Posted On: Monday - December 20th 2021 3:50PM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity Music History World Political Stupidity
Anyone younger than 35 y/o today would not know anything of this fairly recent history from any personal experience or following of what were current events. That was a long period of time, enough for most of us to think it was the way it would always be, that there was a Cold War with a continuous threat of nuclear annihilation between the two principals, the USA and the USSR. From 1949, when the Soviets successfully test-blew their first atomic bomb, stolen from the Americans, and only 4 years after the American's first success, until 1989, that was 40 years even of this threat.
From barely having enough fissionable material to come up with enough bombs to have a small chance using long-range bombers, to having so many thermonuclear (fusion) warheads that they almost didn't know what to do with them, the situation changed rapidly. Yet, the constant was that the Americans felt the need to have enough of a threat to prevent the Soviets from thinking about starting nuclear war, and, per the left, vice versa*.
From the threat of nuclear attack via strategic ultra-long-range bombers, to the creation of ICBMs, to the establishment of the "nuclear triad" (which included the former plus submarine-launched nuclear missiles), along with the invention of MIRVs (Multiple Independent Rentry Vehicles), i.e. a dozen warheads sent separately off of one missile, things escalated rapidly. It was a hell of a time to be a mechanical engineer!
With this escalation, a new strategy of both sides solidified. This was called Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea was to have enough destructive power** to wipe out enough of the enemy's civilization, such that the enemy would not think of striking first and "winning" a nuclear war per any meaning of "winning". One way to win a nuclear war could have been to strike the enemy's nukes out of commission before they got into the air and then launch at its cities. This resulted in the strategy of "hardening" one's missile silos in huge amounts of concrete and earth. Thereafter, one needed even more megatonnage to blow up said ICBMs, with that being perhaps the primary game and blowing up of cities being a no-brainer afterthought(?!)
The subs were another story, hence the high-stakes game of better silencing and better detection of underwater sounds. Then, there were still the strategic bombers, the American BUFFs (8-engined B-52s) and the Russian Bears (Tupolev-95s), and the detection equipment such as the DEW (Distant Early Warning) line in the Great White North.
As for M.A.D., it may have been made fun of by the left, but was not "MAD!" in the British sense, as in crazy. Nobody with any sense wanted this thing to start. (The question was, "did everyone in power have enough sense?")
Well, that was fun, but I haven't gotten to my point of this post yet!
Peak Stupidity gets behind on CURRENT "current events", as we used to call what's now just constant stupidity. The topic today is month old news now and not something I am particularly interested in. As a Libertarian isolationist, I don't feel the need to give a rat's ass what's up with the Russia and the Ukraine, or Belarus and central/western Europe. However, I am an avid VDare reader, and they sometimes cover some topics that aren't America-related but are examples for us on what to do or (usually, lately) what NOT to do.
(Or perhaps, these should be called Multiple Iimmigration Re-entry Vagrants.)
This story is amusing too, as another "hoisted on one's own petard" deal. It seems that a flap between Belarus and Poland and the EU, has resulted in Belarus using immigration as weaponry. Steve Sailer had two posts excerpting the NY Times. It's almost as if Mr. Sailer enjoys reading the Grey Hag, as he snarks NYT: "Risk For Leader Of Belarus: Migrants He Lured May Want To Stay" and NYT: E.U., Accept Your Punishment By Belarus. Then, the excellent reporter Washington Watcher II (yes, there was a "I") had much more of this story in Immigration Is A Weapon, EU Says. Democrats Using It Against The Historic American Nation.
This is rich. We've been told for 30 years that "Diversity is Strength". Immigration is supposed to be so good, the more the better. Why DOES the rest of Europe see Belarus' actions as a threat? It's not like they send over immigrants who destroy your own immigrants first and then blow up your cities, right? Wait ...
If you see something as a weapon to be used against you, then you cannot at the same time believe you need more of it. That's causing massive headaches in the brains of the left in Europe now.
If we admit that ballistic immigration, strategic immigration bombing, and, in general, the triad of land-based, sea-based, and airborne immigration is bad, is it not time to look into how this was handled during those 4 decades of the Cold War?
Firstly, we don't need unilateral disarmament! It was a stupid idea as advised by the American ctrl-left during the Cold War (we were asked "if the Russians love their children too - yeah, no shit, Sting, just sing and play the bass), and it'd be a stupid idea now. "You send in 100,000 Iraqis, we''ll launch an equal megatonnage of Haitians." That's the way it ought to go.
Should we institute a new SALT treaty, to be hashed out at the UN? That would be Strategic Arrival Limitation Talks. Let's do more than talk. Let's cut down the numbers!
"No Pukes!"
"Arms are for cuffing to the border fence!"
"Berzerkely is a Refugee Free Zone."
... bumper stickers should be issued. OK, I got that last bit from a song (Union Man) on the same Neil Young album as a song Peak Stupidity featured years ago*** that mentions "the old DEW line".
For today, we have a not quite as old Rush song, from their Grace under Pressure somewhat-of-a-concept album from 1984. This one, Distant Early Warning was written in the heyday of music videos, and I'll always remember the video with the song. (Shoot, I didn't even get to cruise missiles in that very short MAD discussion!)
* This point hinges on the question of whether the Soviets really believed that the (at that time) reasonably under-control US Gov't would have wanted to initiate war against the core of Communism. Mostly, the American policy was one of "containment", keeping it from spreading further. On the other side, it's more credible that the Soviet (and Red Chinese, perhaps) government, under zero control by its population, would have taken out the West via nukes if it could have.
** Regarding the history of nuclear weapons in the Cold War, the destructive power of the weaponry was put in units of "Megatonnage". It's not a unit of power, though, but of energy, and is not about the mass of the weapons. One Megaton is the amount of energy equivalent to the exploding of a million tons of TNT. Yes, there was plenty to blow up the man-made works of the world!
*** See Oh, this country sure looks good to me... but these fences are coming apart.
Comments:
The Alarmist
Wednesday - December 22nd 2021 6:55AM MST
PS
No, I wasn’t a BUFF-Driver. I’d tell you what I flew, but then I’d have to kill you ... just kidding ... but it would make it very easy for the wrong people to identify me.
I was alluding to Designated Survivor, where Kiefer, as Sec of Ed, I believe, ended up as POTUS.
No, I wasn’t a BUFF-Driver. I’d tell you what I flew, but then I’d have to kill you ... just kidding ... but it would make it very easy for the wrong people to identify me.
I was alluding to Designated Survivor, where Kiefer, as Sec of Ed, I believe, ended up as POTUS.
Moderator
Tuesday - December 21st 2021 7:17PM MST
PS: Alarmist, if I could have, I would have consulted with you first on some of the details. So that big missile is a "couner-value" type. Thanks. Thank you also for regaling us with those SAC base alert stories. If you can say, did you fly those BUFFs?
I haven't seen them all, so what was the movie in which Kiefer Sutherland became President due to a nuclear strike?
I haven't seen them all, so what was the movie in which Kiefer Sutherland became President due to a nuclear strike?
The Alarmist
Tuesday - December 21st 2021 2:35PM MST
PS
I believe that’s a 9-megaton W-53 in a Mark 6 RV atop a Titan II. Definitely would have been a city-killer (a so-called Counter-value strategy), but would have been wasted on a single opposing missile (a so-called Counter-force strategy). In the early days of Cold War 1.0, Counter-value (as in counter the values the adversaries placed on their country and people) targeting was the ultimate deterrent by default owing to the still small number of weapons and delivery systems available (I’m not ignoring the bombers ... a few of them might get through to reliably destroy opposing forces).
Things got much more interesting when we started MIRVing, and could start targeting opposing force weapons deliver systems more individually and thus claim some semblence of moral high-ground. The beauty of MIRVs was the ability to use two or more weapons from different launch vehicles to ensure more reliability of hitting the target.
It was, of course a great game of cat and mouse to fight for a few more minutes or a greater probability of survival. SLBMs turn a 23 minute response window into 4 minutes for the folks in DC and only a few more for the inland forces in CONUS, so various systems were put in place to ensure someone survived as the National Command Authority, which is why Kiefer Surherland ended up being POTUS. Same story for the Sovs.
You haven’t really lived until an unexpected Klaxon blows (you usually knew when a practice alert-launch (takeoff) was planned so that nobody got hurt), and you find yourself running a couple hundred yards to your bird which your crew chief has already started so you can do a war emergency take-off, because when it seems like the balloon is really going up, certain peacetime niceties go out the window. Have you ever seen a pickup truck blown through a blast-fence? Yeah, guys who thought it was real might drive up to the ramp if they entered the flightline away from the alert facility in the alert trucks. Funnier than that is a crew-dog at the club stuffing a steak into his flight suit because it might be his last decent meal ... or last meal altogether.
The problem with Counter-force targeting with tens of thousands of weapons is that those not actually delivering those weapons start to believe they can actually win if they have an edge, and they start to talk about acceptable losses among the civilian population. We used to jokingly call FEMA FEEBLE in a nod to the Mr. Neutron sketch by Monty Python.
In that respect, IMO, Counter-value targetting was more humane, because it forced a modicum of restraint on the national leadership; but we had different leaders back then... ones who wanted the nation and most of its people to survive.
I believe that’s a 9-megaton W-53 in a Mark 6 RV atop a Titan II. Definitely would have been a city-killer (a so-called Counter-value strategy), but would have been wasted on a single opposing missile (a so-called Counter-force strategy). In the early days of Cold War 1.0, Counter-value (as in counter the values the adversaries placed on their country and people) targeting was the ultimate deterrent by default owing to the still small number of weapons and delivery systems available (I’m not ignoring the bombers ... a few of them might get through to reliably destroy opposing forces).
Things got much more interesting when we started MIRVing, and could start targeting opposing force weapons deliver systems more individually and thus claim some semblence of moral high-ground. The beauty of MIRVs was the ability to use two or more weapons from different launch vehicles to ensure more reliability of hitting the target.
It was, of course a great game of cat and mouse to fight for a few more minutes or a greater probability of survival. SLBMs turn a 23 minute response window into 4 minutes for the folks in DC and only a few more for the inland forces in CONUS, so various systems were put in place to ensure someone survived as the National Command Authority, which is why Kiefer Surherland ended up being POTUS. Same story for the Sovs.
You haven’t really lived until an unexpected Klaxon blows (you usually knew when a practice alert-launch (takeoff) was planned so that nobody got hurt), and you find yourself running a couple hundred yards to your bird which your crew chief has already started so you can do a war emergency take-off, because when it seems like the balloon is really going up, certain peacetime niceties go out the window. Have you ever seen a pickup truck blown through a blast-fence? Yeah, guys who thought it was real might drive up to the ramp if they entered the flightline away from the alert facility in the alert trucks. Funnier than that is a crew-dog at the club stuffing a steak into his flight suit because it might be his last decent meal ... or last meal altogether.
The problem with Counter-force targeting with tens of thousands of weapons is that those not actually delivering those weapons start to believe they can actually win if they have an edge, and they start to talk about acceptable losses among the civilian population. We used to jokingly call FEMA FEEBLE in a nod to the Mr. Neutron sketch by Monty Python.
In that respect, IMO, Counter-value targetting was more humane, because it forced a modicum of restraint on the national leadership; but we had different leaders back then... ones who wanted the nation and most of its people to survive.
Moderator
Monday - December 20th 2021 11:33PM MST
PS: Mr. Hail, the left would always make fun of any of this talk about "winning a nuclear war", and I guess most people understood that there was likely no such thing as winning if it came down to all-out use of all the weaponry between the 2 superpowers. However, what was the other option?
I do think there were 2 groups who wanted to make the military might of the USSR and East Bloc look even more menacing than it was. That would be the hard left, who wanted to show that "Hey, Mighty Communism works!" and those in the MIC on the right who wanted an excuse for more, more, more spending and more, more, more weapons "systems".
I've seen "Dr. Strangelove" and "Failsafe", etc. only long, long after their time, about 5 years ago, as DVD rentals from the library. Did many people even up through 1987 think that the world would ever escape from that Cold War political environment?
I do think there were 2 groups who wanted to make the military might of the USSR and East Bloc look even more menacing than it was. That would be the hard left, who wanted to show that "Hey, Mighty Communism works!" and those in the MIC on the right who wanted an excuse for more, more, more spending and more, more, more weapons "systems".
I've seen "Dr. Strangelove" and "Failsafe", etc. only long, long after their time, about 5 years ago, as DVD rentals from the library. Did many people even up through 1987 think that the world would ever escape from that Cold War political environment?
Robert
Monday - December 20th 2021 6:56PM MST
PS: Mr. Hail,
About twenty years ago, I had a (younger) friend who had never heard of Doctor Strangelove. I took him to see it at the local college movie place, and only told him it was about nuclear war and the end of the world.
It took him more than half way through before he realized it was a comedy, instead of a very bad movie.
Really a great movie, and my second favorite of Kubrik's after Barry Lyndon.
About twenty years ago, I had a (younger) friend who had never heard of Doctor Strangelove. I took him to see it at the local college movie place, and only told him it was about nuclear war and the end of the world.
It took him more than half way through before he realized it was a comedy, instead of a very bad movie.
Really a great movie, and my second favorite of Kubrik's after Barry Lyndon.
Hail
Monday - December 20th 2021 6:18PM MST
PS
"Regarding the history of nuclear weapons in the Cold War, the destructive power of the weaponry was put in units of 'Megatonnage'..."
This reminds me of how the influential think tank RAND casually and breezily used the crazy unit of measurement which they called "mega-deaths" in the nuclear war-gaming scenarios.
(The horrific and borderline-absurdist activity of "gaming out" hypothetical nuclear-weapons exchanges in military-strategic terms was easy-pickings to satirize in Doctor Strangelove.)
"Regarding the history of nuclear weapons in the Cold War, the destructive power of the weaponry was put in units of 'Megatonnage'..."
This reminds me of how the influential think tank RAND casually and breezily used the crazy unit of measurement which they called "mega-deaths" in the nuclear war-gaming scenarios.
(The horrific and borderline-absurdist activity of "gaming out" hypothetical nuclear-weapons exchanges in military-strategic terms was easy-pickings to satirize in Doctor Strangelove.)
Hail
Monday - December 20th 2021 6:06PM MST
PS
Thoughts on nuclear war --- (that topic of such great interest in the middle-late decades of the previous century, viewed from this the third and definitely-worst-so-far decade of the present century; and a shabby decade it's been, to date, these 2020s...a time of mandatory, rolling Flu Virus Panics featuring crazy, demagogic responses from above, an half the people in and out of religious-like trance over the whole thing, a terrible decade so far of the biggest reverses for civil liberties and civic life in living memory, and more):
It's funny to me to imagine how Western regimes would respond to actual nuclear attack. I mean, in light of the ritual civilizational humiliation that the Corona-Panic phenomenon has been. They treated a "flu-like" virus like nuclear war, so how would they treat nuclear war?
How, exactly, could the response be more extreme than what they pulled in March--April 2020 with the Corona Terror-Panic?
This thought occurred to me even in March 2020 (the blackest month IMO of this century so far). They're doing THIS over a flu-like virus? Of the likes that the 75-year-olds among us today have lived through around ten of fifteen times without particularly noticing anything unusual?
If they reacted to a bad flu wave as it were nuclear war, I don't see what they could do in actual nuclear war. I'm trying to think about it, to game it out. I think response to actual limited-scale nuclear war might even be LESS than what the Corona debacle has been.
Thoughts on nuclear war --- (that topic of such great interest in the middle-late decades of the previous century, viewed from this the third and definitely-worst-so-far decade of the present century; and a shabby decade it's been, to date, these 2020s...a time of mandatory, rolling Flu Virus Panics featuring crazy, demagogic responses from above, an half the people in and out of religious-like trance over the whole thing, a terrible decade so far of the biggest reverses for civil liberties and civic life in living memory, and more):
It's funny to me to imagine how Western regimes would respond to actual nuclear attack. I mean, in light of the ritual civilizational humiliation that the Corona-Panic phenomenon has been. They treated a "flu-like" virus like nuclear war, so how would they treat nuclear war?
How, exactly, could the response be more extreme than what they pulled in March--April 2020 with the Corona Terror-Panic?
This thought occurred to me even in March 2020 (the blackest month IMO of this century so far). They're doing THIS over a flu-like virus? Of the likes that the 75-year-olds among us today have lived through around ten of fifteen times without particularly noticing anything unusual?
If they reacted to a bad flu wave as it were nuclear war, I don't see what they could do in actual nuclear war. I'm trying to think about it, to game it out. I think response to actual limited-scale nuclear war might even be LESS than what the Corona debacle has been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zE4MKIXxL0
☮