101–110 of 310 posts
In Puerto Rico a few months back we lost power and water due to the hurricane. Living without power and water, even for a few days starts to have a severe psychological impact. You don't realize how much of a luxury and a blessing it is to have clean running water until it's no longer available. You can't flush the toilet, freshen up, shower, wash your dishes, or wash your clothes. If you don't have a backup power ge…
I regard attacks on critical civilian infrastructure as strategically indistinguishable from nuclear attacks, and deserving of a similar response. Edit: Why is this being downvoted. I'm right. One will kill 100k people instantly. The other will send them back to the Middle Ages. The former group might actually be the luckier one.
It's actually surprisingly structured, with pretty clear rules. Among them are "bright lines" and "fuzzy lines". A bright line is something which forces an automatic response nobody likes, and it's backed by a lot of commitment. Not responding to an adversary crossing a bright line trashes your whole reputation and strongly signals you're weak.
The problem with bright lines is that once you state them, the other guy is free to do anything up to your line. It's like posting your final price in a classified post - nobody will ever offer you more. A fuzzy line is the solution: you say something like "if you move forward, I will do things you don't like", without saying how much forward or what things. Which forces the other guy to tip-toe around. You see A LOT of this between NATO and Russia in Ukraine.
Back to your point - nuclear attacks are a very clear bright line. One might say the final bright line, written in neon. They should be treated as such, and not watered down - if you say "bombing a power station is identical to nuclear attacks", you may make bombing power stations very slightly less likely, but you also normalize nuclear attacks by the same amount - and this is VERY BAD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is the military hardened against deserters, starving soldiers, starving military families, and so forth caused by civilian infrastructure collapse? I doubt it. That's where Article 90 of the UCMJ comes into play, Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished— (1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such…
Right… but if a military base loses power, and the soldiers are starving, you may find that you quickly lose the ability to enforce the UCMJ effectively. And the moment you lose even a bit of control in such a situation, it will unravel potentially within hours. The UCMJ works great when you can shame a soldier, have a Justice system to rely on, can seize assets or pay, have superiors in other states, and so forth. W…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing CW QRP at 1 watt in the right conditions will cover a huge distance, especially if the power has gone out. It really doesn’t take much when you get down to the absolute minimum viable setup.
Indeed but at the same time, weapons and ammunition begin to look far more valuable than communication. I'm trying to reason through how valuable information would be in a grid-down scenario. Presumably, all the major roads would have check-points operated by the prevailing authority and would confiscate any valuable goods one learned about over the air. It seems to me that having access to defensible food and shelte…
I would not be leaving my property, I live hours from the nearest city, and 30 minutes from “town”. There would be little benefit for me in attempting to travel. I would still like access to information if possible, buts it’s definitely not at the top of the list.
Longer than the far-too-many sci-books out there predict. I have lived in areas in the US that went without power for a week or longer...and without the ability to make power for at least that long (New Jersey, Hurricane Sandy as one example) Society is more tolerant than most people think, and the grid is gradually becoming less of an issue thanks to alternative energy means like solar. While many will suffer/not be…
While I agree the impact may be overblown in popular culture - or at least the speed of it - psychologically the weight of knowing the entire country is facing the same thing would be a lot worse than a week without power because of a hurricane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regard attacks on critical civilian infrastructure as strategically indistinguishable from nuclear attacks, and deserving of a similar response. Edit: Why is this being downvoted. I'm right. One will kill 100k people instantly. The other will send them back to the Middle Ages. The former group might actually be the luckier one.
What are you going to do, nuke the hurricanes?
Coming from India and as someone who has lived, growing up (in the 90s), without power for hours and days...trust me you are going to be deeply inconvenienced but not going to die. We had hand fans (hot climate) and fire in large bowl shaped vessels (when cold). Nights without power are spent sleeping on terrace. We had oil lamps for light in the evening. Most night activity would siege by 8pm max to wake up early at…
In other words: mature infrastructure is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Countries that haven't as fully established their dependence on large-scale public infrastructure won't suffer as badly under a grid collapse.
In Puerto Rico a few months back we lost power and water due to the hurricane. Living without power and water, even for a few days starts to have a severe psychological impact. You don't realize how much of a luxury and a blessing it is to have clean running water until it's no longer available. You can't flush the toilet, freshen up, shower, wash your dishes, or wash your clothes. If you don't have a backup power ge…
I regard attacks on critical civilian infrastructure as strategically indistinguishable from nuclear attacks, and deserving of a similar response. Edit: Why is this being downvoted. I'm right. One will kill 100k people instantly. The other will send them back to the Middle Ages. The former group might actually be the luckier one.
> Critical facilities like cellular base stations and data-centers often have an on-site backup generator. These generators have enough fuel to extend the resiliency beyond 24 to 48 hours. During the 2019 hurricane here in Nova Scotia people stole the fuel (and even a few generators somehow), so don’t even count on that. We had no internet, cellular, or landline service for days where I live as a result, much less po…
At my cabin I have starlink, limited solar power and a generator with propane that comes on (power goes out a lot). Eventually I'll run out of propane and food (everyone has some emergency food supply for a few weeks at their cabin, right?), but I wonder how long I'd last with internet plus short trips in my electric car? I never planned for a post-gas future independent of the grid. Starlink relies on starlink downl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regard attacks on critical civilian infrastructure as strategically indistinguishable from nuclear attacks, and deserving of a similar response. Edit: Why is this being downvoted. I'm right. One will kill 100k people instantly. The other will send them back to the Middle Ages. The former group might actually be the luckier one.
People are downvoting you without saying why. Nuclear deterrence is a dirty game, but one we're unfortunately forced to play. Liking it or not has nothing to do with it - not playing it has pretty bad consequences. It's actually surprisingly structured, with pretty clear rules. Among them are "bright lines" and "fuzzy lines". A bright line is something which forces an automatic response nobody likes, and it's backed…