Consider this: What if "the precipice" is to have the nation on the brink of civil war? Not a prospect of oppression being sealed upon us, but a prospect of uncontrolled bloodshed and chaos erupting from ourselves. Surely, that is a brink that all sane men would back away from. We may be understanding this in the wrong way.
I spoke of the BRINK of civil war. It would be a precipice: the impending event that no one wants. This would have little to do with the MSM. It would be the accumulation of outrages (i.e., offenses against the public and law & order).
If there isn't the perception of an authentic threat, how can there be a "precipice"? Anything less than authenticity would be fake. (The threat of nuclear war emerging from our meddling in Ukraine is possible, but not tangible. It would be fake up to the point where it occurs.) I see a lot of speculation on this board about what the precipice could be, which only tells me we have no idea what it means.
Internal threats, like collapsed Banks, all accounts frozen, no food in the shops.
Oh, it will be authentic alright. Wont even be surprised if a nuke is launched into the air and gets intercepted at the last moment, and it turns out the warhead was armed and then people get to find out who gave the launch go ahead.
And among the internal threats would be an impending civil war, or breakdown of order. I don't know why you would exclude it. Q did not exclude "impending." I'm not so impressed with the threat of frozen bank accounts and food shortages. We already went through some of that with Covid, and the public went along with it like sheep. Many of them literally chose to die rather than buck the system (failed to do due diligence about the "vaccine"---to coin a phrase, "Injections have consequences").
As for nukes, I would be surprised if we could intercept one (if it was fired at us). I would be more concerned at the threat of us firing at Russia. Literally, picking a fight with a bear, leading to nuke shots we couldn't intercept. (I worked in strategic defense for 20 years and what we have today is like a towel in a San Francisco bathhouse: near-nakedness.)
Ah, so if I keep dragging you back on track, you are capable of making coherant arguments that are conducive of a good debate. Good to know.
But before we get back on track, I am still waiting for this:
I have pointed out this is a policy choice ("a nuclear deterrent policy") and you just don't want to accept it.
I am still waiting for you to show me where you point that out? And if you did not, just fess up that you tend to waste people's time with false claims when pushed into a corner.
Remember the original discussion of radio guidance and the REASON it was discontinued in favor of inertial guidance? I can't help it if you are not paying attention.
Its funny to watch you explode whenever you get cornered. Yeah I remember eactly what the REASON you said they discontinued it in favor of inerial guidance. Here lemme refresh your memory:
Scenario 2 is impossible. We do not provide the ability to disarm after launch for exactly the reason you want to exploit: vulnerability to electronic warfare. (The earliest ICBMs had radio command guidance, but that was replaced in the next generation by inertial guidance.)
Vulnerability to electronic warface is NOT a policy choice.
I have infinite patience. Lets keep going until you fess up.
Here you are pettifogging. The choice was made for strategic reasons. Strategy in military affairs is policy, having nothing to do with technical preference. In other words, we do not now employ radio guidance as a matter of high level (i.e., policy) choice. You can't get around that fact. It has nothing to do with technical feasibility (you have no idea what to do when the booster has burned out, so you have a time window of maybe 120-150 seconds).
We have come to an end, since you have decided to abandon intellectual honesty for narrow parsing of words (what makes "policy" different from "strategy"?). The impossibility arises from a decision NEVER to allow a path into the system once launched. Your idea that it is "possible" is a fantasy. In the case in question, it would have to be a proven fact, not a "possibility."
I worked with people who were on B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, and ALCM programs. You can take it from me and learn something, or turn your back on reality and stay in fantasy land. It seems you have done so.
Consider this: What if "the precipice" is to have the nation on the brink of civil war? Not a prospect of oppression being sealed upon us, but a prospect of uncontrolled bloodshed and chaos erupting from ourselves. Surely, that is a brink that all sane men would back away from. We may be understanding this in the wrong way.
civil war = people fighting against each other, where as
precipice = people seeing the real enemy and what they are doing to us.
So, no, precipice will not be civil war.
u/#q1664
I spoke of the BRINK of civil war. It would be a precipice: the impending event that no one wants. This would have little to do with the MSM. It would be the accumulation of outrages (i.e., offenses against the public and law & order).
If there isn't the perception of an authentic threat, how can there be a "precipice"? Anything less than authenticity would be fake. (The threat of nuclear war emerging from our meddling in Ukraine is possible, but not tangible. It would be fake up to the point where it occurs.) I see a lot of speculation on this board about what the precipice could be, which only tells me we have no idea what it means.
External threats, like an impending nuclear war.
Internal threats, like collapsed Banks, all accounts frozen, no food in the shops.
Oh, it will be authentic alright. Wont even be surprised if a nuke is launched into the air and gets intercepted at the last moment, and it turns out the warhead was armed and then people get to find out who gave the launch go ahead.
And among the internal threats would be an impending civil war, or breakdown of order. I don't know why you would exclude it. Q did not exclude "impending." I'm not so impressed with the threat of frozen bank accounts and food shortages. We already went through some of that with Covid, and the public went along with it like sheep. Many of them literally chose to die rather than buck the system (failed to do due diligence about the "vaccine"---to coin a phrase, "Injections have consequences").
As for nukes, I would be surprised if we could intercept one (if it was fired at us). I would be more concerned at the threat of us firing at Russia. Literally, picking a fight with a bear, leading to nuke shots we couldn't intercept. (I worked in strategic defense for 20 years and what we have today is like a towel in a San Francisco bathhouse: near-nakedness.)
Continued from here since we reached max depth.
Ah, so if I keep dragging you back on track, you are capable of making coherant arguments that are conducive of a good debate. Good to know.
But before we get back on track, I am still waiting for this:
I am still waiting for you to show me where you point that out? And if you did not, just fess up that you tend to waste people's time with false claims when pushed into a corner.
Remember the original discussion of radio guidance and the REASON it was discontinued in favor of inertial guidance? I can't help it if you are not paying attention.
Its funny to watch you explode whenever you get cornered. Yeah I remember eactly what the REASON you said they discontinued it in favor of inerial guidance. Here lemme refresh your memory:
Vulnerability to electronic warface is NOT a policy choice.
I have infinite patience. Lets keep going until you fess up.
Here you are pettifogging. The choice was made for strategic reasons. Strategy in military affairs is policy, having nothing to do with technical preference. In other words, we do not now employ radio guidance as a matter of high level (i.e., policy) choice. You can't get around that fact. It has nothing to do with technical feasibility (you have no idea what to do when the booster has burned out, so you have a time window of maybe 120-150 seconds).
We have come to an end, since you have decided to abandon intellectual honesty for narrow parsing of words (what makes "policy" different from "strategy"?). The impossibility arises from a decision NEVER to allow a path into the system once launched. Your idea that it is "possible" is a fantasy. In the case in question, it would have to be a proven fact, not a "possibility."
I worked with people who were on B-52, Minuteman, SRAM, and ALCM programs. You can take it from me and learn something, or turn your back on reality and stay in fantasy land. It seems you have done so.