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

Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 500 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#411

Post by philbin »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #385
softsound wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many many reasons for war, not just because Putin wrote a fancy paper long ago about his aspirin, or because the drought in Crimea was costing Russia tons of money since they took over and had their water cut off or the falling population and economy that purposely did not reinvest properly to keep Putin in power. Giving a simple answer is not wrong if the long one takes much longer to explain. Multiple fac…

>> Putin wrote a fancy paper long ago about his aspirin Explain?

[dead]

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#412

Post by corimaith »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #381
corimaith wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't, because their SSBNs and their hidden silos would ensure the counter strike afterwards. USA isn't counting on a 15 minute warning either, MAD is ensured via second strike capability AFTER the first strike, if you are counting for the first strike you've already lost.

Well it seems to be well-established MAD orthodoxy that if your enemy has nukes right at your border, and you don't have nukes right at their border, your deterrence ability is diminished. See: the Cuban Missile Crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis In any case, even in a MAD setting every side will be constantly trying to manoeuver to a position of advantage. That's what military people do when…

Where are you getting your sources from here? The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in the context of the early 1960s whereby bombers were the primary method of delivery. Since the late 1960s, the ICBM is the bedrock of the MAD strategy, and the need of a second-strike capability via SSBNs and hidden silos after absorbing a nuclear attack.

>In any case, even in a MAD setting every side will be constantly trying to manoeuver to a position of advantage.

There is no real "advantage" over having an extra few minutes or not. Russia is also building some sort of nuclear tsunami weapon, the US does not care. Because the strategy remains unchanged from threat of ICBMs. Frankly speaking, if you want to talk about what actually is a disadvantage for Russia right now, it's this war. If NATO actually invaded, they'd caught with their pants down. Hell, the US might even successfully ensure a first strike given they moved their air defences away.

The fact that Putin started this war even when knowing this should tell you that he dosen't actually view NATO as a threat. And they're not, from the Houthis, to Iran to Hamas, everbody can tell the US has no stomach for a war. This is not the result of US aggression, it is the result of US unassertiveness

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#413

Post by woooooo »

corimaith wrote: post #412
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it seems to be well-established MAD orthodoxy that if your enemy has nukes right at your border, and you don't have nukes right at their border, your deterrence ability is diminished. See: the Cuban Missile Crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis In any case, even in a MAD setting every side will be constantly trying to manoeuver to a position of advantage. That's what military people do when…

Where are you getting your sources from here? The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in the context of the early 1960s whereby bombers were the primary method of delivery. Since the late 1960s, the ICBM is the bedrock of the MAD strategy, and the need of a second-strike capability via SSBNs and hidden silos after absorbing a nuclear attack. >In any case, even in a MAD setting every side will be constantly trying to manoeu…

We just funded and managed two 20 year wars across the planet from our borders, one in a landlocked country. Russia couldn't move a tank column down a highway at the beginning of this war.

Putin is definitely crushing us at manly and assertive displays, though.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#414

Post by tacocataco »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #251
sitkack wrote: post #71

I love Noam Chomsky so much. To me he is epitome of what a rational caring intellectual should be. Number one, he strives for the truth and while can have intellectual blind spots, isn't afraid of calling them out. We had him has a guest speaker for an internal presentation at Google and of course we had some hyper-rational libertarian eastern block swe kid who was going to take him down and Noam was super respectful…

>To me he is epitome of what a rational caring intellectual should be. >America bad, everything bad = America What a frighteningly distorted view of "rational" and "intellectual".

America is perfect? No bad to be found here? I find this hard to believe.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#415

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

foldr wrote: post #390
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> security guarantees for Ukraine This is laughable. Russia cannot give any credible security guarantee to a country that it has just invaded! The war has shown precisely that Russia still believes that it has the right to control Ukraine and that any negotiated peace is nothing more than a temporary pause in hostilities in anticipation of a more opportune moment for Russia. Putin is a cypher and no-one really knows…

>> Russia cannot give any credible security guarantee to a country that it has just invaded!

Security guarantees would be provided by Western countries, not only Russia.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#416

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

racional wrote: post #403
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> So it's sad to see anyone falling for Putin's lies so easily. (See also Mearshimer.) Mearsheimer can be a bit too convincing for his own good, surely. What he has argued that is certainly convincing is that Russia was ready to negotiate a peace at the start of the war, when Russians and Ukrainians met in Belarus and then in Istanbul. If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would…

If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would he negotiate for peace? Because as he keeps saying over and over -- the only "peace" he will accept is one in which his claims to sovereignty on the territories he is currently sitting are recognized by Western powers. This was his core demand during the Istanbul talks, and it's his current demand now (though he's upped it a bit recently…

That's probably because the wars started by "the West" (US and allies) are significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR. See: vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan. Not that Russia is some big supporter of peace, but the US and its allies are the current global bully. And you don't need Mearsheimer to tell you that.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#417

Post by [deleted] »

teytra wrote: post #400
nashashmi wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad someone said it. Hamas is not a terrorist because they terrorize. Hamas is a terrorist because they are a threat to western govt and world order. Similarly south africa post apartheid was a threat to western world order.

How is Hamas a threat to western governments? And S-A's apartheid government was actually boikotted by western governments. How do you explain that?

[deleted]

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#418

Post by Obscurity4340 »

rtaylorgarlock wrote: post #399
throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would he negotiate for peace? To distract western military support. To distract offensive\defensive ukrainian plans. To construct a peaceful narrative at home or the war mongering west. To strengthen or pet allies, who mediate. To gain intelligence about the willingness of territorial sacrifice. Would Putin ever publicly admit his grand sovi…

Exactly. Both 1st + 2nd order thinking are needed when evaluating the PR efforts of leaders, particularly when their messages go against their actions.

Can you expand on that a bit more? Sorta get what you're saying but I think I might not have a super coherent sense of what that is

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#419

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #395
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> So it's sad to see anyone falling for Putin's lies so easily. (See also Mearshimer.) Mearsheimer can be a bit too convincing for his own good, surely. What he has argued that is certainly convincing is that Russia was ready to negotiate a peace at the start of the war, when Russians and Ukrainians met in Belarus and then in Istanbul. If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would…

> If Putin wanted to recreate Imperial Russia, or the Soviet Union, then why would he negotiate for peace? To distract western military support. To distract offensive\defensive ukrainian plans. To construct a peaceful narrative at home or the war mongering west. To strengthen or pet allies, who mediate. To gain intelligence about the willingness of territorial sacrifice. Would Putin ever publicly admit his grand sovi…

I don't know, maybe? All those sound plausible but then you have to try and justify each of them with some kind of evidence of some sort, otherwise you're just playing the guessing game.

Now, I don't like guessing. When Russia entered negotiations the war was clearly not going its way, so the obvious explanation is that Putin wanted to disentangle from it with the least damage to his image as possible.

The question is why the negotiations failed, if they were really as advanced as suggested in the articles I linked above. Since the name of Boris Johnson has been brought up (in the context of being one of the Western representatives that told Zelenskiy to drop the deal) I tend to believe that a peace deal failed because at least one side in the negotiations was incompetent fools who should have never made it in power. That the other side is probably the same makes no difference.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#420

Post by [deleted] »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #408
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it seems to be well-established MAD orthodoxy that if your enemy has nukes right at your border, and you don't have nukes right at their border, your deterrence ability is diminished. See: the Cuban Missile Crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis In any case, even in a MAD setting every side will be constantly trying to manoeuver to a position of advantage. That's what military people do when…

Cuba was more of a sovereignty/sphere-of-influence problem than a nuclear-warfare problem. That ship has long since sailed with regard to Russia's borders. Moscow is half-surrounded on the west, as well it should be given its history of combining expansionist behavior with atrocities like communism and the Holodomor. The Russians have had more than ample opportunity to join the civilized world and stop acting like di…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN