Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 540 posts

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#301

Post by vasco »

benzible wrote: post #216
tdb7893 wrote: post #75

What really puts all of this into perspective for me is I work in academia and one of my friends works for a defense contractor. He told me the maintenance cost per flight hour of F-35 was a bit more than $40k, which is significantly more than I make in a year as a grad student. It's crazy basic science is what's been the focus of so many cuts while it's so cheap.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean. It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump admi…

To be honest this sounds more like an excuse and cover for having a bunch of ships and submarines in places they'd normally wouldn't be at.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#302

Post by estebarb »

KnuthIsGod wrote: post #94
tdb7893 wrote: post #75

What really puts all of this into perspective for me is I work in academia and one of my friends works for a defense contractor. He told me the maintenance cost per flight hour of F-35 was a bit more than $40k, which is significantly more than I make in a year as a grad student. It's crazy basic science is what's been the focus of so many cuts while it's so cheap.

How many million graduate students do you need to give the US the military hegemony and political influence over allies and adversaries that the F-35 program provides ? Looked at from a policy maker's viewpoint, things look very different.

The F35 program is essential! When the USA will finally conquer free healthcare?

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#304

Post by kelnos »

port11 wrote: post #288
benzible wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean. It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump admi…

But… why? Climate change is very much real and even stubborn deep-right voters like my father now ‘believe’ in it. Ok, some people make some cash. But wouldn’t they anyway? I don’t understand this need to keep pandering to a minority and to destroy ecosystems.

Many deep-right voters do not believe in climate change. They're a big part of Trump's base.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#305

Post by kelnos »

wyldfire wrote: post #235
benzible wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean. It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump admi…

The crazy thing is that the oil companies confessed to a misinformation campaign and at least publicly talked about change/reform (of course, they're still oil exploration/refinement companies so not abandoning that). But they did discuss responsible use of fossil fuels in transition towards renewables. But Trump was fooled and is more committed than ever to the since-abandoned misinformation campaign. It took on a b…

I don't think Trump was "fooled" by anything. His policy positions reflect what makes him and his cronies money, and what keeps him in power. That's it. He doesn't care about truth or correctness. Just money and power.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#306

Post by kakacik »

dozerly wrote: post #297
port11 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But… why? Climate change is very much real and even stubborn deep-right voters like my father now ‘believe’ in it. Ok, some people make some cash. But wouldn’t they anyway? I don’t understand this need to keep pandering to a minority and to destroy ecosystems.

Which part of trump making billions of dollars from oil oligarchs is the confusing bit? His incentive structure is clear.

[dead]

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#307

Post by qingcharles »

port11 wrote: post #288
benzible wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean. It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump admi…

But… why? Climate change is very much real and even stubborn deep-right voters like my father now ‘believe’ in it. Ok, some people make some cash. But wouldn’t they anyway? I don’t understand this need to keep pandering to a minority and to destroy ecosystems.

The government knows it's real, these are generally well-educated people who went to decent schools. But, I would challenge that most right-wing voters know whether it is real. Where I live in rural America the vast majority are pro-fossil fuel, anti-EV. EVs are seen as "gay" or "feminine" by the folks out here. So the choice to use fossil fuels might just be some performative machismo, allowing their pick-ups to output black smoke, make a loud noise and look "tough."

Those are the majority of the Republican voters at this stage. To make them happy you do things like spend millions to tear up infrastructure which challenges their worldview. This should result in increased votes for the current administration at the mid-terms. So even if climate change is a real and current threat, you need to say it isn't to get re-elected.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#308

Post by ciconia »

port11 wrote: post #288
benzible wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't assume that this is about cost cutting. If the goal were saving money, the cheapest option by far would be to leave the hardware in the water and just stop funding the monitoring. Instead the plan is an expensive operation to send ships out to extract 900+ instruments from under two miles of ocean. It's clear that this is driven by performative climate denialism and a pro fossil fuel stance. The Trump admi…

But… why? Climate change is very much real and even stubborn deep-right voters like my father now ‘believe’ in it. Ok, some people make some cash. But wouldn’t they anyway? I don’t understand this need to keep pandering to a minority and to destroy ecosystems.

Reactionary politics, greed, stupidity. Pick any three.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#309

Post by kakacik »

mothballed wrote: post #125
jazzypants wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we have military hegemony, then why can't we open the strait of Hormuz?

The US could/can, they're just not willing to undergo the mass casualties it would take to put boots on the ground and put those boots up the ass of the people controlling Hormuz. Which absolutely cannot be achieved purely by air.

US military ain't some unstoppable force in all possible scenarios, it was stopped and won over quite a few times, last time I recall by taliban sheepherders. In some cases like first Iraq war yes, but they don't wage those wars anymore. And all mental limits re casualties are very real limits just like other.

Its like saying russia could/can conquer whole Europe, if only X, Y and Z. That effectively means they can't, as we see playing out right now despite them trying desperately to achieve this very thing.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#310

Post by IsTom »

jcranmer wrote: post #223
erickhill wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't take very many at all, we've now learned these past four years (and even the past 2 months). All you need are drones, that are pennies on the dollar cheaper than trillion-dollar militaries. Depending on the munition, a single bomb we drop on Iran could cost between $40,000 and a couple million dollars. Think of all the high-end drones you could buy instead. Everything is changing. Including our influence.

Drones are not a strategic weapon. When you talk to the Ukrainian military, with their actual expertise in drone warfare, the general consensus is that drones are an inferior replacement for artillery (note that ex-Soviet military systems are a lot heavier in artillery use than NATO military systems) that they use because they can't get the artillery shells that they need but they can get drones in sufficient quantit…

> that they use because they can't get the artillery shells that they need

That used to be true, but I don't think that the case anymore. UA is now striking logistics ~150KM behind the contact line with drones. Regular artillery can't do that. Guided rockets maybe could, but they'd be more expensive and come in smaller quantities.

> US is currently able to wage a war 6000 miles away from its shores

For a rather restricted use of "wage a war". They did not stop Iranians from doing their thing. Bombing alone does not have a history of winning wars.

Post reply on HN