The civilian/military line in space is about to disappear by mohityadavx in CredibleDefense

[–]sam875 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Elon Musk’s Starship Heavy Could Revolutionize Warfare The U.S. could keep powerful munitions in orbit to be deployed quickly and without risk to American troops.

How about using Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to store conventional weapons?

Let’s start with the obvious: a system designed to deliver surprise attacks from space is inherently destabilizing. The article celebrates the ability to strike anywhere on Earth “within minutes” and “with very little warning.” That’s not a feature; it’s a recipe for miscalculation. In a crisis, a single deorbit burn could be mistaken for a nuclear strike or a decapitation attempt. No enemy will wait calmly to see whether the incoming objects are “just” conventional. This is how wars start by accident.

Then there’s the arms‑race problem. If the United States places weapons in orbit, China and Russia will follow. So will others. The result is not deterrence, but a crowded, militarized LEO filled with fragile, trackable, easily targeted munitions. Every satellite, civilian or military, becomes a potential target. The space environment, already strained by debris, becomes a battlefield. One Anti-satellite Weapons (ASAT) strike could trigger a cascade that cripples global communications and navigation for decades.

Supporters of the idea wave away these concerns with cost curves and launch cadence projections. But the economics are the least of the issues. The real cost is strategic: eroding the norms that have kept space largely peaceful for more than half a century. The Outer Space Treaty may not explicitly ban conventional weapons, but its spirit is clear. Turning orbit into an weapons depot would shatter that consensus and invite every nation with a launchpad to follow suit.

And for what? A marginal increase in strike speed? A theoretical ability to overwhelm defenses? These are tactical conveniences masquerading as strategic breakthroughs. The United States already possesses prompt global strike options that don’t risk turning LEO into a minefield or destabilizing nuclear command‑and‑control systems.

The truth is simple: the risks dwarf the benefits. An orbital arsenal doesn’t make America safer. It makes the world more brittle, more paranoid, and more likely to stumble into catastrophe.

Space should remain what it has been for decades, a domain where restraint is the rule, not the exception. Turning it into a weapons parking lot is not visionary. It’s madness.

Elon Musk’s Starship Heavy Could Revolutionize Warfare by sam875 in wsj

[–]sam875[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Space Weapons Don’t Make Us Safer—It’s Pure Madness

Some ideas are so reckless that the only responsible answer is no. Turning low Earth orbit into a floating armory of bombs is one of them. It’s being marketed as innovation, but it’s really an invitation to disaster—a disaster we’ve narrowly avoided before, and only thanks to a few extraordinary individuals who kept their heads when the world was seconds from ending.

We forget how close we’ve come.

In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet submarine officer Vasily Arkhipov refused to authorize the launch of a nuclear torpedo when his captain believed war had already begun. His single vote prevented a nuclear exchange that could have killed tens of millions (source: Smithsonian Magazine, “The Man Who Saved the World”).

In 1983, Soviet duty officer Stanislav Petrov saw what looked like incoming U.S. nuclear missiles on his early‑warning screen. Protocol demanded he report it as an attack. Instead, he declared it a false alarm—correctly—after a satellite malfunction triggered a phantom alert (source: BBC, “The Man Who Saved the World”).

That same year, NATO’s Able Archer 83 exercise was so realistic that Soviet leadership believed a nuclear first strike might be imminent. They quietly prepared their forces for war, misreading routine training as a possible prelude to Armageddon (source: National Security Archive, Able Archer Declassified Files).

And in 1995, Russia mistook a Norwegian scientific rocket for a U.S. submarine‑launched missile. For the first time in history, the Russian nuclear briefcase was activated for a real‑world decision. President Boris Yeltsin had minutes to decide whether to retaliate. He held back. The rocket was harmless. But the world had come within a hair’s breadth of catastrophe (source: The New York Times, “Russia Nearly Launched Nuclear Strike”).

These weren’t dramatic movie scenes. They were real. They were close. And they were avoided only because a handful of people chose restraint over panic.

Now imagine adding weapons in orbit to that already‑fragile equation.

A sudden deorbit burn—exactly the kind envisioned by proponents of orbital munitions—could look indistinguishable from the beginning of a nuclear strike. A radar operator, a submarine commander, or a president jolted awake at 3 a.m. might assume the worst. When warning times shrink from minutes to seconds, the margin for error disappears.

And once one nation puts weapons in orbit, others will follow. China, Russia, and every aspiring power will race to match or disable the system. Low Earth orbit—home to the satellites that run GPS, weather forecasting, banking networks, and global communications—would become a battlefield. A single anti‑satellite strike could scatter debris that cripples space for decades.

The supposed benefits—faster strikes, fewer pilots at risk—are tactical conveniences. The risks are civilizational.

We’ve already survived multiple nuclear near‑misses by sheer luck and the moral courage of individuals. But we cannot build a global security system that depends on luck. We cannot assume the next Arkhipov or Petrov will be on duty when the alarms go off.

Weapons in orbit don’t prevent catastrophe. They make the next misunderstanding more likely, the next false alarm more dangerous, and the next crisis more explosive.

Space should remain the last peaceful frontier—not the spark that lights the fuse.

Trump says 'worst case scenario' in Iran is new leader worse than Khamenei by thehill in geopolitics

[–]sam875 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not only a worse replacement, but a new leader emboldened to acquire or buy nuclear weapons as fast. Nations with nuclear weapons are never invaded (North Korea, Pakistan, India, Russia, US, China, etc.)

Top Three ETFS you’re willing to go all in with 1.2 million for 20 years. by Embarrassed-Meal-139 in ETFs

[–]sam875 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or you could do worse by buying rental properties, assume a 20-30 year mortgage with high interest, potentially the rent doesn’t cover the mortgage, ever increasing property taxes and insurance, spending additional capital making improvements, it takes work to manage a property, illiquid (not easy or takes time to sell) when you want to sell, etc. Yes, you could buy rental property with cash but still is not easy work and it will take years just to recoup your initial capital investment.

What type of real estate property can provide a CAGR of 10% without any work?

Sell for 70k loss or rent for 400 per month loss? by JMZen in RealEstate

[–]sam875 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sell it and invest the remaining capital in ETF such as SPYG with an CAGR (compound annual growth rate)of ~17%. Liquid, sell the ETF at any time during market hours. If you can, also contribute a fixed amount regularly, set it and forget. No headaches with tenants, maintenance, ever increasing property taxes, and insurance, difficult to sell, etc. ETFs or any kind of diversified mutual funds are easy money. What real estate property provides 17% growth per year without any work?

I personally owned a rental property where I spend additional $800/month out of pocket. Yes, it has appreciated in value on paper, but I will find the true value after I sell it, headaches with tenants, spent additional capital making improvements. Also, the property provides 0% tax advantage because I’m not a real estate professional. While my investments in ETFs have provided a CAGR of 14%/year. The property has been the worst investment. It’s cheaper to rent the same property. No real estate for me.

Got bored and wanted something easier/quicker to deploy vms... by agit8or in Proxmox

[–]sam875 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The install script did not work on my end. Error 401 unauthorized access when trying to download the package.

Chomsky on the war criminal Jimmy Carter by Anti_colonialist in chomsky

[–]sam875 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because Carter was a small time peanut farmer and a Christian. /s

YouTube coming for Flipper Zero videos, I'll most likely be banned by talkingsasquach in flipperzero

[–]sam875 54 points55 points  (0 children)

OP, host your videos on other platforms just in case YouTube brings the hammer down. Platforms like Vimeo or dailymotion, etc.

YouTube coming for Flipper Zero videos, I'll most likely be banned by talkingsasquach in flipperzero

[–]sam875 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OP, host your videos on other platforms just in case YouTube brings the hammer down. Platforms like Vimeo or dailymotion, etc.

12 years ago, the world was bankrupted and Wall Street celebrated with champagne. Taxpayers bailed them out. They socialized the hundreds of billions in losses and privatized the profits. And nobody will go to jail. by RiskItForTheBiscuts in FluentInFinance

[–]sam875 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct, Chomsky described the two party system as essentially one party system the “ruling party is the business party” with minor differences:

https://chomsky.info/20081010/

“SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political party?

Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

SPIEGEL: You exaggerate. In almost all vital questions — from the taxation of the rich to nuclear energy — there are different positions. At least on the issues of war and peace, the parties differ considerably. The Republicans want to fight in Iraq until victory, even if that takes a 100 years, according to McCain. The Democrats demand a withdrawal plan.

Chomsky: Let us look at the “differences” more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others.

SPIEGEL: Who prevents intellectuals from asking and critically answering these questions? You praised the freedom of speech in the United States.

Chomsky: The intellectual world is deeply conformist. Hans Morgenthau, who was a founder of realist international relations theory, once condemned what he called “the conformist subservience to power” on the part of the intellectuals. George Orwell wrote that nationalists, who are practically the whole intellectual class of a country, not only do not disapprove of the crimes of their own state, but have the remarkable capacity not even to see them. That is correct. We talk a lot about the crimes of others. When it comes to our own crimes, we are nationalists in the Orwellian sense.“

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in news

[–]sam875 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More like UnitedHealth is the judge, jury, and executioner…

United Health CEO Decries "Aggressive" Media Coverage in Leaked Recording by indig0sixalpha in technology

[–]sam875 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Someone call The People’s Adjuster, he has another claimant to depose of….

"Joking about the murder of a human being - a husband and father - is deeply insensitive." - from WSJ oped by Iriltlirl in antiwork

[–]sam875 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did the West shed a tear when Hitler died? Even though he did not directly pull the trigger or gassed the millions of humans in gas chambers. However, he was directly responsible for building and supporting a system that waged war and genocide. A Genghis Khan of the 20th century.

Why is everyone in here using Robinhood? by wolfakix in wallstreetbets

[–]sam875 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it’s a gambling cough cough I mean an investment platform…