send radiation so high up into the atmosphere that the particles safely decay before they reach the ground?

Because the particles *don't* safely decay before they reach the ground. They spread so far and so wide that their concentration is below harmful levels (ie, there isn't enough glowy stuff in the area to harm you because it is so diluted) when it reaches Earth. However, that only holds true if you detonate one single, solitary bomb. One bomb spreads thin enough that the fallout is negligible. One Thousand bombs detonated at the same time throws so much radioactive fallout into the upper atmosphere that it will not safely dilute before reaching the ground.

Nuclear war will not result in a few large craters in cities and the rest of the world getting by on business as usual. Nuclear war is almost certainly the final curtain of the human race.

There is a very good reason why sane people have been trying to avoid it for 70+ years.

I know of one nuclear test that wasn't performed underground. The Tsar Bomba, the world's most powerful nuclear bomb.

Since you obviously know better than me, please describe to me the effects that the 55MT Tsar Bomba had on Earth after it was detonated in the atmosphere.

The blast wave travelled 3 times around the earth. That one bomb alone was 25% of the radioactive fallout released up to that point. How is that good?

 Pouncey wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Around 2,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated since the development of the A-bomb. "Why aren't we all living in the Fallout universe by now?" I hear you ask.

Because the overwhelming majority of those detonations were performed UNDERGROUND, specifically to avoid spreading radioactive fallout all over the world. But why would they bother if the bombs now send radiation so high up into the atmosphere that the particles safely decay before they reach the ground?

Because the particles *don't* safely decay before they reach the ground. They spread so far and so wide that their concentration is below harmful levels (ie, there isn't enough glowy stuff in the area to harm you because it is so diluted) when it reaches Earth. However, that only holds true if you detonate one single, solitary bomb. One bomb spreads thin enough that the fallout is negligible. One Thousand bombs detonated at the same time throws so much radioactive fallout into the upper atmosphere that it will not safely dilute before reaching the ground.

Nuclear war will not result in a few large craters in cities and the rest of the world getting by on business as usual. Nuclear war is almost certainly the final curtain of the human race.

There is a very good reason why sane people have been trying to avoid it for 70+ years.

I know of one nuclear test that wasn't performed underground. The Tsar Bomba, the world's most powerful nuclear bomb.

Since you obviously know better than me, please describe to me the effects that the 55MT Tsar Bomba had on Earth after it was detonated in the atmosphere.

I said "overwhelming majority" NOT "every single one". Nuclear tests switched to (mostly) underground detonations as the warhead sizes got larger. Tzar Bomba was downgraded from a planned 100 megaton yield to a 55 megaton yield specifically because of Soviet fears that the fallout would be too great (and that the plane dropping the bomb wouldn't be able to outrun the blast). Projected estimates were that the 100 megaton warhead would release fallout equivalent to 25% of the combined fallout of all previous nuclear detonations worldwide.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Around 2,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated since the development of the A-bomb. "Why aren't we all living in the Fallout universe by now?" I hear you ask.

Because the overwhelming majority of those detonations were performed UNDERGROUND, specifically to avoid spreading radioactive fallout all over the world. But why would they bother if the bombs now send radiation so high up into the atmosphere that the particles safely decay before they reach the ground?

Because the particles *don't* safely decay before they reach the ground. They spread so far and so wide that their concentration is below harmful levels (ie, there isn't enough glowy stuff in the area to harm you because it is so diluted) when it reaches Earth. However, that only holds true if you detonate one single, solitary bomb. One bomb spreads thin enough that the fallout is negligible. One Thousand bombs detonated at the same time throws so much radioactive fallout into the upper atmosphere that it will not safely dilute before reaching the ground.

Nuclear war will not result in a few large craters in cities and the rest of the world getting by on business as usual. Nuclear war is almost certainly the final curtain of the human race.

There is a very good reason why sane people have been trying to avoid it for 70+ years.

I know of one nuclear test that wasn't performed underground. The Tsar Bomba, the world's most powerful nuclear bomb.

Since you obviously know better than me, please describe to me the effects that the 55MT Tsar Bomba had on Earth after it was detonated in the atmosphere.

The blast wave travelled 3 times around the earth. That one bomb alone was 25% of the radioactive fallout released up to that point. How is that good?

Tell me what that fallout did, exactly.

Did it start wiping out our ozone layer?

Did it get into the soil and start devastating all nearby lifeforms?

 Pouncey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Around 2,000 nuclear weapons have been detonated since the development of the A-bomb. "Why aren't we all living in the Fallout universe by now?" I hear you ask.

Because the overwhelming majority of those detonations were performed UNDERGROUND, specifically to avoid spreading radioactive fallout all over the world. But why would they bother if the bombs now send radiation so high up into the atmosphere that the particles safely decay before they reach the ground?

Because the particles *don't* safely decay before they reach the ground. They spread so far and so wide that their concentration is below harmful levels (ie, there isn't enough glowy stuff in the area to harm you because it is so diluted) when it reaches Earth. However, that only holds true if you detonate one single, solitary bomb. One bomb spreads thin enough that the fallout is negligible. One Thousand bombs detonated at the same time throws so much radioactive fallout into the upper atmosphere that it will not safely dilute before reaching the ground.

Nuclear war will not result in a few large craters in cities and the rest of the world getting by on business as usual. Nuclear war is almost certainly the final curtain of the human race.

There is a very good reason why sane people have been trying to avoid it for 70+ years.

I know of one nuclear test that wasn't performed underground. The Tsar Bomba, the world's most powerful nuclear bomb.

Since you obviously know better than me, please describe to me the effects that the 55MT Tsar Bomba had on Earth after it was detonated in the atmosphere.

The blast wave travelled 3 times around the earth. That one bomb alone was 25% of the radioactive fallout released up to that point. How is that good?

Tell me what that fallout did, exactly.

Did it start wiping out our ozone layer?

Did it get into the soil and start devastating all nearby lifeforms?

As someone who lives in a country downwind from some of the Soviet Nuclear tests (not to mention Chernobyl), yes. Soviet Nuclear tests produced heightened levels of radioactive materials in parts of northern Sweden to the point that it still isn't safe for pregnant women to eat fish or berries from the area.

Can we please stop pretending that radioactive fallout is harmless? You've frankly not got a clue what you're talking about.

 Pouncey wrote:


Tell me what that fallout did, exactly.

Did it start wiping out our ozone layer?

Did it get into the soil and start devastating all nearby lifeforms?

It just made things worse. We are exposed to radiation all around us all the time. DNA that gets damages (which happens all the time) usually gets repaired quickly enough because the concentration of radioactive elements is not high enough to cause irreversible damage. If your cells can't make enough DNA polymerase enzymes to keep up with the damage that was caused by the heightened radiation then some section of your DNA probably has a mutation that was overlooked. This can lead to cancer (abnormal cell growth) if the section where the mutation happened is important for the cell. More radiation essentially means higher cancer rates. And who wants that?

Here's a nice visual overview: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Radiation

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As someone who lives in a country downwind from some of the Soviet Nuclear tests (not to mention Chernobyl), yes. Soviet Nuclear tests produced heightened levels of radioactive materials in parts of northern Sweden to the point that it still isn't safe for pregnant women to eat fish or berries from the area.

Can we please stop pretending that radioactive fallout is harmless? You've frankly not got a clue what you're talking about.

Fair enough.

I'll admit I don't actually understand the science myself, I was relying on what I was told on a ShoddyCast video, and I'll admit I was probably wrong to do so. I'm sorry.

Can I make my own request?

Can we stop discussing a civilization-ending nuclear war as though it were imminent, and go back to the much less depressing topic of US politics? I'll start.

Trump may not in fact have been the worst possible candidate to win. Yes, he says absurd and outrageous things, but there was another Republican nominee who scares me more than Trump.

Ben Carson.

During the campaign, he told a crowd about the time he tried to stab his teenage friend to death with a knife over an argument of which radio station was playing, only for his knife to catch his friend's belt buckle and break the blade.

That kind of thing is god damned terrifying to hear from any human being, but what happened next is even worse.

Because of that story, he gained support.

That is literally more terrifying than anything I have ever heard Trump say.

What the hell is going on in America these days that a Presidential nominee can tell a crowd about the time he attempted to murder one of his friends and gain support because of it?

I think the morale of the story was more, he felt bad about it, wasn't it? And how it was one stupid mistake that, if they had been more unlucky, could have changed the course of his, and his friends lives.

In the context of people who have to avoid that 'one bad mistake' every single day, every moment outside their house, with all the temptations and needs, I could see why it very much would resonate with them.

Compared to, "you can do anything..."

Also, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he actually made it up.

 Pouncey wrote:
What the hell is going on in America these days that a Presidential nominee can tell a crowd about the time he attempted to murder one of his friends and gain support because of it?

Jesus. No really, there's a huge thing among conservative Christians where a person does awful things, but then is Saved and admired for how they have found Jeuss and turned their life around. Carson's thing was a textbook "found Jesus" story aimed at that group, whether or not it was actually true.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he actually made it up.

I don't think that even matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What the hell is going on in America these days that a Presidential nominee can tell a crowd about the time he attempted to murder one of his friends and gain support because of it?

Jesus. No really, there's a huge thing among conservative Christians where a person does awful things, but then is Saved and admired for how they have found Jeuss and turned their life around. Carson's thing was a textbook "found Jesus" story aimed at that group, whether or not it was actually true.

Conservative Christians are scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I think the morale of the story was more, he felt bad about it, wasn't it? And how it was one stupid mistake that, if they had been more unlucky, could have changed the course of his, and his friends lives.

In the context of people who have to avoid that 'one bad mistake' every single day, every moment outside their house, with all the temptations and needs, I could see why it very much would resonate with them.

Compared to, "you can do anything..."

That one mistake...

...of literally trying to murder his friend because of an argument over what radio station to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think the ACTUAL moral of the story is: "Let Ben Carson listen to whatever radio station he wants, or he might try to kill you."

Let's not kid ourselves that supporting a crazy, or even criminal, candidate is even close to being a "conservative" thing. Democrats have had their own share, like electing a drug addict felon as mayor of D.C. (it was D.C., right?)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What the hell is going on in America these days that a Presidential nominee can tell a crowd about the time he attempted to murder one of his friends and gain support because of it?

Jesus. No really, there's a huge thing among conservative Christians where a person does awful things, but then is Saved and admired for how they have found Jeuss and turned their life around. Carson's thing was a textbook "found Jesus" story aimed at that group, whether or not it was actually true.

Don't worry I hear Trump's wall will keep Jesus out of the country in the future.

 Pouncey wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

No. I want to assume that no country is willing to sacrifice millions of their own civilians to start a war over anything that is not worth that loss of life.

I also read the name of the website it came from, and I am 100% sure they did not base that on any sort of actual physics calculations.

We have seen plenty of leaders who have been totally careless with human life. And as recent events have shown you don't even need to be sane to be given access to nuke launch codes so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Yes, I see the problem with your argument. That probability being rolled over and over again does not ever equal 1. There is always the possibility that it will never happen, regardless of how likely or unlikely it is.

You want to bet life of humans on THAT slim chance?-)

Depending on how unlikely it is, we face new problems with this theory. If those nukes wait too long, the radioactive material will have decayed enough that the weapon no longer functions, as it lacks the capacity to cause a nuclear detonation even if it is armed and detonated.

Problem being nukes aren't "what we have now is all we ever have". Last time I checked humans haven't lost ability to produce more. Aren't republicans all anger about deal with Iran who's supposedly creating new nukes? Why be angry about Iran's nuclear program if humans can't produce any more nukes resulting eventually nukes being non-functional?

Or maybe humans can build nukes to replace those that have lost their functionality so that's no help whatsoever...Nuke gets too old, it gets replaced by brand new(and likely bigger and better).

Hell Trump is planning increasing stockpile of nukes. Though maybe Trump doesn't know humans have lost ability to produce new nukes!

A) we have not lost the ability to make nukes.

B) we will always find new ways to kill each other.

C) Frick'n lazor beams on warships/fighter planes is coming.

Thanks. You just made my point. We can produce nukes=nukes getting not-operational due to age is no relief because they get simply replaced with new ones.

So nukes aren't going anywhere and odds of them being used in any given year is never zero so odds of them never being used is pretty damn slim.

There's the problem with building MORE. Humans don't need more. We need less until we can at least spread into dozens of different planets to reduce chance of total wipeout by nukes.

Apparently Trump thinks the best way to prevent nuclear proliferation is to proliferate nuclear weapons.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_spectator/2016/03/trump_s_nuclear_experience_advice_for_reagan_in_1987.html

from 1987


more recently :



how convenient.

All those times bleating about Obama's socialist takeover is gonna happen ANY DAY NOW and it's the flipping Republican party surrenders to Russia -- not even the USSR.

The American Mustache Institute has risen to John Bolton's defense.


http://www.americanmustacheinstitute.org/2016/12/official-statement-donald-trump%E2%80%99s-unacceptable-mustache-discrimination/

"suggesting John R. Bolton’s sexually dynamic Mustached American lifestyle"


there's a phrase to haunt your dreams.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not kid ourselves that supporting a crazy, or even criminal, candidate is even close to being a "conservative" thing. Democrats have had their own share, like electing a drug addict felon as mayor of D.C. (it was D.C., right?)

They are on the edge of having a 9/11 "Truther" as head of the DNC. Thats pants on head cray. Still better than Nancy Pelosi.

Frazz, some news that might interest you:

I've been watching highlights from Putin's annual press conference. He was assured, calm, relaxed, and as always, on top of his game.

When asked about Trump and the US election, Putin said the Democrats are being sore losers, Russia didn't do any hacking, he looks forward to working with Trump, and he always believed that Trump would win.

That's good enough for me.

Obviously I can't speak for you, but I'm convinced!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, some news that might interest you:

I've been watching highlights from Putin's annual press conference. He was assured, calm, relaxed, and as always, on top of his game.

When asked about Trump and the US election, Putin said the Democrats are being sore losers, Russia didn't do any hacking, he looks forward to working with Trump, and he always believed that Trump would win.

That's good enough for me.

Obviously I can't speak for you, but I'm convinced!

I think the SNL skit said it all.
Having said that I'm sick of the US being constant adversaries with everyone. The Democrats sudden desire to restart the Cold War seems awfully convenient. Of course none of them or no one they ever knew served so why should they care? Same for the Repub chickenhawks (I guess you youngins call 'em NeoCons)

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazz, some news that might interest you:

I've been watching highlights from Putin's annual press conference. He was assured, calm, relaxed, and as always, on top of his game.

When asked about Trump and the US election, Putin said the Democrats are being sore losers, Russia didn't do any hacking, he looks forward to working with Trump, and he always believed that Trump would win.

That's good enough for me.

Obviously I can't speak for you, but I'm convinced!

I think the SNL skit said it all.
Having said that I'm sick of the US being constant adversaries with everyone. The Democrats sudden desire to restart the Cold War seems awfully convenient. Of course none of them or no one they ever knew served so why should they care? Same for the Repub chickenhawks (I guess you youngins call 'em NeoCons)

I completely agree with your viewpoint that the USA shouldn't pick fights for no good reason, but there are cold hard facts to consider:

$600 billion a year spent on defence. Nearly a million people serving in the US military. Hundreds of thousands of jobs directly or indirectly supplying the military in all sorts of areas. Plus the R and D that supports this, plus the lobbyists and other lackeys getting their cut.

So much of the USA revolves around the military. War and selling weapons is 'good' for the USA.

Look at history. What saved the USA from the Great Depression? FDR? The New Deal? No, IMO, it was the war, which built up American industry.

It's a sad fact, but that's the reality of the situation...

Nothing says we can't still build a whole lot of stuff.

We have thousands of miles of border that could do with tank maneuvers and live fire exercises, and maybe the occasional Ride of the Valkyrie air assault...

Anyway, the Christmas weekend starts now for me! Break out the booze!

A Merry Christmas to all.

Yes, 2016 has been some year, and although 2017 will probably be another strange year, what with Trump's finger on the red button in 3 weeks time, I remain optimistic.

I'm heading out! Merry Christmas!