Nuclear Weapons NEWS topic - Discussion and future thereof

[kaiserd]

US Nuclear Modernization: Looming Conflict or Re-emerging Consensus?

m.theepochtimes.com

The Epoch Times? Really? That's one highly dubious "news" source.

 

[bobbymike]

US Nuclear Modernization: Looming Conflict or Re-emerging Consensus?

m.theepochtimes.com

The Epoch Times? Really? That's one highly dubious "news" source.

Two things
Peter Huessy has been hosting Nuclear Deterrence Breakfast Series discussions in Washington DC for about 20 years I think. I posted the author not the website.

I have posted several times on this thread that opinions from knowledgeable people from any perspective are welcome as they do contain good information.

Anything else Mr. Hall Monitor?

 

[kaiserd]

Arms Control’s Abject Failure Won’t be Fixed by More Arms Control – Center for Security Policy

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Illuminating info on the “anti Muslim conspiracy theorist” (quoting, not my own interpretation) writer of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney

 

[marauder2048]

Arms Control’s Abject Failure Won’t be Fixed by More Arms Control – Center for Security Policy

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Illuminating info on the “anti Muslim conspiracy theorist” (quoting, not my own interpretation) writer of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney

Are you drawing our attention to his position as Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy? He resigned, in part, over INF.

 

[kaiserd]

Arms Control’s Abject Failure Won’t be Fixed by More Arms Control – Center for Security Policy

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Illuminating info on the “anti Muslim conspiracy theorist” (quoting, not my own interpretation) writer of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney

Are you drawing our attention to his position as Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy? He resigned, in part, over INF.

I was giving other readers/ contributors the “anti Muslim conspiracy theorist” context so they would have more information to help evaluate what the individual in question was saying in his article, and the weight they should choose to give to his views.
Fairly and accurately evaluating sources (and having the information to do so) is a very important part of consuming news and opinion.

 

[marauder2048]

Arms Control’s Abject Failure Won’t be Fixed by More Arms Control – Center for Security Policy

www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org

Illuminating info on the “anti Muslim conspiracy theorist” (quoting, not my own interpretation) writer of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney

Are you drawing our attention to his position as Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy? He resigned, in part, over INF.

I was giving other readers/ contributors the “anti Muslim conspiracy theorist” context so they would have more information to help evaluate what the individual in question was saying in his article, and the weight they should choose to give to his views.
Fairly and accurately evaluating sources (and having the information to do so) is a very important part of consuming news and opinion.

Reagan's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy? He resigned, in part, over INF.

vs.

"anti Muslim conspiracy theorist"

Which actually contextualizes the author of an article on US - Russian arms control? An author's actual, factual qualifications to hold an informed opinion
and their historical positions on the subject matter or a completely irrelevant label (sourced from Wikipedia no less) ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The post was an opinion piece, not news. Kaiserd posted some context on the value of this writer's opinions. You posted a different context. Its all off topic. How about we stick to posting news in this topic? News is reporting of facts not the opinions of people.

 

[kaiserd]

The post was an opinion piece, not news. Kaiserd posted some context on the value of this writer's opinions. You posted a different context. Its all off topic. How about we stick to posting news in this topic? News is reporting of facts not the opinions of people.

I would largely agree with that but would note that this view has not been followed or enforced in this topic and that I previously specifically queried this.
I would note that Marauders comments above omits a lot and I would suggest that other contributors read the Wiki entry and it’s sources if they want to get a more accurate view of the writer of the article and his highly questionable record and views.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Personally, I have zero interest in this topic, so I never read it unless someone reports a post. I am quite happy to close the topic permanently if people can't behave.

 

[bobbymike]

Overscan you messaged me a while back indicating to some degree this is my thread.

At that time and a few times since posted that opinions pieces ARE WELCOME if from informed sources TO BE READ and not commented on so the problem is the person who made the comment disparaging the article writer in my opinion. On July 27th this same person commented on a certain website even though the writer of the article has been in the nuclear weapons “game” for 30 years

Notice that same person posted articles from the Arms Control Association and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? DID I OR ANYONE ELSE, comment on the historical bias or one sidedness of the ACA or BotAS? No.

There seems to be only one person who “can’t behave” using your language.

So again I welcome any and all news and opinion on nuclear weapons, arms control etc. So members can share on one thread for ease of topic review.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The problem I have with this topic is it seems political not technical. After 45 pages of posts, primarily from one individual, I think we're all aware certain posters think the US is 'falling behind' and needs to build more nukes and other posters don't agree with them. Unless we can post substantive posts about new developments in the area of nuclear weapons, I'm kind of done with it.

 

[Avimimus]

I'd think about splitting threads into a policy/context thread and a technology thread - but then, that is always a dubious thing to do when discussing nuclear weapons... given how extensive their implications are... I'm not sure it is either possible or wise to attempt such a distinction.

 

[marauder2048]

The problem I have with this topic is it seems political not technical.

Historically, even arms control was deeply technical and some of the articles
here reflect that.

News is reporting of facts not the opinions of people.

That was probably true at some point.

RAND recently concluded that all forms of journalism they studied have moved towards greater use of
opinion and subjectivity over the last 30 years with the inflection point being around the year 2000.

Most of what's in this thread consists of "news analysis" and a fair number of op-ed;
given the general amount of opinion that's bled into news I think it's fair to include the latter.

And distinguishing between opinion and analysis sometimes comes down to the relevant
background and qualifications of the author.

 

[TomcatViP]

Fact is 2000 was the year when Internet spred massively to the layman and Journalism was not late on it: suddenly it was possible to "report" from your home desk. The corrolaire being that everybody had the same info to pass making writter own opinion the only original piece on most paper.

 

[bobbymike]

Fact is 2000 was the year when Internet spred massively to the layman and Journalism was not late on it: suddenly it was possible to "report" from your home desk. The corrolaire being that everybody had the same info to pass making writter own opinion the only original piece on most paper.

Also today a purely “fact” based article would be about five paragraphs. Even if the writer stays “neutral” say reporting on the GBSD they will then ask “experts” on both sides their opinion. How do you classify that?

And then if those experts write longer articles on nuclear weapons that is opinion they suddenly aren’t of interest and/or qualify for posting?

That’s why I thought “hey post from the Ploughshares Fund if you think it’s of interest” but with no comments allowed the thread can quell member disagreements.

Seems to work unless someone doesn’t follow this simple rule.

 

[Forest Green]

News is reporting of facts not the opinions of people.

I'm not sure that has ever been the case in the whole of history and certainly not in recent times and even facts can be selectively chosen and filtered to fit an opinion. If this wasn't the case then there wouldn't even be any point in having different news sources, because they would all say the exact same thing.

 

[kaiserd]

After consideration and on balance I agree with Overscan.
The problem is that some contributors appear to want to post articles from some extremely dubious sources of a particular political bent without anyone even being able to say “hey, just so everyone knows, that’s potentially dubious because X”.
In other words some contributors want the ability to post whatever they want but also want to silence any even mild query let alone challenge of what they’ve posted.
This is a public forum and what those contributors appear to want is not reasonable or sustainable; where does what they want eventually lead?
Perhaps a different forum more in line with such contributors specific political attitudes would be a more suitable venue for what they appear to want.
Or perhaps contributors can just take some responsibility for what they choose to post here knowing that others have the right to reasonably comment, query and challenge.

 

[marauder2048]

Some contributors seem unwilling or unable to intellectually engage the actual merits of the arguments presented.

The key to sustainability is a focus on arguments rather than personalities or meaningless, irrelevant and willfully
pejorative labels attached to sources. Particularly when the latter focus is couched in language
that's sanctimonious and inappropriately pious.

A potentially dubious source is surely more readily and convincing discredited by demolishing the arguments.
Public forums of any intellectual credibility and utility operate on this principle.

 

[kaiserd]

Some contributors seem unwilling or unable to intellectually engage the actual merits of the arguments presented.

The key to sustainability is a focus on arguments rather than personalities or meaningless, irrelevant and willfully
pejorative labels attached to sources. Particularly when the latter focus is couched in language
that's sanctimonious and inappropriately pious.

A potentially dubious source is surely more readily and convincing discredited by demolishing the arguments.
Public forums of any intellectual credibility and utility operate on this principle.

Public forums of any credibility don’t welcome posting of the opinions of hate-spreading extremists and then seek to prevent everyone else even commenting on those extremists and their opinions.

 

[sferrin]

Some contributors seem unwilling or unable to intellectually engage the actual merits of the arguments presented.

The key to sustainability is a focus on arguments rather than personalities or meaningless, irrelevant and willfully
pejorative labels attached to sources. Particularly when the latter focus is couched in language
that's sanctimonious and inappropriately pious.

A potentially dubious source is surely more readily and convincing discredited by demolishing the arguments.
Public forums of any intellectual credibility and utility operate on this principle.

Public forums of any credibility don’t welcome posting of the opinions of hate-spreading extremists and then seek to prevent everyone else even commenting on those extremists and their opinions.

Reported.

 

[marauder2048]

Those public forums try to stick to the issues (in this example: arms controls) and the arguments.

The big advantage of sticking to arguments is that ill-defined (and in the US legally meaningless) terms like "hate-spreading extremist"
and emotive persecution complexes are readily avoided.

That's an intellectually defensible approach; the alternative approach is subjective, reactionary and non-rigorous.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well that went downhill quickly.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

News is reporting of facts not the opinions of people.

I'm not sure that has ever been the case in the whole of history and certainly not in recent times and even facts can be selectively chosen and filtered to fit an opinion. If this wasn't the case then there wouldn't even be any point in having different news sources, because they would all say the exact same thing.

I am pretty sure when I was a kid, the news was actually about events that had actually occurred in the world. It only lasted 30 minutes and had no "talking heads" or other nonsense. A newsreader, handing over to correspondents who basically said was was going on. This is my model for "news". Not crap like "People on Twitter are freaking out over this dress".

NEWS
newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events.

Is there a new nuclear weapons program disclosed? Have congress approved funding? This is news.

An "expert' with far-right conspiracy leanings still thinks America should build more nukes today, like he has for the last 20 years, really isn't relevant news for a technical forum as opposed to a political one. If he's the leader of a political party and it has relevance to a specific program, maybe.

A topic described as 'News ONLY' which contains opinion pieces, but where no discussion can take place, seems really pointless.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It anyone wants the 'Nuclear Weapons News' topic unlocked perhaps they can post why they feel it's relevant to the forum. Genuinely interested, as to me is a minefield of a topic I'm not interested in.

 

[Forest Green]

There's a whole lot of opinions coming from the people who don't like opinions.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It might be for the best to keep it locked for a while.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

There's a whole lot of opinions coming from the people who don't like opinions.

Unbuilt Projects and Aerospace Technology, not Aerospace Policy.

People are perfectly entitled to opinions. I have many opinions, but for example I don't post on this forum about my love of Marmite, or my favourite fantasy novels, or my love for the novels of Jane Austen, because its not relevant to the forum goals. Agreed?

Nuclear policy is basically politics, and one of the rules of this forum (set after many previous incidents like this) is 'no politics', because we all have different political beliefs. Politically I'm almost certainly nearer to Kaiserd than Bobbymike or sferrin. Shouldn't matter. This ban doesn't just go for one side's opinions - any posts about how Trump is an idiot for starting a trade war with China don't belong here any more than posts blaming Obama for everything the poster doesn't like.

If we stick to more strictly technical discussions, I have no problems with topics about nuclear weapons. Just don't go near politics (and current policy, particularly) because its toxic.

90% of the Nuclear War topic is not overtly political, but some posts are no more reposts of people saying "we need more nukes" in 20 different ways. I'm sure there are plenty of forums where you can argue this topic as long as you like. Not here, please.

 

[bobbymike]

Here’s some articles from today’s CSIS daily where and how do they align? See I am not a technical person with a scientific or aerospace engineering background. But because I truly enjoy this forum and it’s amazing content I try and contribute as best I can by bringing information to its members. I believe it can save members valuable time from, in effect, duplicating my Internet searches they can say “Hey I can catch up on Nuke News or Prompt Global Strike News, etc. all at SPF”

If members don’t see this as a benefit or helpful let me know

https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-network...ter-will-help-prevent-nuclear-weapon-testing/

America Needs a “Dead Hand” - War on the Rocks

America’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) system comprises many component systems that were designed and fielded during the Cold War —

warontherocks.com

Columbia, Ohio Subs On Schedule, Despite Missile Tube Problems - Breaking Defense

The company that has experienced slip-ups in delivering missile tubes to the Navy might leave the business, leaving only a single company who can do the work.

breakingdefense.com

 

[bobbymike]

Japanese report to say North Korea has miniaturized nuclear warheads: newspaper

Japan has upgraded its estimate of North Korea's nuclear weapons capability in an upcoming annual Defence White Paper, saying it seems Pyongyang has achieved the miniaturization of warheads, the Yomiuri newspaper said in an unsourced report on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com