Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Job Offer
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:21:44 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <vr9so8$ol2p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vr207a$1c7fg$1@dont-email.me> <JJ%AP.102161$3pn5.15133@fx44.iad>
 <vr22ot$1c7fh$7@dont-email.me> <LOgBP.37420$qx73.34564@fx01.iad>
 <vr4gva$e4h$5@dont-email.me> <xkDBP.83555$Sfe6.21630@fx35.iad>
 <vr7225$27ht8$1@dont-email.me> <q06etjl9l3f5q2n6koju974o7hoejsl9g2@4ax.com>
 <vr75sv$28c0d$1@dont-email.me> <9qbetjpheo5f0gike1t2kq0co704h16ln1@4ax.com>
 <vr855m$344sn$1@dont-email.me> <0saftjp1nlgbj68akbvukqa3o21j1d05gl@4ax.com>
 <vr9c3d$aeqa$2@dont-email.me> <05qgtjl2i5i4e1nvepvh8sf2omji67gida@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:21:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a222b0e1b663de679c8777d0509ac828";
	logging-data="808025"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rzVqgRT5MqYvYUstuG9cg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cYZL3cgFD348dxXIHyRQ7UEVYx0=
In-Reply-To: <05qgtjl2i5i4e1nvepvh8sf2omji67gida@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/17/2025 1:43 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:37:34 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> 
>> I do understand that last argument, but in our actual real
>> world a nation with insufficient defense quickly becomes not
>> a nation at all; dead or enslaved.
>>
>> US defense is as full of corruption, self dealing, waste and
>> inefficiency as everything else (such as road building or
>> the education racket or the Medical Billing racket) but
>> defense is still necessary, despite inefficiency.
> 
> I agree.  It's difficult to win an argument (or a war) from a position
> of weakness.  That was the logic from the Cold War era, where the
> country or bloc with the most atomic bombs would inevitably "win".
> That translated into which bloc could spend the most on weapons.  The
> Cold War ended when the Eastern bloc ran out of money (and credit).
> The argument still holds validity, but the players seem to have agreed
> to limit the scale and scope of arms buildup.  Whether that will
> insure peace any better than uncontrolled military buildup is
> uncertain.  I'm not worried about nations armed with atomic weapons.
> I'm worried about smaller nations inventing ways to weaponize
> literally everything.
> 
> Hopefully, I won't live long enough to see the next war.  It probably
> won't be pretty.  I don't know how to stop a trend that started with
> tribalism and seems to be growing out of control.  The next war will
> not have any winners.
> 

Great example.

The principle is correct (a competent defense is absolutely 
necessary).  The application was flawed (your phrase: ...the
  country or bloc with the most atomic bombs would 
inevitably "win".)

Turns out that is not exactly correct. With the explosion of 
innovation and widespread adoption of computer systems and 
software all across and through US society shocked the 
Soviets and Mr Reagan's bluff of space-based defense (we 
were nowhere near creating such at the time) forced the issue.


And yes, I absolutely agree that psychopathic ideologies 
bent on death and destruction armed with advanced biological 
or nuclear weapons will be a daunting game changer.  The 
Soviets were at least interested in survival.

[note Hamas founding statements linked here recently. Such 
thought is not singular nowadays].

-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971