Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
Well it is been 90 days since TRIAD took over. Have they now admitted that LANL is full of cowboys and needs to clean house?
Of course Trump only wants war.
If you got rid of borders than we would never need nuclear weapons. No funding for the wall, people should come and go was they please.
Maybe run Crooked H again, so she (and corrupt Campaign managers) can target Popular Vote in an Electoral College contest. just sayin' and you started this.
Maybe run Crooked H again, so she (and corrupt Campaign managers) can target Popular Vote in an Electoral College contest. just sayin' and you started this.
February 1, 2019 at 10:05 AM
Even if Hillary is a bit crooked, it pales in comparison to the national nightmare we have now. This has been the darkest two years in America's history, no one doubts that. Hillary would have been light years beyond this. Of course Sanders would have been best. I am still hopeful that we can get out of this mess. With 2018 elections things are turning around. Like it or not Socialism is Americas future.
The article was written by a person who didn't present all sides of the debate. Probably because the author didn't consider all sides.
Poor Kamala can hide her faults (low intelligence, no charisma) in a Cal. election but all would come out in a National election without the safety of low information Cal. voters.
One National poll has Trump (the Anti-Globalist) up 19% to 49% with Hispanic voters (he received 29% of Hispanic vote in 2016)and lowest Af. Am. unemployment currently in recorded history.
Also NATO is getting $100B boost more with Trump leadership.
Here is Big Lib USA news article on NATO.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/01/27/nato-chief-credits-trump/2695799002/
It is going to be quite a 2020 election and fun so buckle up.
February 1, 2019 at 1:40 PM"
In case you have not noticed but there is one side which is good and the United States is not on it. We elected Trump, what kind of nation does that? Hint it is a very very bad one. American has no business having Trump as president and nuclear weapons. We do not have universal health care, we let our young people wallow in debt, we are immoral billionaires and we worship capitalism. A good country does not do these things.
Why did you censure my post on how Bernie's capital gains tax would kill startup investment? You claim to be fair and unbiased but you're clearly not.
There are 540 billionaires in the US. You tar the entire population of the US, all 325 million, because 1 in every 600,000 is a billionaire? That's twisted. Seriously twisted.
Name a good Socialist country. Just one. Just remember that Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Norway are not Socialist countries. They all allow private ownership and are all actually controlled by legislatures that have a tiny minority of Socialists. In fact, most are center-right.
It must have contained name calling.
I think you called someone stupid.
Please resubmit your comment without the offensive word.
From the Trident's trajectory they will know that we aimed it at the battlefield, not at Moscow. If we don't have any low-yield weapons, the Russians will know that the Trident launch is going to deliver a high-yield and they'll likely not wait it out.
If we do have low-yield weapons (and the Russians know it) they might wait it out. After all, in your scenario they used a low-yield weapon so they'll certainly have anticipated a response in kind.
Having more choices in how we retaliate is better than fewer choices. Plus, there are other scenarios in which we very well might prefer to use a low yield weapon that can hit anywhere on earth within minutes to one with a thermonuclear yield. Responding with a low-yield strike on Fordow after Iran nukes Israel might be one.
Just responding to Mr. Off Topic, 12:04 PM. I'm guessing you're the same guy.
I not saying that we shouldn't have a low yield option or that it's dumb...I'm saying it's Dumb to put it on the exact same platform that can fire a high nuclear yield SLBM. A F-15E with a low yield B61 on it would be a better option.
Also "might" should not be US military nuclear doctrine... miscalculations can have horrible consequences when nuclear weapons are involved.
And in your last scenario there really wouldn't be anything for US nukes to hit in Iran after Israels nuclear counter strike. They don't need our help with that response. But if the US did want to help them out or offer a non-nuke alternative... we could easily devastate Iran and cripple its ability to exist as a country but conventional HE ordinance attacks leveling every single power plant, dam, water treatment plant, telecom, leadership building, port, airport, railhead, bridge and other critical infrastructure site in the country... leaving the civilian population to slowly die in the dark of starvation, disease... same outcome if you'd hit them with a nuclear strike but no politically un-correct radiation.
Also for some speculative fiction on exactly how the US military might respond to a small country's surprise nuclear strike on the US (main land, Hawaii, and Guam) I'd recommend Dr Jeffery Lewis' book "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" ... hint, its non-nuclear, all conventional with special forces and over as fast as the US lead invasion of Iraq...
February 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM
You just made a good argument that we do not need nukes. We lost Vietnam because it was unjust war that we should have never been in. Nuking Saigon would not have helped win that war. We beat Iraq without nukes, sure we lost 3k people but compare that to Vietnam where we lost 50k. The fact is the only thing we need nukes for are small tiny countries and we could beat these no problem with conventional weapons. There are no major powers in the world with large arsenals that are a threat or ever will be a threat. Having ours just encourages more small countries to try and build their own. Right now the biggest threat to the United States and democracy is Trump.
You are being disingenuous. Of course, the US could win almost any war in short order, if all our forces were brought to bear immediately, as in WWII D-Day. The wars you mention were political, not military in nature. Go in to win, or prepare to lose. Somehow politicians can't get that.
That said, there is no guarantee that the US cannot lose, I mean really lose, as in subsequent occupation by a conquering force, any war it undertakes, if it is undertaken stupidly enough.
Of course nuking Saigon would not have helped. Saigon is in South Vietnam. South Vietnam was on our side.
This is where I would use some blunt language to comment on your intelligence or lack thereof. Unfortunately, Julian won't let me.
Here's a little history lesson for you. We went into Afghanistan to win. Remember Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe"? Mother Of All Bombs and all that? Remember? The US invaded Afghanistan supported by the UK, Canada, and Australia in October, 2001. We fought the Taliban for FIVE YEARS with these same allies until 2006 when NATO forces joined the fight - a coalition of almost 60 countries in total. Despite this coalition, the additional troops, and the additional air and ground power, we still couldn't win the war.
A 2006 analysis by General McChrystal concluded that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would require 500,000 troops and 5 years. Five *MORE* years fighting with *HALF* of our deployable military (not all military personnel can be deployed as some have to stay home to man the bases and handle logistics).
FIVE MORE YEARS with half our military to defeat Afghanistan, the 39th largest country by population, and the 96th largest economy.
In late 2009 Obama made the decision to send in 30,000 more US troops for a peak of 100,000 troops in 2011. The number of US war deaths started to decline in 2012, 11 years after the war started but fighting continued until 2014.
Thirteen years, 60 countries, 2300 US military personnel killed, 1000 other coalition members killed. The US spent $1.07 TRILLION on the war. I have no idea how much the other ~60 countries spent. Afghanistan.
So what you are saying is that we should nuked Afghanistan?
2/06/2019 11:49 AM
Exactly, if we had used various weapons of mass destruction the death toll on the US would have less than 100, maybe a few billion spent. Perhaps something similar could have been done in Iraq. It is odd that people do not seem to understand that the use of nukes would have saved money and lives in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars would have been over in weeks and not years. They certainly would have cost less US lives.
So the effects of immediate radiation, fallout, and subsequent disease and death among the innocent civilian population causes you no concern as a human being? It is odd that you do not seem to understand this.
2/06/2019 5:06 PM
Wrong, MacArthur used brilliant military strategy to get the upper hand in Korea. But then, Truman fired him and we lost, and wars have mostly been run by draft-dodging pols ever since. So, you are right on that count.
And the strategy to invade the Philippines by the US in WWII was of no value it cost needless lives, and did nothing to end the war. MacArthur was a horrible general who only cared about self-glory rather than winning. That is way he was thrown out. This nut would have started a war with China. He was always very bitter about his role of WWII which was worthless in terms of defeating Japan. Japan was defeated by the naval actions and by the correct island hopping to Iwa Jima. Going through New Guina and Philippines where a total waste of time wasted resources that played no valuable role the Pacific front and everyone knew it including MacArthur. If MacArthur had just retaken Seoul the war would have been over, but he wanted to have one real victory that mattered in his career so he pushed on got China involved and rather than backing down wanted to nuke them which would have lead who knows what. Why was MacArthur was not fired after he lost the Philippines the first time is beyond me.
2/18/2019 5:31 AM
That is why you are you and he was he.