spike66 at att.net
Sun Sep 4 15:33:15 UTC 2016
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg
>…Spike: Again, the reason for the ability to launch immediately and with little oversight is based on nuclear deterrence game theory scenarios…
Thanks, Will, ja I get that. That was the way it was designed, but there have been some very important changes since that time. I hope those of you following this will read my post and think out it. It’s important in this critical time, this one chance we have this one time.
We once had terrifying visions of attacks on land-based missiles, disabling our response capability from a surprise first strike. Since then we have built submarines which cannot be taken out in a first strike because the bad guys don’t know where they are. These can be fired at our leisure as retaliation for a first strike.
Second: we have nuke-proof facilities to make sure if the commies fire on Washington we can still command counterstrikes.
Third: we have early-warning systems which were not in place when the executive branch was given control of the nukes.
Fourth: the commies aren’t the only ones with nuclear missiles now. So our early warning systems tell us who is firing at us so we know where to aim the counterattack, we have about 35 minutes to get the key players to where they will survive.
Considering those factors, keeping the nuke launch button in the hands of the executive branch introduces far more risk than it retires, for it makes it hard to stop a person who orders a nuclear launch because of being pissed off.
That was the important stuff. You may now return to the picnic.
Regarding your comment on nuclear deterrence game theory: the ability to launch a counterstrike forms the foundation of deterrence. We risk electing a person who is now claiming she did not remember the very most basic aspects of security training which she would have mastered in 2003 to get the clearance needed to review the evidence upon which she recommended the invasion of Iraq.
Mrs Clinton was a senator at that time of that Iraq invasion (2003), so no special considerations for security training, no royal road; she would need to get all the training, pass all the tests, sign all the papers (I have a theory on that.) Friday’s garbage dump (always watch closely on Fridays, for recall it was 42 who invented the notion of taking out the garbage on Friday, to deal with his Monica problems) reveals that Mrs. Clinton is now saying she doesn’t remember any of it, and didn’t recall any of it for a span of time over five years (from briefings she would get in 2008 through at least the time the 123 Deal memo was sent in 2013 after having left that post. She had to have forgotten everything from her 2003 security training needed to be cleared for the Iraq invasion.
There is no law against senility. But… what happens to our theory on nuclear deterrence if the person with the trigger cannot remember the launch codes?
>… If we had to go to Congress, it could very likely--blame the environment, not pure logic--lead to greater chances of nuclear conflict or ground war…
Precisely sir. If we had a president who was already incapacitated on her way in, we diminish nuclear deterrence, we have nuclear invitation. This comes at a time when Russia is fighting on the opposite side in Syria, with regard to what some think might have been in those yoga routines which were deleted with industrial strength BleachBit, in order to keep that yoga out of the hands of US voters, when hackers may already have that yoga, which when revealed damn well could lead to war if the originator of that yoga is elected.
My theory on the apparent sea-change on Friday, regarding that FBI report which resulted in Mrs. Clinton going for the desperate-looking can’t remember strategy. I will perhaps extend the benefit of doubt that she doesn’t remember anything. I don’t know personally what she remembers: I haven’t heard her speak in public in months, I was camping during the conventions (did she seem senile there?) and she isn’t doing press conferences since the disaster where she made the now-infamous comment “What, with a cloth or something?” I don’t recall any press contact since the catastrophic cloth-or-something conference.
Theory: the story given to the FBI disagreed with the story given to congress. FBI releases report to congress, congress demands reconciliation, no reconciliation is possible between those two accounts, so she gives yet another story about relying on aids, about not knowing what that (c) was for, about not knowing about different levels of classification, of not knowing anything about proper handling of classified material and classified documents, not knowing this and not knowing that, for the entire span of 2008 to 2013. Never mind for the moment how that strategy places a number of her aids in serious legal jeopardy, for they will have a much harder time pleading a concussion caused them to forget all their security training for several critical years. Never mind the inherent contradictions in the argument itself: that her concussion caused her to forget the security training for a five-year span, but not the details of the 123 Deal in 2013, which were somehow stored elsewhere in her brain. Having those details stored in her brain is necessitated by her not having clearance for that 123 deal at the time the 123 Deal memo was written.
My theory is the DoD went into the files and pulled out the signed records showing Mrs. Clinton did know all this back in 2003, knew it well, all of it, passed the tests, signed the papers, got the clearance, authorized the invasion. Since that clearance would have likely been handled outside the State Department, that agency is being indirectly accused of giving a clearance without the requisite training by Mrs. Clinton claiming she didn’t know this and that. So… they produce the evidence that she was trained and did know, to cover themselves. Those agencies would have records on every training session needed and every test taken to get that level of clearance.
Theory: those records have been found, and they provide clear evidence that even if Mrs. Clinton didn’t know any of the proper security procedures in 2008 through 2013, she knew all of it in 2003.
There is no law against senility. But if we have a president who cannot remember even the basics of training on which she had demonstrated mastery 5 years previously, the notion of nuclear deterrence is gone, for we cannot trust she would remember the launch codes. Keeping that football in place simultaneously introduces risk that one mainstream competitor will launch a first strike and that the other will invite a first strike by being unable to respond.
Nuclear deterrence takes on a new importance with the activity of North Korea. We don’t want to create the appearance we have a president who cannot remember things, unless we have some alternative means both to launch and to stop a launch.
My notion on transferring that football is based on the belief that the US has the right to nuclear deterrence, but does not have the moral right to introduce the risk of nuclear war to the rest of the world, most of which have no nukes. This is what we are doing if we elect either of these front-runners and keep that football in his or her office.
Secure the nukes, hear the footsteps.
Back to the picnic, all of yas.
If we had to go to Congress, it could very likely--blame the environment, not pure logic--lead to greater chances of nuclear conflict or ground war.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat