Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

[kcran567]

Answer: Yes. The Chinese window of opportunity to make big power moves closes every day.

How is that? If Russia decide to fight at all costs over Ukraine no matter what NATO and the US does or says, then we have an escalating situation. If there is any kind of war involving Russia, NATO, and the US then wouldn't that be a great time to go ahead and grab Taiwan? Would the USA be able to manage a hat trick of ISIS/ISIL, Syria and the Middle East, Russia, and a war with China over Taiwan and other disputed areas?
It seems like Russia is catalyst that could start the whole thing off.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It's fair to worry about Russia and China getting all grabby at the same time. But ISIS? Who cares. Worst case, they cheese off the Israelies who introduce them to modern concepts of nuclear bombardment. More likely, Egypt and Arabia get going, and regional chaos results... but really, who would care enough to want to send in troops?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-04/major-escalation-russian-general-demands-preemptive-nuclear-strike-doctrine-against-

http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/Stockpile-Report-082814.pdf

Why we need, IMHO, renewal of the entire Triad and to rebuild the nuclear enterprise industrial base.

 

[kcran567]

What are the odds that the US has something even worse than nuclear weapons in its arsenal? Something that would make nukes obsolete? Those giant superconducting colliders, FERMI Labs, CERN Hadron, and other huge accelerators are incredibly expensive for just mundane scientific research. Are they making antimatter in amounts large enough to weaponize? What other arsenals might the US have to replace old nukes?

 

[perttime]

I doubt Ukrainians and us others who live within an easy drive from Russia's borders are particularly worried about antimatter at the moment.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/04/putins_nuclear_option_russia_weapons?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Flashpoints&utm_campaign=2014_FlashPoints%209%2F4%2F14%20SO

 

[Orionblamblam]

Are they making antimatter in amounts large enough to weaponize?

No, and nobody will until such time as self-replicating robots are sent out into deep space with instructions to convert entire asteroids into raw materials and assemble them into particle accelerators with diameters measuring tens of thousands of kilometers. These accelerators would have to be either located *real* close to the sun, or there would need to be solar power satellites located *real* close to the sun that convert their *vast* power into lasers which are then beamed out to the accelerators. Then, and only then, when labor, materials and energy are essentially free, will manufacturing of antimatter in industrially meaningful quantities even be possible. Because if you want a megaton-yield worth of antimatter, you need to pout many times that much energy into the production, since the production process is fabulously inefficient.


[quote[What other arsenals might the US have to replace old nukes?


Armies of lawyers and regulators. They are a plague upon America; might as well try to figure out how to weaponize 'em as biological weapons.

 

[AeroFranz]

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
[/size]Dick The Butcher, Henry VI, part 2

 

[TomS]

Context counts ... The guy who wanted to kill the lawyers was an all-around villain.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Context counts ... The guy who wanted to kill the lawyers was an all-around villain.

And who makes more use of lawyers than villains?

 

[AeroFranz]

Context counts ... The guy who wanted to kill the lawyers was an all-around villain.

That's what a lawyer would say! ;D The irony is that if you actually read the context of the play (and other plays as well), it becomes even clearer that Shakespeare had a pretty poor opinion of lawyers. Pretty good explanation here:
http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html


Now, i'm positive that the lawyer profession is necessary, and that not all lawyers are ambulance chasers. A lot fight battles for the under-represented, far from the limelight. That being said, you'd be hard pressed to say that most lawyers in the US are on the side of what can be only vaguely defined as "a path that makes the world a better place". There are more lawyers in the US per capita than anywhere else in the world. It'd hard to believe there are so many until you realize they have been successful in creating for themselves a bloated legal ecosystem that sustains their numbers. For this (admittedly) naive engineer, they are overhead at best, and an obstacle at worst!

 

[Orionblamblam]

There are more lawyers in the US per capita than anywhere else in the world.

See, what the US needs is common-sense lawyer control laws. Now, nobody wants to *ban* lawyers, but do we really need high-capacity fully automatic assault lawyers? I say no. We should limit them to no more than ten-lawsuit clips. Nobody needs to hire more than one lawyer a month, and with a fifteen-day waiting period. The notion that "corporations are people" is of course a legal fiction, and corporations *aren't* actually people, and thus the Constitution doesn't apply to them... thus corporations have no right to keep and bear lawyers. Anyone who procures a lawyer should have to pass a background check, get a license and be put on a national registry, with their names and addresses published in the local media. It should be illegal to transport a lawyer across state lines. Any lawyer in a car should be separated from his phone and briefcase and stored in a locked case during transport. We should institute Smart Lawyer technologies as soon as possible, where the lawyers have electronic controls implanted in them that prevent them from functioning unless under the direct control of their client. Concealed carry of lawyers in public spaces should be banned; all lawyers should have to carry signs making clear who and what they are. Businesses that don't want lawyers on their premises should be able to put up a "no lawyers allowed" sign in the front window. Anyone caught with a lawyer who doesn't leave when asked is subject to arrest for trespassing. And when not in use, all lawyers should be locked in small metal safes so that children do not have access to them.

Use of lawyers to aid the commission of crimes should bump up the penalties for said crimes. Any lawyers used by criminals should be confiscated and destroyed.

Since we are no longer living in the same world as the Founding Fathers, who might've needed lawyers to hold off bears, savage Indian attacks or the British Crown, the existence of civilian lawyers can and probably should be questioned. A case can be made that the only ones who should have lawyers are the government; employ them at the standard federal minimum wage, and you'll see lawyers disappear from our streets. The long national nightmare will finally be over.

 

[gtg947h]

Now, i'm positive that the lawyer profession is necessary, and that not all lawyers are ambulance chasers. A lot fight battles for the under-represented, far from the limelight. That being said, you'd be hard pressed to say that most lawyers in the US are on the side of what can be only vaguely defined as "a path that makes the world a better place".

I've heard it put that the value of defense attorneys isn't in getting their clients off the hook. Their job is to keep the government honest and make sure it follows the rules, even in the nastiest of cases. It may stick in our craw when a lawyer gets a sleazebag defendant off the hook on some technicality, but we'll really appreciate the imposed discipline later should the eye of the prosecution turn on us...

 

[marauder2048]

It's interesting to note that for much of US history lawyers were not permitted to advertise their services.

 

[bobbymike]

Now, i'm positive that the lawyer profession is necessary, and that not all lawyers are ambulance chasers. A lot fight battles for the under-represented, far from the limelight. That being said, you'd be hard pressed to say that most lawyers in the US are on the side of what can be only vaguely defined as "a path that makes the world a better place".

I've heard it put that the value of defense attorneys isn't in getting their clients off the hook. Their job is to keep the government honest and make sure it follows the rules, even in the nastiest of cases. It may stick in our craw when a lawyer gets a sleazebag defendant off the hook on some technicality, but we'll really appreciate the imposed discipline later should the eye of the prosecution turn on us...

Like Danny DeVito said in the movie "Other Peoples Money" Lawyers are like nuclear weapons you need them but once you start using them it f**ks everything up.

 

[bobbymike]

Are they making antimatter in amounts large enough to weaponize?

No, and nobody will until such time as self-replicating robots are sent out into deep space with instructions to convert entire asteroids into raw materials and assemble them into particle accelerators with diameters measuring tens of thousands of kilometers. These accelerators would have to be either located *real* close to the sun, or there would need to be solar power satellites located *real* close to the sun that convert their *vast* power into lasers which are then beamed out to the accelerators. Then, and only then, when labor, materials and energy are essentially free, will manufacturing of antimatter in industrially meaningful quantities even be possible. Because if you want a megaton-yield worth of antimatter, you need to pout many times that much energy into the production, since the production process is fabulously inefficient.


[quote[What other arsenals might the US have to replace old nukes?


Armies of lawyers and regulators. They are a plague upon America; might as well try to figure out how to weaponize 'em as biological weapons.

Or maybe just destroy the Universe with a big enough particle accelerator;

http://www.caintv.com/quick-fyi-from-stephen-hawking