Basic research has always been essential to our understanding of our world. We don’t do it for immediate practicability in our lives but for understanding of ourselves. Despite much comes from War research, that is not why it should be done.
When the Founders jigsawed our country together they wanted to make sure we wouldn’t become ruled by the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower, despite his deep military streak, warned us of this in his outgoing address as well. After 1 year in office it’s clear we have a President with the mindset of a child who grew up in the 50’s and never left. For example: (these are pulled from my head Sat. morning so they may be a tad off.
If we have nukes, shouldn’t we use them?
We need to have the best military ever.
Putin’s a leader. He gets things done.
I like waterboarding. I think we should do ore of it.
We should arm teachers who have an adeptness with guns. (Is there an NRA gene somewhere?)
So. We have a president who has placed an undercover agent, Haspel, in charge of CIA.
Tillerson has been replaced by Pompeo as Sec of State.
John Kelly is COS.
Mattis is Defense.
Why is it we always seem to place hard line right wing military personnel in places at the top of the power chain? Esp with a prez like Trumpty?
We May live in a world of danger, much of it created by our policies, but wouldn’t it e better to have a Dept of Peace somewhere, anywhere that would take these issues on from a different perspective? We certainly have the resources to manage 2 depts at once I think. Ans there is no dearth of thinking about Peace.
Teddy Roosevelt, a man who few would accuse of being “soft and unmasculine” famously said, “Walk softly and carry a big stick”. He understood an axiom our beautiful president does not: Tender your views with consideration and understanding of others, yet always know you have a stick on your side. (His stick must be bigger than Trump’s).
Despite the fact Americans have always declared their anti-militarism except as to our defense, Trump wants to use our military and money to show his toughness, to have the world at large know he is to be bowed to.
This parade would place us squarely with militaristic governments, the same governments and regimes we claim to harbor as enemies. We would join the world of Militaristic boasting, huffing and puffing, setting out the challenge to the world.
We do not NEED, nor do we WANT a president who has to be more than anybody or thing. Who sees his position as giving him the right to play soldier with our military. And this from a man who never served or fought for his right to do so.
Whoops. Excuse me while I get the shovel.
For Wikipedia info: Low Yield Nukes
The U.S. plan to deploy new low-yield nuclear weapons is aimed at convincing Russia to respect existing agreements on limiting the weapons, Secretary of Defense Mattis says…
There is no precise definition of the “tactical” category, neither considering range nor yield of the nuclear weapon. The yield of tactical nuclear weapons is generally lower than that of strategic nuclear weapons, but larger ones are still very powerful, and some variable-yield warheads serve in both roles, for example the W89 200 kiloton warhead armed both the tactical Sea Lance anti-submarine rocket propelled depth charge and the strategic bomber launched SRAM II stand off missile. Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Specifically on the Korean peninsula with a nuclear armed North Korea facing off against a NPT compliant South Korea there have been calls to request a return of US owned and operated short range low yield nuclear weapons, nomenclatured as tactical by the US military, to provide a local strategic deterrent to the North’s growing domestically produced nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.
Some tactical nuclear weapons have specific features meant to enhance their battlefield characteristics, such as variable yield which allow their explosive power to be varied over a wide range for different situations, or enhanced radiation weapons (the so-called “neutron bombs“) which are meant to maximize ionizing radiation exposure while minimizing blast effects.
Here’s a map showing various nuked sites and the carnage which would result if they were hit.
Now that we have Trump on the button, I thought these maps would be useful for those interested.
What’s really important is the military is looking to equip cruise missiles with low yield warheads. This keeps us within Teaty guidelines, but also creates the illusion these nukes would be survivable. That is until the low radiation levels start causing an increase in cancers in the next few years.
Here’s a nifty little interactive map(s) showing the effects of a nuclear strike bsed on location, yield and other effects.
Here’s another map showing missiles and their capabilities.