- cross-posted to:
- photography@fedia.io
- cross-posted to:
- photography@fedia.io
AN/FPS-24 Radar Tower, Mt. Umunhum, Los Gatos, CA, 2024.
Several additional pixels at https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/53796724938
#photography
AN/FPS-24 Radar Tower, Mt. Umunhum, Los Gatos, CA, 2024.
Several additional pixels at https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/53796724938
#photography
@60sRefugee @nyrath @simplenomad
I find it rather disturbing that any time one mentions that a globally apocalyptic nuclear arms race is perhaps a bad thing, someone always feels the need to jump in and defend it.
@mattblaze@federate.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org The arms race was scary but as it turned out wasn’t apocalyptic. The WW2 vets who ran the world until about 1990 weren’t stupid or insane; they did everything they could to avoid nuclear war OTHER than unilateral surrender. And no, mutual disarmament was never realistic given the irreconcilable differences between the two sides.
@mattblaze@federate.social Yikes, really? I thought it bad enough when they were telling you to CW your monochromatic images. I think it’s terrifying that someone with a very thin skin and no impulse control now sits on the largest pile of nuclear arms in the world. @60sRefugee@spacey.space @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org
@CStamp @60sRefugee @nyrath @simplenomad Yes. That’s the gift left to us by those best and brightest WW II vets who ran the world for 30+ years worshipping the likes of Herman Kahn and his ilk. A giant pile of civilization-ending weapons contolled by two opposing sociopaths. Thanks a lot.
@CStamp@mastodon.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org The thing about the escalation game is that every individual move is rational, but the game itself is completely insane. And we spend almost all our effort (especially in the 50’s and 60’s) strategizing each next move instead of finding an exit.
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org 1/2: They tried to find an exit; but none logically existed. Ban nuclear weapons? Then we’re back to June 1945, when total strategic (conventional) war complete with burning down cities prompted the development of nukes in the first place. International control? The USA proposed it, the Soviet Union vetoed it (while secretly working to develop their own nukes). Mutual disarmament? The first side to cheat wins.
@60sRefugee@spacey.space @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org Yeah, Nuclear fetishists love to declare that there’s no alternative, simply nothing we can do. Much like the way there’s no solution to health care or gun violence.
@mattblaze@federate.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org One hope is that the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union might not work today, but the Russian rockets are still mostly reliable. A few leaks from the International Space Station, but not many serious malfunctions.
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org If you’re in favor of unilateral surrender to others who DON’T give up their nukes, please say so.
@60sRefugee @CStamp @nyrath @simplenomad No. But unlike you, apparently, I think the current situation is unacceptably dangerous and inherently unstable, and that working to find ways to dismantle a system in which the entire world can be blown up in less than the time it takes to get a pizza delivered should be considered an urgent international priority.
This is actually a pretty mainstream view. In fact, while the world is still quite dangerous, various treaties have made it safer.
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org Find “ways”. People have tried for 75 years. And no it wasn’t because people were evil, insane warmongers that it hasn’t happened. People were scared shitless about the possibility of nuclear war practically from the day after the Japanese bombings.
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org 2/2: the problem ultimately is, what do you do about nuclear weapons in a world in which nation-states still fight wars?
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org
Students in my class play a simple game called the escalation game which I started a couple of years back after physicist Max Tegmark claimed there was a 1/6 chance of a nuclear war starting over Ukraine.
The first time we played we had 1/7 teams end in nuclear war. This year half of the teams ended with a nuclear war.
It’s more about the competitive nature of the players than a real estimate of any probability of course.
It was very convenient that the first year my boss was in the class and I was being evaluated for my teaching abilities and we got 1/7 vs. Tegmark’s 1/6. Phew!
See Ellsberg’s book The Doomsday Machine.
PS Most estimates of the annual probability are lower, generally below 1% but of course not zero.
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org Have you ever read “Wizards of Armageddon”? The “logic" behind some of the decisions was seriously insane and often driven by quite narrow interests. For example: initially, the (US) Navy’s submarine-launched missiles were inaccurate, so they advocated a city-destroying strategy, since that was all they could hit. The Air Force denounced that as immoral, not because they felt that way but because they could come close to military targets. Later, the Navy had more accurate missiles, so they preferred a counterforce strategy. But then the targets, e.g., missile silos, were hardened and warheads were very plentiful, so attacking cities with multiple missiles or bombers was preferred by the Air Force.
@mattblaze@federate.social @CStamp@mastodon.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @nyrath@spacey.space Of course we’ve mainly been discussing USA and Russia in this thread. It is very possible that someone else could start something that simply “gets out of hand” and pulls others into things. Or USA with the right (e.g. wrong) leadership decides to play Team America: World Police to “fix the problem”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
@mattblaze@federate.social @60sRefugee@spacey.space @nyrath@spacey.space @simplenomad@rigor-mortis.nmrc.org I don’t think I can defend the arms race itself. I can, though, point out that developing an alternative means not just one that’s resistant to Putin or Kim Jong Un, but one that’s resistant to Kim Yo Jong (who worries me much more than her brother does).