I wish I could have put that in the OP. It is 9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/08/04/3804985/7-terrifying-things-donald-trump-publicly-said-nuclear-weapons/
The US aims in Vietnam were to create a country which was “free”, capitalistic and aligned to the West. I am unsure how exactly turning Vietnam into moonscape would have helped fulfill that aim.
I mean, admittedly Apollo astronauts would have had a very realistic training ground, but seriously, how exactly are you going to turn them into little capitalistic consumers if they are all dead?
I was under the impression that a while ago the US supported some dictatorships and the main thing is that they weren’t communist countries.
Yes, that’s what the word “free” meant in the geopolitical vocabulary of the time: “not communist.”
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when I’m more worried about Donald Trump gaining access to nuclear weapons than I am about Iran doing it.
All it shows me is ads for an American investments firm (when I’m at work, Google thinks I’m in the US).
I have a feeling that those guys’ translation of Kuz’kina Mat as “we will show you” is understated enough to count as a Britishism.
The tag is sub.
SiO[sub]2[/sub]
For superscripts, sup
Na[sup]+[/sup]
Does the Donald have any particular targets in mind? Like what problems does he envision solving with a nuke that cannot currently be solved by conventional weapons? I’m pretty sure even the most hardened shelters in Iran and North Korea would crumble under enough conventional bombardment. So what good is the nuke? What needs nuking nowadays?
Nope. It really is an idiomatic, or folksy, way of saying “teach someone a lesson” in Russian. It’s not vulgar or anything.
I have to admit, if I had a chance to get briefed like that, I’d probably have some questions about the mechanics of nuke delivery, not that I’d be considering using them but just out of sheer curiosity.
You’re demonstrating your ignorance over the Cuban Missile Crisis. It wasn’t the USSR that backed down; it was the United States that agreed to remove missiles from Turkey, which is why the Soviets started sending weapons to Cuba in the first place.
With regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the decision to use nuclear weapons is very likely what motivated Stalin to take whatever measures he could to engage in an arms race. And motivated scientists like Fuchs to make sure the playing field was level.
Actually there are lots of shelters where even a near miss by a large nuke is iffy wrt to destroying. One of the reasons the U.S kept the 9MT B-53 in service for so long, as there were apparently targets inside Russia which the U.S was not sure they could destroy otherwise.
From your own link, “an expression of an unspecified threat or punishment, such as “to teach someone a lesson” or “to punish someone in a brutal way”.”
Including specific vulgar words isn’t necessary, specially once mothers are mentioned. in Russian, “yo momma” jokes aren’t jokes, they’re fighting words. Their expression for cussing is mat, literally mother.
A sitting US president who even talks about using nuclear weapons, particularly one who is as capricious as Trump, is potentially a destabilizing form of behavior in and of itself. Whatever tensions we currently face with states like North Korea, Pakistan, and others would only intensify.
Using those weapons against a Muslim population without a clear and compelling reason is simply inconceivable. At minimum there would be economic retaliation that would probably send us into a deep recession if not a depression, and many of our key alliances with our current partners would collapse, leaving the United States completely on its own.
In short, it’s another form of white christian nationalist fantasy, a way to wax nostalgic about the time when only white christian nationalists had nuclear technology and used it to obliterate the enemies of white christian nationalism.
Thanks, Nava…now I know.
And as for 0 vs. O, I apologize for my mistake. I do know the difference, but because these two keys happen to be in almost the exact same place on my phone touchscreen keypad, it’s easy to hit the wrong one – especially if you’re typing with one hand while watering the lawn with the other!
All of which, of course, is trivial compared to the critically important point of this thread. I shudder to think that 25 years without a Cold War have made some of us complacent about the enormous dangers that nuclear weapons present. Deterrence among nuclear powers is problematic enough (though at least logical, and has worked pretty well so far) – but to consider using them for any other “purpose,” e.g. against a non-nuclear entity? Utter madness – immoral AND self-defeating.
In Trump’s tiny little reptilian brain I bet he is thinking something like this: “We dropped a couple of Nuke’s on Japan and the japs surrended. So sure, just drop a couple of nukes on mosul and raqqa and they’ll surrender, thats our problem, no one takes us seriously, we’ve been lead by losers for years! Weak!”
Well, consider the silver lining : you know that permanent gnawing, gut-wrenching, low level dread of nuclear fire permeating society throughout the 60s-80s ? Gave us some great music and movies, didn’t it ?
That’s all I got. I got nothing else.
I imagine he’s pretty steamed at The Washington Post…
For a little while, Kim Jong-un felt his position as ‘leader most likely to launch a nuke’ was in jeopardy.
I do give Scarborough credit for at least making clear that it’s unsubstantiated. The lack of reliability is that he doesn’t have any knowledge of the event himself. He doesn’t mention that he’s been able to confirm the source even briefed Trump. He can’t cite a different, even if still unnamed source, that was there as outside corroboration. At best we’ve got an assesment that the source has relevant experience/background that he might have been asked to provide that briefing.
It’s not quite as unreliable as citing Jenny McCarthy about vaccination risk but the story doesn’t do well by the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics.
- There’s no indication of even the slightest bit of work done to verify his lone source.
- There’s no effort made to provide context for the information provided. The very limited discussion certainly raises doubts about whether it’s oversimplified or misrepresented. Scarborough makes no attempt to even address those potential doubts.
- There’s no attempt to justify why anonymity was granted to this source. We’re left to assume.
- There’s the labeling of advocacy and commentary standard … but the 24 hour news networks all have serious issues with that one. I give Scarborough, but not the networks, a pass on this one since his format pretty obviously falls into commentary not hard news IMO.
Maybe it’s my experience on Army staffs that makes me automatically question stories as weak as this. I had “The first report is always wrong” beat into my head by my first battalion XO. I still find myself following the mnemonic VAD (Verify, Analyze, then Disseminate) when dealing with new “BIG” information. I remember publishing and reading orders where both reliability and credibility of sources are explicitly spelled out in Intelligence annexes. I’d have been verbally flogged for briefing information as weak as what Scarborough brought unless I also clearly brought up potential issues with reliability/credibility and could answer questions about what due diligence I’d done to get better information. I’ve done that flogging myself as both XO and Commander.
Maybe Scarborough has done that due diligence and simply didn’t present it. That’s sloppy and unprofessional presentation but there’s still a case for bringing the story. It’s on us as a society to at least question reliability and credibility before we swallow it as fact, though. It’s on us to hold our journalists to their own professional standards. It’s especially on us when the information we’re accepting so easily fits our pre-existing biases. We generally don’t …but I’m not going to stop howling into the wind.
Why I think it matters:
- When we surrender expectations of journalistic professionalism we create incentives for journalists to undermine the important information we need.
- Worse, IMO we also strengthen incentives for people to misrepresent facts, or blatantly make stuff up, and feed it to those less critical journalists.
- When we focus on the sensational but unsubstantiated information the noise obscures substantiated information. A prime example is the interview in question. Hayden, a retired Air Force General and former CIA director, makes a good case for not trusting Trump as Commander in Chief in that interview. His case is based on the observable things Trump has said and done. That’s largely been lost.
- If it takes our culture dropping to the level of Trump’s arguments to try and beat Trump we’re well and truly fucked for longer than he’d be in office. We create an environment where the follow on Trumps have more fertile ground to work with.
- scrolls to the top of the page “Fighting Ignorance”