Back in 2002, I wrote (regarding the US government’s cybersecurity efforts), “adding money to a disaster doesn’t necessarily help get it done, most of the time you just wind up with bigger, more expensive disasters.”
This is interesting stuff. For one thing, it does a good job of showing the extreme lengths that you must go to to obtain even tiny amounts of plutonium.
Controversy swirls around Trump’s declaration that US troops will leave Syria, where they have been sitting as a buffer between Turkish troops and Kurdish irregulars. [stderr]
I’m going to engage in some mild “whatabout”ism regarding our (my?) reaction to the fire in Paris.
I’ve set a reminder in my calendar and I’ll do the googling and analysis so you don’t have to. Assuming we all survive, that is.
The US is going to pull out of the Reagan/Gorbachev agreements restricting nuclear weapons. The story is that it’s because the Russians are cheating.
This probably isn’t a very effective survival system for a nuclear attack.
Offensive strategies are good if (and only if) you have an identifiable, small, number of foes that you can dominate.
For the last decade, the US military has been hinting that it would like to be able to be more aggressive in cyberspace.
It’s unfashionable to make moral equivocations between 9/11 and what the US and its allies have done in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. It was a cruel and malicious act of terrorism, without a doubt, and triggered an amazingly violent – indiscriminately violent – response from the US. The US regime’s reaction to 9/11 was one of those “If A wrongs me, I am going to feel justified in wronging B and C in return.” Except, of course, ‘retaliation’ doesn’t apply when you’re claiming revenge on the wrong target. As the US did, knowingly and deliberately.