Constantignoble posted:

wonder how future climate skeptics will field this one

actually the new climate skeptic line is that climate change is Real and Real Good and environmentalists are a cartoonish supervillian conspiracy to destroy humanity & the earth



http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-06-13-the-climate-change-agenda-exposed-lowering-co2-will-lead-to-mass-starvation-planet-wide-food-scarcity-and-the-rise-of-government-tyranny.html

xipe posted:

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/07/us-threatens-world-seed-security-war-syria.html


https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/

most of that naturalblaze article is good but it does link to a global warming denier page, just a heads up

The aggressiveness of this imperial strategy can be seen in the U.S. pursuit of absolute dominance in nuclear weapons capabilities under the rubric of the “modernization” of all three legs of its nuclear arsenal. The object is to take full advantage of the fact that a weakened Russia fell behind for years in maintaining and modernizing its own nuclear weaponry, allowing the United States to pull decisively ahead. U.S. nuclear strategy is now predicated on the “death of MAD” (Mutual Assured Destruction), that is, the demise of the entire system of deterrence.27 Those formulating U.S. strategic doctrine increasingly believe that the United States is currently capable, while using only a small part of its nuclear arsenal, of destroying enough nuclear weapons of an opponent in a first strike (or counterforce attack)—even in the case of Russia—to prevail in a nuclear confrontation. In short, Pentagon planners now believe the United States has attained “strategic primacy” in nuclear weapons capability.28 This would make a first strike against any enemy on Earth “thinkable” for the first time since 1945, when Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties—in what was a political rather than a military decision, and the first real act of the Cold War.29 Ominously, with the imminent death of MAD, the other side too, in any period of nuclear tensions, has greater incentive to strike first, lest it be destroyed completely by a U.S. hegemon no longer restrained by fears of its own destruction in the event of a first strike on its part.30

Revolution and Counterrevolution, 1917–2017

shriekingviolet posted:

Remember the goons who trooped out into hawaii to clear land for a vapourware yoga resort or some shit, and they got a tractor specifically for tree pulling that they secured by tying it to a tree.

The next day they woke up, the tree had been pulled up and the tractor was gone!

The future is gonna be fuckin great

when a goon got a bunch of other goons to join them on their plot of land in "the jungle" and they spent a few days "clearing paths" then one of them unloaded an entire handgun into a pig

“The United States is not seeking to neutralize adversary deterrent forces.”

Some critics argue that the United States is not seeking strategic pri- macy. They reject any intent behind the emergence of US nuclear pri- macy and downplay the effort to neutralize adversary deterrent forces in US military strategy. Instead of the United States bolstering its counter- force capabilities, critics emphasize how it is minimizing the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategy—as only this is consistent with international arms control and nonproliferation efforts aimed at con- vincing other states to forego strategic weapons, reduce existing arsenals, or cancel modernization programs. The implication is that we have mis- takenly imputed sinister motives to US defense programs and planning.

Disavowal of the US pursuit of strategic primacy comes most fre- quently from those who work inside or outside the government on arms control and nonproliferation policy. Yet, those who work on US regional war plans and counterproliferation policy typically see nothing contro- versial in our claim that the United States seeks the ability to neutralize adversary strategic weapons. In fact, this effort appears to be official US policy. As a simple Internet search shows, the US government does not hide the wide range of research and planning efforts underway that fall under the rubric of “defeat WMD” or “combatting WMD.” And the underlying logic behind those efforts is simple: deterrence may fail, es- pecially during conventional wars, and therefore the United States needs the ability to defend US forces, allies, and the US homeland from enemy WMD using, depending on the circumstances, conventional strikes, missile defenses, special operations, offensive cyber attacks, and in ex- treme cases nuclear strikes. In short, “defeating WMD” and “seeking strategic primacy” are essentially synonymous: protecting oneself from others’ strategic weapons (which sounds reasonable) and neutralizing others’ strategic deterrent forces (which sounds more malicious) are simply two phrases describing the same behavior.

Current US grand strategy—which takes an expansive definition of national interests and is committed to a global network of alliances—means that the United States may be drawn into wars with WMD- armed adversaries. We agree with many US government officials that the ability to neutralize those adversary capabilities in such a conflict may be critical. Others are free to disagree. But all analysts should rec- ognize that current US efforts to neutralize adversaries’ deterrent forces are inherently threatening to those states, and few should be surprised when those adversaries treat US pleas for greater arms reductions with considerable skepticism.

Edited by marlax78 (July 13, 2017 15:18:15)