Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | ... | 730
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4325


  Reply # 1686406 12-Dec-2016 10:54
Send private message quote this post

The main thing I have against the "Air Force One" planes is that much of the cost (for systems to protect against electromagnetic pulse etc) is so that in the event of nuclear war, the Commander in Chief (Trump LOL) can safely fly around in comfort pushing buttons to launch more nuclear strikes to finish off the job.

 

That (IMO) is an abominable concept. So yes - I'd be happy if Trump canned it - even if for the wrong reasons.


4688 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2640

Trusted

  Reply # 1686442 12-Dec-2016 11:19
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

It's no different from the prezi hiding in a nuclear bunker and starting WW3 though.


 
 
 
 


Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686468 12-Dec-2016 11:27
Send private message quote this post

These days Pakistan and India seem much more a cause of concern than the USA or anyone else. If anyone is to precipitate nuclear armageddon, my bet is on them. Between them they have more than enough  warheads to end life as we know it even without others chiming in. I find that a thoroughly chilling thought.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


12549 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4155

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1686471 12-Dec-2016 11:33
Send private message quote this post

Even France has enough to end life as we know it.

It's a pointless thing to worry about to be honest.





7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4325


  Reply # 1686533 12-Dec-2016 13:26
Send private message quote this post

Trump has been quite inconsistent on nuclear.

 

He's on record saying that he'd be "the last" to use them, that he's against proliferation.  But OTOH he's argued that the US arsenal is in "very terrible shape" and that impacts on the US ability to "protect" South Korea and Japan who in his opinion at the time should/could be nuclear armed.  Taking N Korea out of that equation, I assume that his guess of threat is from China who he seems to have a bit of a downer on, but China have an official "no first use" policy.  Considering the size of their nuclear industry which would give them the ability to easily produce a massive arsenal complete with state of the art delivery systems, their weapons stockpile is very small, a tiny fraction of US or Russian arsenals. 

 

I don't think Trump is at all keen on nuclear weapons and isn't a "direct" threat. He's nuts in many ways IMO, but not in that one. Clinton even seemed to target him earlier in the campaign questioning whether he'd have the will to launch a strike if needed 'cause "she would".  China also isn't a nuclear threat IMO. Pakistan/India are a risk only to each other.  N Korea is a PITA that someone's going to have to deal with.

 

It's really only the possibility of an indirect effect - something inadvertently initiated by Trump - which bothers me. 


19488 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5834

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1686541 12-Dec-2016 13:38
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Trump has been quite inconsistent on nuclear.

 

He's on record saying that he'd be "the last" to use them, that he's against proliferation.  But OTOH he's argued that the US arsenal is in "very terrible shape" and that impacts on the US ability to "protect" South Korea and Japan who in his opinion at the time should/could be nuclear armed.  Taking N Korea out of that equation, I assume that his guess of threat is from China who he seems to have a bit of a downer on, but China have an official "no first use" policy.  Considering the size of their nuclear industry which would give them the ability to easily produce a massive arsenal complete with state of the art delivery systems, their weapons stockpile is very small, a tiny fraction of US or Russian arsenals. 

 

I don't think Trump is at all keen on nuclear weapons and isn't a "direct" threat. He's nuts in many ways IMO, but not in that one. Clinton even seemed to target him earlier in the campaign questioning whether he'd have the will to launch a strike if needed 'cause "she would".  China also isn't a nuclear threat IMO. Pakistan/India are a risk only to each other.  N Korea is a PITA that someone's going to have to deal with.

 

It's really only the possibility of an indirect effect - something inadvertently initiated by Trump - which bothers me. 

 

 

 

 

I'd agree with all these points. 

 

You know, the initiator of the first Nuclear launch has as much to lose as gain. Retaliation is nearly *certain* and a lot of lives would be lost on both sides, mostly innocents. I don't think any current leader is going to be dreaming of the day they thought they might get to "launch" because unlike decades ago, there are a lot of missiles pointing right back at you.

 

 


Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686603 12-Dec-2016 17:00
Send private message quote this post

The point being, according to what I read, that it takes 200 warheads to wipe out the world even if not aimed at the world, and India and Pakistan have that many between them. Even if they only shot at each other they could still end all life (in any meaningful sense) on earth.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


596 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 180


  Reply # 1686613 12-Dec-2016 17:27
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

The point being, according to what I read, that it takes 200 warheads to wipe out the world even if not aimed at the world, and India and Pakistan have that many between them. Even if they only shot at each other they could still end all life (in any meaningful sense) on earth.

 

 

 



You might find this tool interesting.


1628 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 857


  Reply # 1686620 12-Dec-2016 18:08
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

The main thing I have against the "Air Force One" planes is that much of the cost (for systems to protect against electromagnetic pulse etc) is so that in the event of nuclear war, the Commander in Chief (Trump LOL) can safely fly around in comfort pushing buttons to launch more nuclear strikes to finish off the job.

 

That (IMO) is an abominable concept. So yes - I'd be happy if Trump canned it - even if for the wrong reasons.

 

 

It's called "credible deterrence".  If an enemy can "decapitate" the military/executive of a country with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, disabling that country's ability to launch a counter-strike, then it increases the chance of the pre-emptive strike being launched.  Arguably, the reason we haven't had a nuclear exchange is because both/all sides maintain a credible deterrent.  The reason the cold war ended was that NATO had a very credible deterrent and also had a stated policy (flexible response) to use tactical nukes first if the USSR overwhelmed Western Europe's defences with a massive invasion of conventional forces.  So, by wishing for USA to scrap an EMP-proof command facility, you're wishing for a greater chance of a nuclear exchange.  Personally, I don't think that's a good prospect.


Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686629 12-Dec-2016 18:31
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1628 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 857


  Reply # 1686630 12-Dec-2016 18:35
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

 

 

 

 

Could you be more specific?  


4696 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3227

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1686632 12-Dec-2016 18:49
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds?

 

 

It sounds MADundecided





Sideface


Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686646 12-Dec-2016 18:58
Send private message quote this post

What is being defended exactly? What makes it worth the risk of destroying the planet and everyone on it? If someone wants to say they are the boss of me that badly, they can have it as far as I am concerned. It is the dumbest, most self-defeating game of bluff and counter-bluff I can imagine. You are talking about two people pointing loaded guns at each other, and betting neither will fire because the other might also get a shot off before they die. What the hell kind of way is that to exist? If the 'enemy' wants to rule the world that badly, he can have it. Who cares who gets to call himself the winner? Better that than no world at all.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1628 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 857


  Reply # 1686651 12-Dec-2016 19:17
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

What is being defended exactly? What makes it worth the risk of destroying the planet and everyone on it? If someone wants to say they are the boss of me that badly, they can have it as far as I am concerned. It is the dumbest, most self-defeating game of bluff and counter-bluff I can imagine. You are talking about two people pointing loaded guns at each other, and betting neither will fire because the other might also get a shot off before they die. What the hell kind of way is that to exist? If the 'enemy' wants to rule the world that badly, he can have it. Who cares who gets to call himself the winner? Better that than no world at all.


 


Well, fortunately there are some of us who value freedom slightly higher than that which is why we don't live in a totalitarian state. There are more options than surrender or global destruction, as the end of the cold war proved.

Glurp
9483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4484

Subscriber

  Reply # 1686657 12-Dec-2016 19:50
Send private message quote this post

I value survival higher than whatever system I happen to live under. Totalitarianism isn't necessarily the end of the world. Nuclear holocaust is. Gambling with the entire planet is stupid beyond belief in my opinion. The end of the cold war didn't prove anything, except that we had a lucky escape. Claiming that MAD prevented war is like claiming that scratching your arse prevents tigers. The fact that there are no tigers in the vicinity doesn't prove a thing.

 

So you are telling me that you would rather live in an irradiated post-apocalyptic landscape than in a Stalinist paradise? Oh wait, there are other options. My other option is to swallow a hefty dose of sanity and stop dreaming that being able to threaten the entire planet with total annihilation many times over is an answer to anything at all. What a mind-numbingly dumb path to peace that is.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | ... | 730
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Donate via Givealittle


Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

A call from the companies providing internet access for the great majority of New Zealanders, to the companies with the greatest influence over social media content
Posted 19-Mar-2019 15:21


Two e-scooter companies selected for Wellington trial
Posted 15-Mar-2019 17:33


GeForce GTX 1660 available now
Posted 15-Mar-2019 08:47


Artificial Intelligence to double the rate of innovation in New Zealand by 2021
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:47


LG demonstrates smart home concepts at LG InnoFest
Posted 13-Mar-2019 14:45


New Zealanders buying more expensive smartphones
Posted 11-Mar-2019 09:52


2degrees Offers Amazon Prime Video to Broadband Customers
Posted 8-Mar-2019 14:10


D-Link ANZ launches D-Fend AC2600 Wi-Fi Router Protected by McAfee
Posted 7-Mar-2019 11:09


Slingshot commissions celebrities to design new modems
Posted 5-Mar-2019 08:58


Symantec Annual Threat Report reveals more ambitious, destructive and stealthy attacks
Posted 28-Feb-2019 10:14


FUJIFILM launches high performing X-T30
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:40


Netflix is killing content piracy says research
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:33


Trend Micro finds shifting threats require kiwis to rethink security priorities
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:27


Mainfreight uses Spark IoT Asset Tracking service
Posted 28-Feb-2019 09:25


Spark IoT network now covers 98% of New Zealand population
Posted 19-Feb-2019 09:28



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.