• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What comes next after the Trump win?

There was a WWII movie that I saw once, this one scene I remember most from it. After the nazi party managed to take control of the government, these two men were talking about forcing out one of the original leaders of the movement. "What need is there for a revolutionary once the revolution has been won?"

Trump is known for not having any loyalty. Once he doesn't have to do things for people's support it will be interesting to see who he abandons.
It has occurred to me that the absurd appointments Cheato has put forth are a vetting mechanism to see who he needs to expel from government next.
You don’t think my anti-vaxer is good enough for HHS head? No committee for you - You get to go home in 2026. Don’t like a Russian spy as DNI? My morons will obediently vote you out. Not happy with my child molester pick for AG?
Pack your bags, RINO.
 
Honestly expecting the third world war at this point.
Interesting. What do you imagine that will look like? Random people shooting other random people, suspecting that they might be The Others? Gatherings of either Party being bombed or machine-gunned by the other party? Military involved?
I have a hard time visualizing it.
Nuclear war.
Against whom?

The Russians probably don't have any nuclear weapons that work.

The Chinese do, but are too smart to take on the USA in a war that would destroy them utterly.

Will Trump declare war on France?
I'm not as concerned about Trump declaring war as much as I am concerned about the religious zealots he's filling his administration with, especially in foreign policy, who want the End Times to happen. They will have more power than ever before.
 

I don't think Trump is interested in war, but fine with bombing the hell out of people if he think it benefits him.

I think there is a fair chance he will try to use a nuke at some point. Maybe to help Bibi, or Putin, maybe to show 'strength' against whoever he wants to demonize (Iran or any random group he can call terrorists), or just to try out his nuking hurricanes idea.
 
Honestly expecting the third world war at this point.
Interesting. What do you imagine that will look like? Random people shooting other random people, suspecting that they might be The Others? Gatherings of either Party being bombed or machine-gunned by the other party? Military involved?
I have a hard time visualizing it.
Nuclear war.
Against whom?

The Russians probably don't have any nuclear weapons that work.

The Chinese do, but are too smart to take on the USA in a war that would destroy them utterly.

Will Trump declare war on France?
I'm not as concerned about Trump declaring war as much as I am concerned about the religious zealots he's filling his administration with, especially in foreign policy, who want the End Times to happen. They will have more power than ever before.
The end timers aren't in charge, the Xian Dominionists are.
 
Honestly expecting the third world war at this point.
Interesting. What do you imagine that will look like? Random people shooting other random people, suspecting that they might be The Others? Gatherings of either Party being bombed or machine-gunned by the other party? Military involved?
I have a hard time visualizing it.
Nuclear war.
Against whom?

The Russians probably don't have any nuclear weapons that work.

The Chinese do, but are too smart to take on the USA in a war that would destroy them utterly.

Will Trump declare war on France?
I'm not as concerned about Trump declaring war as much as I am concerned about the religious zealots he's filling his administration with, especially in foreign policy, who want the End Times to happen. They will have more power than ever before.
The end timers aren't in charge, the Xian Dominionists are.
Regardless of which flavor of religious nutjob, not entirely confident they won't cause an apocalyptic event.
 
Dirty bombs are utterly useless as weapons of war. Their effect is mostly psychological - they might be good for terrorists, but nation states need H-bombs, and H-bombs need tritium and delivery ststems, both of which cost billions a year to maintain - and those billions need to actually be spent on maintaining missiles and warheads, rather than on the Colonel's vodka and hookers fund.
Disagree. Dirty bombs won't kill--but they are a denial weapon.

Russia has no working nuclear arsenal.
I wouldn't want to say "no". There might be someone who is actually doing his job.
 
Dirty bombs are utterly useless as weapons of war. Their effect is mostly psychological - they might be good for terrorists, but nation states need H-bombs, and H-bombs need tritium and delivery ststems, both of which cost billions a year to maintain - and those billions need to actually be spent on maintaining missiles and warheads, rather than on the Colonel's vodka and hookers fund.
I hugely disagree with this. Dirty bombs needn't even explode to cause horrendous damage.
Imagine if McVeigh and friends had the ability to put a couple of barrels of nuclear waste on that truck that they used to blow up the Federal building in OKC.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine, my big fear was escalation to nukes delivered by missiles. Now, I'm more worried about drones delivering small amounts of deadly stuff. Tiny, cheap, flying objects capable of precise targeting. How much weaponized anthrax do you have to deliver to the front door of Walmarts on Black Friday morning to bring down the economy?


I once wrote a short story about a terrorist group. I wrote it years ago.
The gist of it was a a group of people who commandeered a coal freighter ship. They placed a bunch of spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor on the deck. Then they steered the ship into the Chicago coastline. During a blizzard.
Then set the coal on fire.
The great part of the plan was that it was not secret. The terrorist group called every news station in Chicago and told them all about it. They sent video and the news stations sent helicopters to show Chicagoans that this was really happening. The dirty bomb caused a lot of damage.
But the real damage was done by Chicagoans fleeing the city during a snow storm.
 
Dirty bombs are utterly useless as weapons of war. Their effect is mostly psychological - they might be good for terrorists, but nation states need H-bombs, and H-bombs need tritium and delivery ststems, both of which cost billions a year to maintain - and those billions need to actually be spent on maintaining missiles and warheads, rather than on the Colonel's vodka and hookers fund.
Disagree. Dirty bombs won't kill--but they are a denial weapon.
Only if the victims want them to be. It's trivially easy and not particularly expensive to decontaminate an area such that radiation falls to demonstrably safe levels for permanent habitation - say, to the natural background level in the city of Ramsar on the Iranian Caspian coast.

It's difficult and expensive to decontaminate to the original background level in a given location; It's also utterly unnecessary.

It's impossible to decontaminate to the point where no artificial radiation sources are present; And if someone says it's needful to do so, they are aiding the terrorists, whether they know it or not.
Russia has no working nuclear arsenal.
I wouldn't want to say "no". There might be someone who is actually doing his job.
It wouldn't help. There needs to be a whole complex organisation, all of which is made up of dozens, maybe hundreds, of people who are diligently doing their jobs, and who are supported by a regime that rewards (or at the very least, does not punish) whistleblowers.

No such organisation can exist in Russia.

If the Colonel wants to sell the fresh tritium on the black market, then the guy who was supposed to replace the out-of-date tritium in the warheads can either take his cut, and sign off the faked paperwork saying he did it, even though he didn't; or he can go to a gulag.

He cannot successfully challenge the corruption of those who outrank him.

When corruption has become endemic, it becomes inescapable. Tritium, plutonium, and rocket fuels are all valuable, and nuclear weapons are never used or tested, so if they stop working because one or more of these valuable things has been stolen, nobody is likely to find out about it.

And it doesn't stop there; There's a market for all kinds of precision components beyond those three things. And spare parts are easy to steal, difficult to replace*, and essential to maintain equipment in working order.







* For just one example, Soviet ballistic missiles use rocket engines made by the Yuzhmash facility (previously known just as 'Plant 586', and now called Pivdenmash), located in Dnipro, Ukraine. For some reason, this factory is currently disinclined to fill parts orders from Russia.
 
Also coming up next: more Nazi bullshit.

Protesters waved Nazi flags outside a community theater production of “The Diary of Anne Frank” in Michigan, leaving performers "understandably shaken" by the hateful and antisemitic display, officials said Monday.

The shocking protest by a handful of masked men happened Saturday night outside American Legion Post 141 in Howell, where the play by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett was being staged.

Trump's America. But you know what, we need more of this:

t9NbEs.gif
 
Dirty bombs are utterly useless as weapons of war. Their effect is mostly psychological - they might be good for terrorists, but nation states need H-bombs, and H-bombs need tritium and delivery ststems, both of which cost billions a year to maintain - and those billions need to actually be spent on maintaining missiles and warheads, rather than on the Colonel's vodka and hookers fund.
Disagree. Dirty bombs won't kill--but they are a denial weapon.
Only if the victims want them to be. It's trivially easy and not particularly expensive to decontaminate an area such that radiation falls to demonstrably safe levels for permanent habitation - say, to the natural background level in the city of Ramsar on the Iranian Caspian coast.

It's difficult and expensive to decontaminate to the original background level in a given location; It's also utterly unnecessary.

It's impossible to decontaminate to the point where no artificial radiation sources are present; And if someone says it's needful to do so, they are aiding the terrorists, whether they know it or not.
Look what happened with Chernobyl. Most of the terrain is safe so long as you don't mess with it. But some Russian soldiers dug fortifications.

Besides, the real danger is the isotopes that are used by the body or mimic things used by the body.

Russia has no working nuclear arsenal.
I wouldn't want to say "no". There might be someone who is actually doing his job.
It wouldn't help. There needs to be a whole complex organisation, all of which is made up of dozens, maybe hundreds, of people who are diligently doing their jobs, and who are supported by a regime that rewards (or at the very least, does not punish) whistleblowers.

No such organisation can exist in Russia.

If the Colonel wants to sell the fresh tritium on the black market, then the guy who was supposed to replace the out-of-date tritium in the warheads can either take his cut, and sign off the faked paperwork saying he did it, even though he didn't; or he can go to a gulag.
Agreed. No tritium-based weapon is functional.

But explosives can be stable for decades (look at the stuff we are giving to Ukraine--lots of stuff is pretty old), Pu-239 is stable enough, lithium deutride is stable. Salt batteries have a shelf life of decades. (We never see them in the civilian world because they are single use items, fire the igniter, it produces a fair amount of power for a short period of time. Once the heater burns out it's forever dead. Popular in big weapons, rarely used for anything else.) Thus there could be a bomb sitting around from before the fall that still goes boom. And, likewise, a solid rocket motor could still be good. Once again, we are providing a lot of pretty old rocket motors to Ukraine and they still work.

He cannot successfully challenge the corruption of those who outrank him.

When corruption has become endemic, it becomes inescapable. Tritium, plutonium, and rocket fuels are all valuable, and nuclear weapons are never used or tested, so if they stop working because one or more of these valuable things has been stolen, nobody is likely to find out about it.

And it doesn't stop there; There's a market for all kinds of precision components beyond those three things. And spare parts are easy to steal, difficult to replace*, and essential to maintain equipment in working order.
I doubt there's much of a market for plutonium. And trying to recover the fuel of a solid rocket is pretty risky. Once they've been cast I don't know if it's even possible to do anything else.
 
Look what happened with Chernobyl. Most of the terrain is safe so long as you don't mess with it.
Yes. Because the land isn't valuable enough to be worth cleaning up to any greater extent. It's just a wild forest, in an area of wild forests. It's cheaper to put up a fence and ignore it.

Invading armies who fuck around and find out don't get much sympathy - nor do they suffer particularly unique or severe problems. If soldiers dug trenches on abandoned industrial sites and exposed themselves to dioxin (for example), the consequences would be very similar - but it wouldn't make headlines.

I would be shocked if this hasn't already happened several times during the Ukraine war; There are plenty of abandoned Soviet chemical plants that were never cleaned up. But it's not news.
 
Besides, the real danger is the isotopes that are used by the body or mimic things used by the body.
Yeah, most of which are short-lived (eg Iodine-131), or are poorly taken up even when ingested (Strontium-90 and Caesium-137), or have such huge half-lives (ie low activity) that you would need to eat a crap-ton of them to suffer any ill effect.

Take iodine tablets in the immediate aftermath, and avoid eating locally grown produce, and there's not really a problem at all. A dirty bomb in a city - where little food is grown - is a fairly minor problem, as long as people are sensible and don't lose their minds over tiny risks.

So it's a really major problem.

;)
 
So Trump is naming them to head a powerless group that he invented. I feel less worried about that task. Trump's problem with gutting Government spending is that Congress has the power of the purse. Musk might come up with ways to gut the Executive, but Project 2025 already does that. This almost feels like Trump is BS'ing his base.
I’m shocked, shocked that you only “almost feel” Trump is bs’ing.

There is no way Congress lets the federal budget get gutted - it would hit the states and districts hard, especially the red ones.
 
I doubt there's much of a market for plutonium.
Have you asked the North Koreans? Or the Iranians? I suspect that there is plenty of demand for weapons grade plutonium. If you can deliver it no-questions-asked to the right location. That's the challenge.

But smuggling sensitive materials (and sensitive information) is a well established black industry. Security services play whack-a-mole, but they can't stop it.
 
And trying to recover the fuel of a solid rocket is pretty risky.
For sure. But storing such rockets for long periods is also risky. At least, the USAF seem to worry about it quite a lot.

Liquid fuels will have been pilfered (or in the case of alcohol based fuels, drunk). Solid fuel rockets will be unstable due to poor maintenance. The warheads will have been stripped of valuable materials - if not the plutonium or the conventional explosives, then certainly the computer chips in the arming, firing, and/or security systems. The engines will be unfit for firing, even if the fuel hasn't been pinched. And everyone involved knows that firing such a weapon at NATO is a death sentence for anyone near to the launch facility - so there's a pretty strong incentive to make sure it can't be done (at least from the launch facility you are staffing), even if you are such an incompetent crook as to be unable to profit from your sabotage.
 
And trying to recover the fuel of a solid rocket is pretty risky.
For sure. But storing such rockets for long periods is also risky. At least, the USAF seem to worry about it quite a lot.

Liquid fuels will have been pilfered (or in the case of alcohol based fuels, drunk). Solid fuel rockets will be unstable due to poor maintenance. The warheads will have been stripped of valuable materials - if not the plutonium or the conventional explosives, then certainly the computer chips in the arming, firing, and/or security systems. The engines will be unfit for firing, even if the fuel hasn't been pinched. And everyone involved knows that firing such a weapon at NATO is a death sentence for anyone near to the launch facility - so there's a pretty strong incentive to make sure it can't be done (at least from the launch facility you are staffing), even if you are such an incompetent crook as to be unable to profit from your sabotage.
Dude.
Almost sounds like you been there.
 
And trying to recover the fuel of a solid rocket is pretty risky.
For sure. But storing such rockets for long periods is also risky. At least, the USAF seem to worry about it quite a lot.

Liquid fuels will have been pilfered (or in the case of alcohol based fuels, drunk). Solid fuel rockets will be unstable due to poor maintenance. The warheads will have been stripped of valuable materials - if not the plutonium or the conventional explosives, then certainly the computer chips in the arming, firing, and/or security systems. The engines will be unfit for firing, even if the fuel hasn't been pinched. And everyone involved knows that firing such a weapon at NATO is a death sentence for anyone near to the launch facility - so there's a pretty strong incentive to make sure it can't be done (at least from the launch facility you are staffing), even if you are such an incompetent crook as to be unable to profit from your sabotage.
Dude.
Almost sounds like you been there.
I haven't; But my brother lived in Siberia for eighteen months as an English teacher, in the early 1990s - he arrived when it was still the Soviet Union, but by the time he left, the USSR was no more. He claims no responsibility for this ;)

He tells some interesting stories.
 
Dirty bombs are utterly useless as weapons of war. Their effect is mostly psychological - they might be good for terrorists, but nation states need H-bombs, and H-bombs need tritium and delivery ststems, both of which cost billions a year to maintain - and those billions need to actually be spent on maintaining missiles and warheads, rather than on the Colonel's vodka and hookers fund.
Disagree. Dirty bombs won't kill--but they are a denial weapon.
Only if the victims want them to be. It's trivially easy and not particularly expensive to decontaminate an area such that radiation falls to demonstrably safe levels for permanent habitation - say, to the natural background level in the city of Ramsar on the Iranian Caspian coast.

I didn't know this.

If the Colonel wants to sell the fresh tritium on the black market, then the guy who was supposed to replace the out-of-date tritium in the warheads can either take his cut, and sign off the faked paperwork saying he did it, even though he didn't; or he can go to a gulag.

... Tritium, plutonium, and rocket fuels are all valuable...

I'm not challenging your claims. (My conversations with Intelligence experts have never gone beyond the "But then I'd have to kill you" stage.) But has plutonium ever been sold on a black market? If so, what's the going price?

I think tritium is useful in science (and medicine??); presumably any black market tritium is NOT destined for H-bombs.
 
Back
Top Bottom