+- Deny Ignorance (https://denyignorance.com)
+-- Forum: Current Events (https://denyignorance.com/Forum-Current-Events)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://denyignorance.com/Forum-Current-Events--20)
+--- Thread: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? (/Thread-US-National-Security-Threat-Is-this-about-one-thing-or-the-other--372)
RE: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? - Byrd - 02-16-2024
(02-16-2024, 11:51 AM)Maxmars Wrote: For everyone who is following the story behind this thread, a bit of reporting from ARS Technica.
Muchas gracias!
RE: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? - Maxmars - 02-16-2024
(02-16-2024, 12:58 PM)Byrd Wrote: Muchas gracias!
De nada, mi compadre.
I am still keeping my eyes open for some indication that the over-the-top alarm was actually merited outside the "appearances" standard. Since the "sources and methods" here are not very telling, perhaps there is more to the story...
What am I saying? ... Of course, there is more to the story...
RE: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? - putnam6 - 02-16-2024
Such a big damn deal was made about nothing TPTB didn't know about previously.
Can't imagine why Turner would go over the top with his declarations.
It felt misdirected
RE: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? - Maxmars - 02-16-2024
(02-16-2024, 03:34 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Such a big damn deal was made about nothing TPTB didn't know about previously.
Can't imagine why Turner would go over the top with his declarations.
It felt misdirected
I kind of feel the same way. It's sort of like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place where there is no fire. But that's the doctrine of "appearances" for you.
Our own people admit to the practice as if it were "expected." And it is..., if you are a liar.
RE: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? - Maxmars - 02-18-2024
One more follow-up in regard to the "threat" that spurred this thread.Russia’s space weapon: Is it nuclear and does it pose a threat?Which highlight the 'premise' assertion for the alarm (namely "serious national security threat")
The article seems to acknowledge thew meaning of the word "nuclear" in this context is not defined...
... Reports from ABC News and The New York Times use the term “nuclear weapon”, which could mean a weapon capable of producing an explosion involving nuclear fission or fusion reactions. ...
... The Russian space weapon may simply use nuclear power to provide energy for its onboard systems. PBS News Hour cited US officials describing the Russian weapon as “possibly nuclear-powered”.
The US, Russia and other countries have also launched space missions powered by radioisotope systems. ...
It maybe that my focus on this topic has narrowed my perception here, but this seems more and more "theater" than reality. All the players, fed by government oversight specialists, saying whatever it takes to ensure "appearances" are maintained... but no "answers" are made available to the powerless 'information consumers'... just supposition.
Meanwhile the national apparatus was said to have been set on edge over a claim that the sky was falling... "look at me... look at me."
It's hard not to become cynical once these kinds of "appearance" practices recur ad nauseum.
RE: US National Security Threat: Is this about one thing, or the other? - Maxmars - 02-18-2024
Oh, by the way...
It appears that the "alarm" is being used to foment the same fear across the big pond...
Russia’s nuclear space weapon a risk for all, says German Space Command chief
Now Germany's officials are using the same hyperbolic approach to the "stunning" and "deeply concerning" fact that (apparently unlike anyone else ever) Russians are allegedly developing this "capability" (though they all admit, behind the hype, that it has not actually happened yet... precisely speaking.)
Apparently, as it is with our own "Chicken Littles" they equate the danger to satellite systems to the decimation of nations. Granted, it would potentially damage any 'communication' based activity... heaven help the internet dependent (banks and 'markets.')
The fact that governments must have absolutely ZERO contingency planning in place for this, isn't the 'fault' here... we apparently don't pay them to "be prepared," only to crow and attribute fault ... not to actually "do" anything.
Marketing will be the downfall of people's governments... because "appearances" matter more than reality.
