Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

C. O. Thompson wrote:On a side issue, since I see you list Russia as your location, you may be the only person I can ask this: Having grown up under the shadow of the hydrogen bomb and in the cold war... Do you and your neighbors think the cold war is over as our President does or are you laughing up your sleeve at us?

I think that old Cold War is pretty much over. Problem is, that its legacy still burdening both sides. Americans greatly overestimated their "victory", and essentially behaved as if they actually defeated Russia, unwilling to even acknowledge that Russia may have its own national interests. For our parts, the desire to get some kind of revenge and idea that "all that's bad for America is good for Russia" is, unfortunately, also deep-rooted in public psychology.

C. O. Thompson wrote:Personally, I think the ideological lines became blurred after the USSR broke up and the oligarch and organized crime established the new status quo with their own so called capitalism though I think it is not even the version of capitalism our GoP are touting as the cure all.

Our initial capitalism was essentially the 1900s type free market; very little control, very little thoughts about anything except immediate enrichment, and money could hide any crimes. One of the reason, why Russians are so willing to tolerate the current corruption and bureaucracy rampage - because most peoples are very afraid of "new 90s".

C. O. Thompson wrote:much as Ronald Regan and the GoP laughed at Gorbachev and his cabinet for believing the Star Wars ploy...

Er, SDI was a pretty real project with pretty real goal; to make efficient counter-force strike impossible for USSR. Essentially the goal of SDI was to create the situation, in which USA could inflict crippling damage to Soviet military in nuclear exchange, but USSR couldn't do the same with US military - because military objects are much harder to destroy, and the number of warheads starts to work.

The common misconception about SDI is that it was supposed to protect American population. It is not true. Protecting the American population required intercepting 100% of warheads - and this was simply impossible (even if just 1 warhead slip in, it could cause devastating damage to big city).

The goal of SDI was to protect the American military infrastructure. Here, the effect is different. If you intercept 90% of warheads heading for your missile silos, then 90% of your missile silos would not be hit - because they are hardened and dispersed. I.e. it make sense to do that, because the more warhead you destroy, the better condition your military would be after.

It was supposed, that with SDI, USSR would be put in situation, when it would not be benefit from military escalation. Essentially any scenario short of total unrestricted nuclear warfare became favorable for USA.

C. O. Thompson wrote:And I imagine you are laughing at my naivety for even asking you to answer this question.

In fact - no.

n7axw wrote:

Dilandu wrote:
And with such problems with memory and perception as yours you are still claiming that American medicine is anything worthwhile?

Actually, American medicine is probably about the best in the world. Where we have the problem is with accessibility for those on the lower part of the income scale.

Don

-

It was a sarcasm, actually.

Not sure I can agree with the statement that American medicine is the best I think it could be but there is too much opportunity for big pharma to manipulate the FDA and most of us who have watched a baseball game (not this season alas) on TV have seen the ambulance chaser commercials "If you or someone you love..." or seen the 25 seconds of lawyer speak when the latest "wonder drug" is advertised.

Add to that the cost of many of these medications (do you know that congress set a rule that medicare cannot negotiate for lower prices?)
And conclude with the ease that insurance companies cut off treatments or control access to them... I think we have a long way that we could go.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... s-spinning

n7axw wrote:
Well hell. I finally went back to fully read Dilandu's recent posts. He unambiguously indicated his gender as male, now that I know I will not honor him by referring to him as female.

And with such problems with memory and perception as yours you are still claiming that American medicine is anything worthwhile?[/quote]

Actually, American medicine is probably about the best in the world. Where we have the problem is with accessibility for those on the lower part of the income scale.

Don

-[/quote]

Thank you for the thoughtful response...
I am a person who is willing to admit that I am not nor could I possibly be "right all the time"

I'd love to be able to share a few ounces of whiskey or vodka and then talk about these things as one human to another.

Like a lot of Americans, I found a career in a field other than what I studied in college ... the job was microbiology and entomology...
the study and interest is anthropology with its various threads, political science, psychology and sociology

My understanding of SDI (at the time), is that it was an elaborate bluff though I also understand that the KGB had fairly thoroughly saturated our society so you could have access to information I never will.

May you find peace

Charlie

Dilandu wrote:

C. O. Thompson wrote:On a side issue, since I see you list Russia as your location, you may be the only person I can ask this: Having grown up under the shadow of the hydrogen bomb and in the cold war... Do you and your neighbors think the cold war is over as our President does or are you laughing up your sleeve at us?

I think that old Cold War is pretty much over. Problem is, that its legacy still burdening both sides. Americans greatly overestimated their "victory", and essentially behaved as if they actually defeated Russia, unwilling to even acknowledge that Russia may have its own national interests. For our parts, the desire to get some kind of revenge and idea that "all that's bad for America is good for Russia" is, unfortunately, also deep-rooted in public psychology.

C. O. Thompson wrote:Personally, I think the ideological lines became blurred after the USSR broke up and the oligarch and organized crime established the new status quo with their own so called capitalism though I think it is not even the version of capitalism our GoP are touting as the cure all.

Our initial capitalism was essentially the 1900s type free market; very little control, very little thoughts about anything except immediate enrichment, and money could hide any crimes. One of the reason, why Russians are so willing to tolerate the current corruption and bureaucracy rampage - because most peoples are very afraid of "new 90s".

C. O. Thompson wrote:much as Ronald Regan and the GoP laughed at Gorbachev and his cabinet for believing the Star Wars ploy...

Er, SDI was a pretty real project with pretty real goal; to make efficient counter-force strike impossible for USSR. Essentially the goal of SDI was to create the situation, in which USA could inflict crippling damage to Soviet military in nuclear exchange, but USSR couldn't do the same with US military - because military objects are much harder to destroy, and the number of warheads starts to work.

The common misconception about SDI is that it was supposed to protect American population. It is not true. Protecting the American population required intercepting 100% of warheads - and this was simply impossible (even if just 1 warhead slip in, it could cause devastating damage to big city).

The goal of SDI was to protect the American military infrastructure. Here, the effect is different. If you intercept 90% of warheads heading for your missile silos, then 90% of your missile silos would not be hit - because they are hardened and dispersed. I.e. it make sense to do that, because the more warhead you destroy, the better condition your military would be after.

It was supposed, that with SDI, USSR would be put in situation, when it would not be benefit from military escalation. Essentially any scenario short of total unrestricted nuclear warfare became favorable for USA.

C. O. Thompson wrote:And I imagine you are laughing at my naivety for even asking you to answer this question.

In fact - no.

C. O. Thompson wrote:Not sure I can agree with the statement that American medicine is the best I think it could be but there is too much opportunity for big pharma to manipulate the FDA and most of us who have watched a baseball game (not this season alas) on TV have seen the ambulance chaser commercials "If you or someone you love..." or seen the 25 seconds of lawyer speak when the latest "wonder drug" is advertised.

Add to that the cost of many of these medications (do you know that congress set a rule that medicare cannot negotiate for lower prices?)
And conclude with the ease that insurance companies cut off treatments or control access to them... I think we have a long way that we could go.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... s-spinning

n7axw wrote:
Well hell. I finally went back to fully read Dilandu's recent posts. He unambiguously indicated his gender as male, now that I know I will not honor him by referring to him as female.

And with such problems with memory and perception as yours you are still claiming that American medicine is anything worthwhile?

Actually, American medicine is probably about the best in the world. Where we have the problem is with accessibility for those on the lower part of the income scale.

Don

-[/quote][/quote]

Actually I was referring to quality of treatment available to those can afford it. I am sure that several of the Western European countries are in our league. But I doubt that anyone exceeds us.

At one time not so long ago, our FDA was the envy of the world, the gold standard, so to speak. I don't trust the current regime, tied as you say to Big Pharma. But perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel and it will be again.

Don

-

C. O. Thompson wrote:SNIP
Add to that the cost of many of these medications (do you know that congress set a rule that medicare cannot negotiate for lower prices?)
And conclude with the ease that insurance companies cut off treatments or control access to them... I think we have a long way that we could go.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... s-spinning

SNIP

That is mind boggling. I guess that is why some people[companies?] in the US seem to hate the NHS - because it does negotiate and get a good deal - showing that it can be done. That explains why Trump seems to hate it - someone whispering in his ear.

It was a real concern to many in the UK that our present government would be so desperate to sign up a trade deal ,after Brexit, with the US that they would agree to anything - some of them are ideologically bent that way anyway ['Atlantic Bridge' group].

I suspect that would be much more difficult to swallow now!

Dilandu wrote:

C. O. Thompson wrote:On a side issue, since I see you list Russia as your location, you may be the only person I can ask this: Having grown up under the shadow of the hydrogen bomb and in the cold war... Do you and your neighbors think the cold war is over as our President does or are you laughing up your sleeve at us?

I think that old Cold War is pretty much over. Problem is, that its legacy still burdening both sides. Americans greatly overestimated their "victory", and essentially behaved as if they actually defeated Russia, unwilling to even acknowledge that Russia may have its own national interests. For our parts, the desire to get some kind of revenge and idea that "all that's bad for America is good for Russia" is, unfortunately, also deep-rooted in public psychology.

C. O. Thompson wrote:Personally, I think the ideological lines became blurred after the USSR broke up and the oligarch and organized crime established the new status quo with their own so called capitalism though I think it is not even the version of capitalism our GoP are touting as the cure all.

Our initial capitalism was essentially the 1900s type free market; very little control, very little thoughts about anything except immediate enrichment, and money could hide any crimes. One of the reason, why Russians are so willing to tolerate the current corruption and bureaucracy rampage - because most peoples are very afraid of "new 90s".

C. O. Thompson wrote:much as Ronald Regan and the GoP laughed at Gorbachev and his cabinet for believing the Star Wars ploy...

Er, SDI was a pretty real project with pretty real goal; to make efficient counter-force strike impossible for USSR. Essentially the goal of SDI was to create the situation, in which USA could inflict crippling damage to Soviet military in nuclear exchange, but USSR couldn't do the same with US military - because military objects are much harder to destroy, and the number of warheads starts to work.

The common misconception about SDI is that it was supposed to protect American population. It is not true. Protecting the American population required intercepting 100% of warheads - and this was simply impossible (even if just 1 warhead slip in, it could cause devastating damage to big city).

The goal of SDI was to protect the American military infrastructure. Here, the effect is different. If you intercept 90% of warheads heading for your missile silos, then 90% of your missile silos would not be hit - because they are hardened and dispersed. I.e. it make sense to do that, because the more warhead you destroy, the better condition your military would be after.

It was supposed, that with SDI, USSR would be put in situation, when it would not be benefit from military escalation. Essentially any scenario short of total unrestricted nuclear warfare became favorable for USA.

C. O. Thompson wrote:And I imagine you are laughing at my naivety for even asking you to answer this question.

In fact - no.

An almost accurate assessment of the SDI. Hardened missile are obviously less vulnerable than cities. Loosing 500 out of 1,000 missile silos is acceptable if the attacker has to expend more than half of their missiles to destroy them. Attacking hardened missile silos also requires near surface detonation so a terminal phase layer using 30mm Gatling guns is feasible.

The US had minimal counterforce capability at the time but the MX missiles would have been extremely lethal against missile silos if they had been deployed. The Trident 2 SLBM is an extremely capable counterforce weapon.


Your analysis of defending cities is overly simplistic. Ensuring the survival of all cities would require a 100% effective defense. However; is a defense really futile if 90% of cities are not destroyed. How about if 75% survive or even 50%? Obviously; the destruction of only one city is catastrophic. Given better timing, the 9-11 attacks should have killed 100,000 people concentrated in the financial industry. The US would have obviously survived but it would have been even more horrific.

The SDI offered an opportunity to negotiate to create a defense Dominated strategic environment where the probable casualties from a nuclear war would be greatly reduced and neither side would have an incentive to launch a first strike. Combining SDI with civil defense shelters and point defense decreases the probable fatalities even more. However; the probable casaulties would always remain high enough that a leader would be referred.

Of course now that China is eclipsing Russia as a world power, the strategic situation is different. North Korea having nuclear weapons further undermines nuclear deterrence. Iran going nuclear will further destabilize the situation. From the US perspective, the solution is SDI + bomb shelters + nuclear forces combined with more nuclear proliferation combined with isolationism. If Russia and China have to fear Japan and South Korea and Taiwan and Australia as well as each other, they will be deterred from motivating the US to get involved in their conflicts. While the risk of a limited, regional nuclear war be rather high, there would be far less risk that anyone would attack the US. Of course any economic catastrophe or civil war that causes China to revert to being the normal collection of rival kingdoms would be wonderful.

Blame America!

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backe ... ch-1500741

Since some people apparently need this pointed out to them over and over and over and over again...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronaviru ... hina-odni/

U.S. intel community says coronavirus "not manmade or genetically modified"

...

"The entire Intelligence Community has been consistently providing critical support to U.S. policymakers and those responding to the COVID-19 virus, which originated in China," the ODNI said in a statement. "The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified."

...

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Your analysis of defending cities is overly simplistic. Ensuring the survival of all cities would require a 100% effective defense.

Of course it's simplistic; I do not have neither time nor need to go into detailed description of the whole SDI theory, assumptions and conceptions behind it. The point is, that while it was impossible to protect against counter-value strikes (USSR was anyway able to reach enough American population centers to assure mutual destruction), it was possible to protect against counterforce strikes. I.e. SDI was supposed to gave US advantage in any kind of conflict short of total unrestricted nuclear exchange (which is unwinnable for any side anyway).