Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden For President

[qqq1]

If you were wondering why I sometimes referenced the daisy ad, here is its history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Whoa I want to vote for the guy who's blowing stuff up!

 

[notimp]

Whoa I want to vote for the guy who's blowing stuff up!

According to Chomsky, you are voting for Trump then... (see f.e. h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39902cn5lX8 )

The problem is this: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/


Now some of that is hyperbole - but (aside from climate related conflicts) there is a real big issue with 'small size atomic bombs' the US military currently wants to be able to use, and attribution/just small enough so it wouldnt trigger retaliation... (thereby circumventing the mutual ensured destruction argument that prevented them from being used in the last 70 years) So not the best solution overall.. (Blowing stuff up. )

 

[Foxi4]

According to Chomsky, you are voting for Trump then...

The problem is this: https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/


Now some of that is hyperbole - but there is a real big issue with 'small size atomic bombs' the US military currently wants to be able to use, and attribution... So not the best solution overall.. (Blowing stuff up. )

Hyperbole is an understatement. We weren't "this close to nuclear war" even during the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or any of the many false alarms since. The idea that we're closer now than we were in the middle of the Cold War when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R were sharpening their weapons on grind stones while sitting on powder kegs is just silly.

 

[notimp]

I edited the posting above a little. The issue as far as I've heard (and I'm not current on it) is twofold. First, US military pushes for an update of the nuclear arsenal (stuffs getting old), and while you are updating, why not upgrade? So the race is back on.

Second, people are playing with ideological concepts of 'what if we use small nukes - that are so small, that other nations wouldnt dare to retaliate' - and this is very dangerous logic, because it desensitizes people towards the use of that stuff. And small nuke means, big issues - if one gets lost. (Attribution.)

And on top of that - large regions becoming inhabitable (climate) meaning pre-programed conflicts in the world.

So... I see what they are saying. And for people to notice and listen, they need hyperbole (100 seconds till...). Otherwise they are just a group of scientists no one is accustom to listen to currently.

 

[Foxi4]

I edited the posting above a little. The issue as far as I've heard (and I'm not current on it) is twofold. First, US military pushes for an update of the nuclear asenal (stuffs getting old), and while you are updating, why not upgrade? So the race is back on.

Second, people are playing with ideological concepts of 'what if we use small nukes - that are so small, that other nations wouldnt dare to retaliate' - and this is very dangerous logic, because it desensitizes people towards the use of that stuff. And small nuke means, big issues - if one gets lost. (Attribution.)

And on top of that - large regions becoming inhabitable (climate) meaning pre-programed conflicts in the world.

So... I see what they are saying. And for people to notice and listen, they need hyperbole.

Upgrading the arsenal is a necessary evil, and actually decreases the environmental impact should these weapon *have* to be used - they're less "dirty", lower yeild and rely more on ionising radiation (neutron bomb-style warheads) compared to traditional nukes (fission). Less heat, smaller blast, less residual radiation, orders of magnitude more prompt, instant radiation. That, and the whole concept of M.A.D necessitates having a top of the line arsenal that you *don't* use, it's like a giant scarecrow. The actual reason why the clock was moved has more to do with the idea that climate change and social media somehow influence the likelyhood of nuclear weapons being used in warfare - these factors were previously unaccounted for. It's half-truth, half-scaremongering. To be fair, the clock was always intended to be cautionary, but it's getting a bit over the top. There were literally times when "the keys were in" in the past, we're nowhere near that level of tension.

EDIT: As a quick example, the W76-2 mininukes deployed last year are intended for submarine delivery using Tridents. They're 5 kiloton, the arsenal used previously was *100* kiloton. I'd say that's a big improvement.

 

[notimp]

Upgrading the arsenal is a necessary evil, and actually decreases the environmental impact should these weapon *have* to be used - they're less "dirty", lower yeild and rely more on ionising radiation (neutron bomb-style warheads) compared to traditional nukes (fission).

Tentatively agree. (If so (I dont know, I'm no expert.. )) (edit: And isnt that counter productive towards M.A.D?) )

But the race is back on. (We all wanted nuclear disarmament, remember? )

On M.A.D - issue: US doesnt have cold war russia as a military opponent anymore. US could outspend russia 10:1 at this point - so M.A.D is less and less ensured.

The bigger danger to M.A.D as far as I understand are those smaller nuclear devices that are currently talked about that you could hide all over the place 'just in case' (germany got some of the bigger ones for that purpose from the US (deterrence and 'last stand')). Those smaller ones could get lost - and then turn back up in New York City for example without a possibility of knowing who provoked the attack.

Also US could use those smaller ones in instances where they wouldnt have had a 'military solution' in the past, thereby making military and politics more accustom to using nukes - without any fear of retaliation.

All of that is worst case theoretical stuff. I almost dont know anything about. I'm not at all into this.

But the update of the arsenal is happening currently. (And therefore has some people worried.) Would be my attempt at a summary.

 

[Foxi4]

But the race is back on. (We all wanted nuclear disarmament, remember? )

*Do* we *all* want nuclear disarmament? I don't. I am *much* more comfortable with western powers being armed with highly tactical nukes that reduce civilian losses while maximising their military potential - I do not trust North Korea, Iran or other dictatorships to uphold their agreements and I need something between me and an outdated nuclear warhead inherited from the Soviet Union and "upgraded" by the local village smithy.

I find the arsenal refresh to be a step in the right direction - you want small yield devices to replace the current highly destructive ones which *may or may not work* as they're decades old and it's about time to dismantle them. It's all a matter of perspective though, I can see how you'd prefer if *nobody* had access to these weapons, and you have a point, but realistically it's better that we have some rather than none solely for the purposes of deterrence.

 

[notimp]

As a european, I do. In all scenarios I've ever seen, we are toast. (First.)

 

[Foxi4]

As a european, I do. In all scenarios I've ever seen, we are toast. (First.)

Good point - perhaps Europe should spend more on deterrence as well, both in terms of missile shield technology and the armory itself. Don't get me wrong, those things are *scary as all hell*, but if I'm to choose between mild discomfort in being armed and comfort in being defenseless, I'd rather be armed.

 

[notimp]

Or dont upgrade so much?

 

[Foxi4]

Or dont upgrade so much?

That's what I tried to explain earlier. Those things have a useable shelf life - past a certain point they become unreliable, like all weapons, and dangerous to even store, let alone use. If you're already replacing them to maintain stock levels, you may as well replace them with newer, safer technology. The difference between a nuke from the 70's and a nuke from 2020 is the fact that the first leaves a smoldering crater where a city used to be whereas a modern one creates a small explosion and a *huge* blast of radiation - less fallout, less damage to structures, less long-lasting consequences. It's like the difference between a well-targeted pin prick and a hit with a sledgehammer.

 

[notimp]

I know. Update yes, uprade - maybe no? Lets talk about it.. (Seems to be the approach here (talks).)

Also just for bystanders - for M.A.D its sufficient to have a few submarines around that can trigger nuclear winter. (Humanity as a whole goes bye, bye (+/-)) But people wouldnt be willing to retaliate that way, if the US just nuked a few cities and fallout would be limited. Meaning M.A.D can be threatened, by nukes getting too much better and or smaller.

Which is kind of the problem..

 

[Foxi4]

I know. Update yes, uprade - maybe no? Lets talk about it.. (Seems to be the approach here (talks).)

Also just for bystanders - for M.A.D its sufficient to have a few submarines around that can trigger nuclear winter. (Humanity as a whole goes bye, bye (+/-)) But people wouldnt be willing to retaliate that way, if the US just nuked a few cities and fallout would be limited.

Which is kind of the problem..

To be fair, mininukes are not a new thing - are you familiar with the Davy Crockett? It was a portable nuclear delivery system from the 1960's - it worked very much like a mortar. Admittedly, they were never widely used since the yield was so big that the effective area actually surpassed its range in some scenarios, but the point stands. Regarding modern mininukes, the whole point in them is that, in the event of an emergency, you don't launch one - you launch lots, precisely at the enemy's silos, neutralising them in the process. Even in the nightmare scenario you describe no country launches just "one warhead", they fire from all barrels, so that argument doesn't really work in my mind.

With that said, this has nothing to do with Bernie's endorsement of Biden. I'll happily discuss nuclear proliferation with you though if you want, but we'd need a more appropriate venue. They're definitely scary, the scariest weapon ever developed, but simply by the virtue that they *exist* we must have means to defend ourselves from bad actors who may aim them at us. It's nice to think that we could just get rid of war altogether if we collectively agreed to disband the world's militaries, but I have a feeling it wouldn't go that smoothly - the same concerns scale down to each component of the military, including ICBM's.

 

[Seliph]

Bernie endorsing Biden is the same as someone voting for Biden.

Yes, Biden is a rapist and a shitty candidate, but I would rather endorse him over Trump.

At this point Bernie's choices are either endorse Biden so hopefully Biden gets into office an not someone worse, or Bernie does nothing and Trump goes back into office again.

Yeah, Bernie's backing a garbage candidate but it's better than the alternative, and that's the same case millions of Americans are facing at this very moment.

 

[notimp]

Chomsky explains the Nuclear watchdogs organizations argument here at 17:04 in:


(Doomsday clock. )

You also get a bunch of news articles as reference.

 

[Foxi4]

Chomsky explains the Nuclear watchdogs organizations argument here at 17:04 in:

(Doomsday clock. )

You also get a bunch of news articles as reference.

Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, we owe much of modern linguistic theory to him and his models, but I am yet to hear one political hot take of his that I could even partially agree with. We're both libertarians, but sadly he sits in the socialist libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist camp. I'm afraid that I find his opinions on any matters other than linguistics unpalatable. He's naive in thinking that the INF treaty, the Iranian nuclear deal or any other deal of that nature has ever prevented nuclear war or arms development - it has only prevented mass manufacture, and only manufacture that is out in the open. Nuclear arms have been developed, upgraded and updated ever since they were introduced into the arsenal. Still not relevant to the Sanders thread, but thank you for eleborating on our earlier discussion.

 

[notimp]

I like Chomsky, but also not on all topics. (Very much in the vain of the socialist (now democratic) international movement, solidaridat, ... partly anarchism.) But he looks at topics thoroughly. So its always interesting to get his take on an issue.

I have no doubt, that he describes the diplomatic conflict accurately in this instance.

Also you have a bunch of news articles coming with it in the video you could snowball search on. Thats what made it worthwhile (in my eyes) to post. Not 'just' Chomsky.

edit: If you want to get more precise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

 

[Waygeek]

Chomsky is a brilliant linguist, we owe much of modern linguistic theory to him and his models, but I am yet to hear one political hot take of his that I could even partially agree with. We're both libertarians, but sadly he sits in the socialist libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist camp.

How do you know someone is alt-right?

They'll tell you they're libertarian, 'actually quite left'.

Every time.

(There's a really good reason why you always disagree with Noam Chomsky, one of the smartest moderate people on the earth.)

Imagine being a European and yet talking like a yank. You're not a coffee order. The labels you apply to yourself are hilarious and cringey at the same time.

 

[Foxi4]

How do you know someone is alt-right?

They'll tell you they're libertarian, 'actually quite left'.

Every time.

(There's a really good reason why you always disagree with Noam Chomsky, one of the smartest moderate people on the earth.)

Imagine being a European and yet talking like a yank. You're not a coffee order. The labels you apply to yourself are hilarious and cringey at the same time.

Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist. I didn't call him that, he calls himself that. He considers libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism to be the spiritual successors of the Enlightenment - he says as much in "For Reasons of State" - you would know that if you read it, or if you read at all for that matter. Chomsky is not a moderate, he's as far from a moderate as humanly possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky

https://chomsky.info/state01/

 

[Waygeek]

Noam Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist. I didn't call him that, he calls himself that.

I was talking about the labels you attach to yourself, as you're fully, fully aware.