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

Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 179 posts

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#151

Post by thecopy »

alephnerd wrote: post #150
thecopy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees) It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that r…

But in the 1990s, militaries like West Germany, Canada, etc remained competitive and helped balance the load. There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again. It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so. > increase risk of nuclear…

>There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again.

They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).

>lack the capabilities to develop credible nuclear delivery systems

Is this the case? I think Sweden were months away from testing their nuclear bombs when they were conviced to dismantle the system in return for protection from USA's nuclear umbrella and were in process of producing supersonic nuclear bomber in the 1950s. They still produce today world class submarines, develops and build their own fighter jets.

I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset. I mean, North Korea managed.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#152

Post by thecopy »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #149
thecopy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ROI to USA that it has been the dominant military power for the last decades, combined with the cooling effect of NATO across the globe – i think you can imagine the instability and increase risk of nuclear war without NATO (Japan, South Korea, Europe, etc would acquire nukes without USA guarantees) It has enabled a very stable and predictable world. This has benefited USA immensely. It it not clear to me, that r…

We can't afford to police the whole world. NATO expansionism is one of the causes of the latest conflict in Ukraine. It's not clear to me that unwinding our interventionism around the world is going to make the world more stable. But it is clear to me that we can't afford to keep doing it. China is eating our lunch and they have about 3x as many people as we do. Neither Europe nor the US are producing much, and the e…

>Do you seriously think we can win the inevitable war with China?

I believe showing Russia, China, and the world, that USA stands behinds it commitments and allies, defends the rule based world order and is true leader of the democratic society would deter leaders such as Putin and Xi from trying anything.

NATO is (imo) close to collapsing. All it would take is a minor just-under-war incursion, e.g. in northern Finland by Russia. Would USA (Trump) defend Finland in this scenario? If not, NATO is dead and the next 100 years belong to China and Russia.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#153

Post by alephnerd »

thecopy wrote: post #151
alephnerd wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in the 1990s, militaries like West Germany, Canada, etc remained competitive and helped balance the load. There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again. It's just German instraginence because of their fanatical opposition to deficits that is hampering their ability to do so. > increase risk of nuclear…

>There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again. They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive net…

> The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally)

And this is the crux of the issue. It's hubris to assume Europe is our natural ally and should always be our top priority.

In the US, our Pacific allies (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) are a higher priority than our European ones.

As can be seen in US Military Deployments (the majority of US Armed Forces personnel is deployed in the Pacific) along with economic relations (APAC trade is larger than EU trade)

For the US, China is the primary adversary to worry about, not Russia. Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe? At least France and UK have historically tried to maintain some strategic autonomy, and Eastern NATO states like Poland, Romania, and Turkiye have continued to build domestic defense capacity.

And unlike most European countries, our Asian allies (SK, JP, TW) have continued to build fairly competitive domestic defense industries. Japan and South Korea can manufacture their own ballistic missiles, tanks, submarines, airframes, heavy artillery, etc. Only France has a similar diversity of domestic defense R&D and manufacturing capacity in Europe.

> more benefits than gearing up for war (aka the Peace Dividend).

It's Europe that gets the peace dividend. Not the US. We still need to the capacity to fight a two continent war. That's a bum deal.

> I would think that Europe has knowledge and skillset.

Europe as a continent, sure. But in reality, it's a number of individuals states working on their own domestic production, procurement, and supporting their domestic champions.

France will continue to protect Thales Group, Arianne Group, Dassault Group, etc, just like how Germany continues to back Rheinmetall, ThysennKrupp, Eurofighter, etc.

There is no ability to unify production and procurement without also undermining domestic industries and jobs.

France's Ariane Group will never transfer their Medium Range Ballistic Missiles technology to a German company - they don't want to help a potential competitor.

This same thing happened with the Eurofighter project, with France deciding to back Dassault instead.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#154

Post by thecopy »

alephnerd wrote: post #153
thecopy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no reason Germany (and in reality it's only Germany that's the laggard) can't rebuild their conventional fighting capacities to help load balance again. They could, yes. But would they need to if Russia is weak? The current strategy from USA seems to be to appease Russia, give them what they want and weaken security guarantees. The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive net…

> The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) And this is the crux of the issue. It's hubris to assume Europe is our natural ally and should always be our top priority. In the US, our Pacific allies (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) are a higher priority than our European ones. As can be seen in US Military D…

>Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe?

Well, it agreed to:

>In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

I don't necessarily disgree with the central thesis of your comment and your perspectices, but i think there is a more fruitful balance to be had than what i see as completee capitulation to Russia and the abandonment of Europe (after almost a century of collaboration and investment).

At some point one need to ask oneself: what am i defending?

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#155

Post by alephnerd »

thecopy wrote: post #154
alephnerd wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point im trying to make is that there is another way here which i beleive nets the West (both USA and Europe – USA's natural ally) And this is the crux of the issue. It's hubris to assume Europe is our natural ally and should always be our top priority. In the US, our Pacific allies (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) are a higher priority than our European ones. As can be seen in US Military D…

>Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe? Well, it agreed to: >In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. I don't necessarily…

I agree that we in the US need to continue defending the Budapest Memorandum and helping Ukraine where possible.

That said, individual European nations have had over a decade to re-arm and further help Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion), but it ended up primarily being US, UK, Canada, and Turkiye providing support and training for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

European states are starting to step up, but using Trump as a punching bag to distract from the very real issue of Central Europe's pigheaded lack of preparedness is foolish.

We are starting to see these changes now with Starmer and Macron's announcements, but plenty of individual European states are not viewing this crisis seriously enough, as Poland's Donald Tusk pointed out today [0]

[0] - https://tvn24.pl/polska/szczyt-w-paryzu-donald-tusk-przed-wy...

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#156

Post by fifilura »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #135
alephnerd wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII The 1950s is ancient history now. All countries have drastically ramped up background checks in NatSec and NatSec adjacent industries, and hiring foreigners (even from aligned states) can be a potential threat, as they will continue to retain family ties with their country of origin. This same inci…

So the US is a threat because it refuses to pay disproportionate funds for the defense of Europe? I think everyone whining about it is losing their minds over nothing. We have been massively subsidizing these "friends" so that many of them can afford free healthcare. Fuck that noise.

Note that "US as a threat" was a strawman argument.

(Although USA has threatened to occupy EU territory in the last weeks.)

It does not have to be a threat, but if Europe should take more responsibility for their own defense, it would make sense build up their nuclear capacity.

(And I am well aware of the differences between EU, Europe and individual countries. But it seems to me tha France is the country to build upon.)

Ukraine had nuclear weapons that they gave away. Maybe they shouldn't have?

Also - universal healthcare is not about 1-2 percent lower military spendings (much of which goes back to the country itself). USA is a rich country, you could also afford it.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#157

Post by thecopy »

alephnerd wrote: post #155
thecopy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why should European states assume the US has an obligation to always support Europe? Well, it agreed to: >In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States and United Kingdom to respect the Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. I don't necessarily…

I agree that we in the US need to continue defending the Budapest Memorandum and helping Ukraine where possible. That said, individual European nations have had over a decade to re-arm and further help Ukraine (even before the 2022 invasion), but it ended up primarily being US, UK, Canada, and Turkiye providing support and training for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. European states are starting to step up, but using Tru…

Agreed

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#158

Post by scotty79 »

ben_w wrote: post #145
scotty79 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really matter. After failed attempt at adopting "terrorism" as new enemy, USA firmly fixated its sights on China in hopes that a strong enemy will help US regain former prosperity. What Trump currently is doing fits perfectly this goal. Russia is natural, local ally of USA against China, that's what Trump means when he voices hopes for future cooperation between "our great countries". It is further reinfor…

On the one hand, yes. On the other, please don't over-estimate the competence of the people in charge of Europe (states or EU) — we're still just a bunch of independent sovereign states pootling along quietly doing our own thing with no real hard stressors to force us to select the best of the best as leaders, certainly not a unified cohesive whole. When it gets to sink-or-swim time, I don't know which way we're goin…

Yeah. The fact that something makes sense doesn't mean it's significantly more likely to happen. But it could. And I'd say that both Russia and USA are now accidentally hellbent on providing sufficient stressors.

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#159

Post by qingcharles »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #8

The Presidential Pardon being the underlying legal basis of everything. With that power, everything is legal.

Only clears federal crimes, though. If the states can start pinning stuff on people then Trump only has pressure he can put on, like he's doing with Romania right now to try and help the Tate brothers escape (╯ఠ益ఠ)╯

Re: Managers given 200 characters to justify not firing nuclear regulators

#160

Post by _DeadFred_ »

alephnerd wrote: post #79
shmobot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just be careful when using analogies. The massive ship named USSR sank in a matter of months.

> The massive ship named USSR sank in a matter of months There was a decade of dysfunction and ossification before the USSR collapsed within a couple months A decade of low oil prices (affecting exports), high defense spending (increasing deficit), societal unrest due to the resurgence of nationalism, and slowing productivity all happened quietly over the 1980s before catalyzing into collapse.

US productivity is going into things like un-avoidable advertisements from your new Jeep when you come to a stop, embedding dark patterns for everything, and spending all R&D on a tool to replace all human workers. A nation can totally be held together heathily under today's 'productivity'.
Post reply on HN