but the Pentagon is moving forward with the program, saying that given the threats from China and Russia it does not have a choice.
So fucking stupid. As if Russia or China would nuke the U.S. if the U.S. stopped making more nuclear weapons. Putin isn’t that crazy and neither is Xi.
You know what, there’s a small chance they would if they knew. But let’s say the Pentagon stopped all silos and kept it hush. Russia and China would never know whether they stopped or where remaining ones would be.
It’s not the weapons itself that protect the USA but solely the fact they are probably somewhere and they know how to trigger them.
This is overkill. In every aspect. Need, justification, budget, maintenance. The definition of a US defense department toy. It’s a flex. But it’s a covert flex, which is the definition of stupid. We’re not talking trap track but government decisions and that boggles my mind.
You know what, there’s a small chance they would if they knew. But let’s say the Pentagon stopped all silos and kept it hush. Russia and China would never know whether they stopped or where remaining ones would be.
Under the terms of the New START treaty, the US and Russia conduct inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons programs:
The treaty provides for 18 on-site inspections per year for U.S. and Russian inspection teams
Both countries are intimately familiar the other’s weapons systems.
One minor clarification (that doesn’t invalidate your point). The inspectors don’t inspect the weapons, but instead the methods for delivery (called “seats”). It doesn’t matter how many warheads you have. It matters how many you can put close to your enemy. So the critical tracking is how many warheads you can deliver across all methods (bombs, ICBMs, Sub launched, etc).
You know what, there’s a small chance they would if they knew. But let’s say the Pentagon stopped all silos and kept it hush. Russia and China would never know whether they stopped or where remaining ones would be.
If nothing else*, they would notice the changes in budgeting. The amount of money we spend every year on maintiaing the nuclear arsenal is staggering. if that suddenly paired back or chanced it’d be basically public information. Maybe not specifics, but there’s enough detail to know what’s being spent on what.
MAD only works if the other party thinks you can, and you will. Also, once you start using MAD it’s almost impossible to stop.
You have a nuclear triad. Even if all the silos went kaput (extremely unlikely) and everyone knew it there are still nuclear subs somewhere in the world carrying nukes. The truth is you only need to have enough functional nuclear weapons to make any attack a very bad day for everyone. That number isn’t that high given a nuclear weapons destructive capacity.
Eh, given how old the crap is, I’m not sure I agree. Cancel an aircraft carrier or some F-35s if necessary, but I do want a strong nuclear deterrent for whatever the future may bring, not shit that might become vulnerable to a new countermeasure.
Not a “good enough” deterrent, but a strong one.
That said, we probably could pare the stockpile back. But modernization and updates are important. These missiles are older than we are, unless you’re some hip Lemmy grandpa or something.
I guess, but the U.S. also supposedly has 3708 warheads, with another 1336 “retired” warheads which are supposedly just sitting around waiting to be disarmed, which sounds like code to me for “we can still use these if we feel like it.”
If I remember right, we were dismantling a lot of them during the Obama administration, but they’re actually rather expensive to dismantle, since we were trying to recycle the plutonium for use in energy production. Go figure. It was also dependent on treaties Obama negotiated with Putin where we were both shrinking our arsenals.
People tend to forget, but nuclear reduction was a major goal of Obama’s, and he actually made some progress.
Goddamm homie just read the damn article. We are only making 1 bomb but updating 450 silos. That’s prolly where much of the unexpected costs is. Not like we’re testing these silos regularly and what good is any nukes if the silos themselves get jammed or fuck up anywhere.
Nobody’s going to nuke anyone, and I’ll take this to my grave. The only worry would be extreme religious cultists getting nukes, like al queda or taliban who would actually use it, but they’ll never be even close to getting them or I’ll eat my shoe. Real powers will never let them.
All of the people that control the nukes are at the topmost rungs of society, with families and the most luxuries. They have the most to lose, no matter what.
Also, nobody has a big red button. There’s a massive chain of command that has to go along with it. The chain of command is not some 19yr old army grunt following orders. I’m talking the high up chain of command, many people, that have to go along with a launch for it to happen. These people are also high up, and know that their luxurious way of life, and families, are over forever in a nuclear war. They don’t want to survive in a bunker for a few years then die of starvation or cancer slowly.
I dont know for sure obviously, but I feel that the people who control the nukes are the ones with the most to lose. I have zero fear of a true nuclear war. Zero.
All it takes is one mad king who thinks he can get away with just one to win something.
A mad king who wants Ukraine, or Taiwan, or South Korea.
As soon as one launches, they all launch, other nuclear powers won’t believe they have a choice.
It takes 30 minutes or less for an ICBM to reach anywhere in America, really the world, from Russia, china, or North Korea. How much can you get done in 30 minutes? Could you organize a meeting in different time zones, and convince another person to stop being a lunatic? Could you convince another president, who is about to have one of his cities burnt to the ground, that he should just let it happen.
That’s a hell of an elevator pitch you’d have to pull.
It takes less time than a good pizza delivery for the world to end.
Putin keeps nuclear saber rattling against Ukraine aid. The US has limited it’s involvement because of it. The more sure you are in MAD, the less cautious you need to be of someone else miscalculating and hoping for a favorable exchange.
They have devices in them that break over time as all devices do, and those devices have parts and designs that were contemporary before the people working on them today were alive likely with architectural and design decisions that were operationally required back when things were being drafted that no longer make sense to do today. Likely the nuclear materials will be reused, but that’s me thinking with my brainbox and not actually a thing I know.
For an example of what happens when we continue to rely on tech that really deserves to be updated and/or replaced, see the United States banking sector as compared to basically everywhere else.
Well all you had to do.is read the article.you are.blindly responding to to learn we are only making one bomb but updating 450 silos to not sound like such an idiot.
They kinda do, the reason no one bothers to find nukes lost back in the 50s is because they arent nukes anymore, hell they may not even be explosive. Half life means that the nukes just kinda become not nukes after awhile.
Half life means that the nukes just kinda become not nukes after awhile.
No, half life is the amount of time it takes the element to decay halfway. For Uranium-238, that is ~4.5 Billion years. Uranoum-235 is ~700 Million years. Plutonium-239 is ~24,000 years.
The issue with old nukes is all the other components aging, not the nuclear material.
H bombs don’t use tritium for their main fusion stage. Even Castle Bravo used Lithium-6. Tritium was used in initiators to increase neutron flux and as a fission booster for dial a yield (once again, to increase neutron flux). Both of those are just as important for fission weapons as they are for fusion.
Importantly, alpha decay creates helium pockets which is a neutron moderator and screws up the bomb.
And Lithium-7 accidentally. They didn’t realize that the Lithium-7 would produce a fuckton more tritium, which is how a 4-6 Megaton estimated yeild became a 15 Megaton actual yeild, causing us to basically nuke our own civilians and some Japanese civilian sailors.
Yeah, they thought lithium-7 was just junk that was left over because they couldn’t completely do isotope separation yet. Whoopsie daisy, looks like we irradiated a whole shitton of sodium and blew it all over the place along with our fission products from more completely fissioning the uranium tamper.
Incidentally that’s why Russia’s nuclear torpedo was called a radiological weapon. It wasn’t necessarily salted with cobalt, just the seawater is salted enough that when you neutron activate it you get a very nasty short lived gamma emitter that’ll ruin your day if you get sprayed with it just as much as any fission product.
See test Baker from Operation Crossroads, which wasn’t even a damn fusion bomb. They kept the sailors trying to clean the ships with goddamn radioactive water. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Indu…
On the one hand, yeah, more civilians need to know about this shit.
On the other hand, we really don’t need civilians knowing how to do this shit once we finally overthrow the vampires that are in control. Seriously. Dragons would have stopped extracting shit before now, even Adam Smith would have… I dunno what’s going on at this point.
In what way? Them coming out more than expected? That isn’t a new thing, in fact I would say it is the norm for basically all contracts, and not just military ones.
A program this big likely has a lot of contractors. The guys designing new rockets aren’t going to be the guys refurbishing the silos. Every so often the government does have projects that have “known unknowns” meaning they can’t effectively be accounted for. Should they have run 1,000 smaller projects? Maybe, but they didn’t and there’s trade offs with that too.
For a very long time, Salesforce sent login username and password through plain text in URL parameters.
To the point you could bookmark that URL and skip the login screen. You'd still have to contend with other login security(2FA and/or IP restrictions) but it was a gaping security hole they fixed relatively recently.
A full, public accounting of what happened in the Solar Winds case would have been devastating to Microsoft. ProPublica recently revealed that Microsoft had long known about — but refused to address — a flaw used in the hack. The tech company’s failure to act reflected a corporate culture that prioritized profit over security and left the U.S. government vulnerable, a whistleblower said.
…
So far, the Cyber Safety Review Board has charted a different path.
The board is not independent — it’s housed in the Department of Homeland Security. Rob Silvers, the board chair, is a Homeland Security undersecretary. Its vice chair is a top security executive at Google. The board does not have full-time staff, subpoena power or dedicated funding.
Incidentally, this is why people have zero faith in the modern Democratic Party. You get these big fanfare addresses by a President, which consistently resolve into these empty bureaucratic fixtures with neither the inclination nor the authority to perform their stated tasks.
You’re not wrong. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is more like 15-16 different smaller parties in a big trenchcoat. Some are in there by choice, others had to get in because they weren’t strong enough to stand on their own, and didn’t want to have their ideas not be heard by somebody.
So you’ve got all these different groups beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting, and you are a Democratic Party candidate for the House. Now, to win you need votes and funding. There’s a lot of things that you know your base cares passionately about that you know they have no hope of ever getting from Republicans, but unfortunately they are also things the big ticket donors despise. So, this begins the delicate dance of appealing to all the different groups AND to wealthy donors. Faced with that challenge, what should you do? Well, in practice what happens is your average Democrat tends to pivot away from policy and focus more on process. Y’know, uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, compromise. And while the lack of these things in DC is something everyone left of center is sick of, they’re not things Democrats can make happen all by themselves, and, moreover, none of them are results. They are means by which results are achieved. “A willingness to compromise” is not a position.
But see, most Democrats see that the fragile coalition that makes up the DNC rests upon their backs. Should the coalition survive, or should we let it die?
Personally, I think we should do away with it. Yes, we are the “Big Tent Party”, willing to welcome all who do not identify as “conservatives”, give them a home and a place for their ideas to grow and be heard. Once upon a time, I think the coalition served a genuine purpose. But now, we are a rudderless ship, at the mercy of the storm. One day, someone will take command and right the vessel. On that day, some of the crew may disagree with the captain, and either mutiny or jump ship, and that’s on them if they do.
If you want to know why they’re overhauling them, John Oliver did an episode on it back in the first season or two of his show, which is now fully posted on YouTube
A lot of the old stuff isn’t less advanced than floppy disks in any way, but definitely not compatible. It’s all analogue components for most of the control rooms and computers.
A powerful army is also very important. Europe is practically disarmed. We woke up when Putin attacked Ukraine. The United States must, remain strong. China is sharpening its teeth on Taiwan, Putin has gone mad. Other Nato countries should increase defense spendings.
Idk that the CIA really bothers assassinating fascists anymore… Or ever. Like there was one time in Korea but they really just gave a Korean CIA guy moral support.
The US can’t afford it. Maybe if we cut government spending in half. They’re out of control and everyone is suffering because they’re destroying the value of the dollar. This issue (but not all) ready is a both sides problem.
Most European countries do not have nuclear weapons. And only France and Great Britain have their own. Everyone wants to be as independent as possible. Alliances can fail.
Our military spending is not preventing us from having free college or free healthcare. Both would save us money if we switched to 100% government funded systems. No amount of military spending is preventing us from saving money.
Ahhh, boomers. They got their uni education for the price of a McChicken and still ended up as some of the dumbest and most selfish motherfuckers on the planet.
Endowments aim to achieve perpetual existence by only spending dividends from investments. Assume growth of 8% of a billion means they can spend 80 million dollars a year without shrinking the endowment.
The 4% rule can fail during some cycles, an 8% withdrawal would have numerous failure rates.
You’d have to be willing to adjust heavily during downturns, probably yearly. Adjusting like that could cause uncertainty and make it difficult to apply for all students.
3.5% over an extended period had no failures on any cycle.
The 3.5% was looking at very early retirement, such as 35/40yr old.
Edit: just want to add, those failures on the 4% were small. It was like if you started the cycle on 1 of 2 months many years ago and made no changes when shit got very bad, it would fail. The majority of the time you end up with vastly more money. But also past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance so who knows, but there is some risk.
That’s how getting the government into student loans worked out. It took longer than a semester, but it cost more money than free college and put so many people in so much crippling debt so that evens out.
Based on that, I expect that the costs will go up $750M and stay there so there will be one semester of free tuition, one of severely reduced tuition, then it will be so expensive that no one can go.
The Internet says that the total cost for a degree from Johns Hopkins medical student per year is $64,665. In addition, various indirect costs like books, housing, healthcare, various fees, living expenses, and so on, bring that same estimate up to around $105,000 annually.
$1,000,000,000 invested in a stupid boring index fund at an estimated 4% return yields $40,000,000 in interest alone, or, using the above numbers, enough for 380(.95) students each year.
Uplifting: this is objectively a ton of good done for these students
Dystopian: this money was earned by the theft of value produced by working class labor and throwing a few breadcrumbs of it back into the system and acting like it’s some great pure good is pure evil and people will lap it up like dogs
Yes I hate it when the ultra rich decide to create a handful of “winners” leaving 99.9% of us still fucked. Will this make my future healthcare more affordable? Nope it just makes a small number of doctors wealthier.
Nope it just makes a small number of doctors wealthier.
No, it will the lives better for 2/3 of students. I can’t see how this is bad in anyway. Why would it be bad to make education free for some of the best future medical professionals.
Medical education could have been free this whole time through taxes but instead public funding of secondary education was gutted instead of expanded so rich fucks like Bloomburg could keep more money for themselves.
My state essentially made nursing school free along with some other high demand positions in high demand fields but it’s just for community colleges so you’d still have to pay for medical school.
The world is dying and fascism is rising and you spend a billion dollars on doctors not graduating with debt? They’re guaranteed quality employment! It’s the goddamn Dark Ages residency workload that depresses them!
True, we should instead just celebrate this small one-off victory and forget the systemic issues that plague us. As long as the billionaires throw us a rare bone, we can leave the guillotines at home ig.
Not a strawman. The comment you responded to originally acknowledged both the positive and negative sides of this. Meanwhile, you commented only on the negative side as if we aren’t allowed to acknowledge it. I called you out based entirely on the words you chose to use.
If this isn’t wasn’t what you intended to communicate, then I recommend you revise your former comment.
Yup. Every time there’s a feel-good story like, “a corporate donor spent $20,000 so a dozen orphans didn’t have to be fed into the Orphan Crushing Machine” the media never questions why the Orphan Crushing Machine needs to exist in the first place.
Rich people like to talk about philanthropy and charity being very good, and sometimes they speak as though the act of giving is virtuous and transformative for the person doing the giving. I agree with that, at least, but I think it’s pretty fucked up that they perpetuate systems that both enable and require acts of charity. Kindness and charity would still necessary and good in a more equal world, but more people would have access to it if there were less wealth hoarding.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.