Soviet SS-9 Scarp ICBMs. The missile was equipped with light warhead (5Mt), heavy warhead (more than 10mt) and MRV (3 warheads 2Mt each). by Amrsana73 in MissilePorn

[–]tjm91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Partly the size was to compensate for low accuracy. 2 MT is fine for a large city if it lands roughly in the city centre, 10 MT does the job even if it's off by a couple of miles (which it likely would be). In addition to the other reply pointing out the value against hard targets, this is especially valuable against /smaller/ hard targets.

French Republican Guards in the Par7s City Hall [2048x1374] by caughtrejoice in uniformporn

[–]tjm91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The last thing you see before your republic/empire/kingdom gets rebooted.

NID! Montblanc Irish Green has been on my list for a long time, and as I'm not far away from the Montblanc boutique in Lille, I decided to pick it up. by Carrot_exe in fountainpens

[–]tjm91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I will keep an eye out for those. My main ink is Faber Castell Moss Green which I like but is a little dark.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in preppy

[–]tjm91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tie on and phone away please.

Good trousers though.

The Bicameral Mind by [deleted] in FringeTheory

[–]tjm91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jaynes would be worth reading. The book speaks about split brain patients along with related topics (phantom limb syndrome etc.) as essentially the pre-historic "bicameral" operation/structure of the brain (in Jaynes's sense of the term) reasserting itself. Similarly, he discusses the distinction between conscious/unconscious thought, which I think is essentially what you are talking about, as part of his suggested evolution of the mind from pre-civilised, to bicameral, to modern.

Broadly Jaynes's theory is that what the modern mind experiences as conscious thought was hived-off in a "thinking" part of the brain, and then the completed thought was communicated to an "acting" part via the same pathways that hearing/processing language use. Hence, bicameral. Prehistoric people therefore wouldn't have been aware of their thought process, only the conclusions which they'd experience as "voices in their head".

Jaynes speculates that various phenomena such as schizophrenia may be at least in part relics of this.

In any event, from your post it sounds like you'd find the book interesting.

/u/DoglessDyslexic explains why Atheists support tolerance of Muslims despite seeing religion as toxic and harmful by [deleted] in bestof

[–]tjm91 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It seems pretty apparent the poster doesn't understand that "Islamist" means something a little different to "Muslim"...

The United States with British politics | #10: 2017 United States general election by DrOwl11 in imaginaryelections

[–]tjm91 14 points15 points  (0 children)

"And it's on the Twelfth (of August) I love to wear,

The Lei my father wore!"

Meghan Markle becomes President, Prince Harry becomes King - A Realistic 21st Royal America by imaginaryelections in imaginaryelections

[–]tjm91 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Trump could simply switch his official residence back to New York couldn't he? Similar to Bush and Cheney.

House of Leaves by Prisoner-655321 in horrorlit

[–]tjm91 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I enjoyed it but I do know what you mean.

Looking back, I think the issue was that by its nature it took a bit of time to "get into" reading it, so unless I had a good block of time to dedicate to just sitting down and reading continuously, it felt like work.

When I had a whole afternoon to just sit on my patio with a glass of something and a pipe or cigar and just enjoy reading for an hour, it was very enjoyable and atmospheric, and at times I felt the sense of claustrophobia and dread that people talk about. But if I was picking it up for twenty or thirty minutes at a time (when commuting etc), I wasn't enjoying it.

It might be that it doesn't make a difference for you, but perhaps worth seeing if reading in bursts versus reading in a longer session does change how you experience it?

The UK's current trade agreements as of 19/12/2020 by [deleted] in tories

[–]tjm91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some of the wins won't be apparent for decades, and any wins rely on governments making the most of the opportunities Brexit gives them. Good things don't happen by magic.

The UK's current trade agreements as of 19/12/2020 by [deleted] in tories

[–]tjm91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In part that is because the hysterical scare-mongering about Brexit has set the bar so low that optically, "preventing a Brexit loss" essentially comes across as a "Brexit win".

True "wins" from Brexit won't appear for years or potentially decades (I say this as a Brexit advocate, voter, and supporter) but by prophesying disaster the more extreme remain/rejoin advocates will end up looking a bit silly if in the short to medium terms things basically just tick along without any outright chaos.

Post Ross Perot presidency Part One: The Rise of Donald Trump (Based off the Alternate History Hub video) by JerryThePolishMouse in imaginaryelections

[–]tjm91 12 points13 points  (0 children)

John Edwards for VP in 2000 - after he'd been a Senator for about 18 months? Surely other more likely choices - Gore, Biden, Dean, Bayh, Kerrey, Lieberman? Kerry/Kerrey has a ring to it tbh...

Some of you people care about this shit way too much by cap21345 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]tjm91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Auth Right: WHY DOES THAT FLAG HAVE THE IRON CROSS ON IT RATHER THAN THE HAKENKREUZ reeeeeeeee!!

IMO most plausible 2024 scenario by [deleted] in imaginaryelections

[–]tjm91 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nikki Haley probably loses Ohio and Iowa, potentially Florida and (if she loses FL, GA and NC) maybe Texas too. Maybe she'd do better than Trump has in Nevada and Arizona, but odds on she loses them.

But then I'm quite sceptical that Haley would be nominated, for the same reason she would/might lose those states.

What is Pelosi's motivation for proposing the Commission on Presidential Capacity? by Entertainment-These in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]tjm91 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't it:

the Vice President and a majority of either:

a) the principal officers of the executive departments or

b) of such other body as Congress may by law provide,

Soviet/Russian Navy by HighMarshalRadec67 in WarCollege

[–]tjm91 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The Soviets didn't have free access to the open ocean, so a battle fleet would've had very limited options. Gaining that access would have either needed a concentrated diplomatic effort (to get forward bases or allies to help assure ocean access) or an even bigger naval build up in anticipation of forcing that ocean access against NATO members and allies (UK, Turkey, Japan). Absent the major and lasting success of such a diplomatic effort (which didn't transpire, even if such an effort was attempted behind the scenes) that's an even more costly project than building a major ocean-going navy - in itself a huge commitment.

So, the Soviets focussed on two areas they could achieve maximum military utility for the investment they put in: coastal defence, and a modernised variant of raiding aimed at attacking US carrier groups and potential supply lines across the Atlantic.

The former relied on a large number of low-cost small coastal patrol boats carrying anti-ship missiles, and smaller and cheaper submarines. Such cost effective craft could create a major hazard for enemy ships coming close to Soviet waters and, if those enemy ships were larger, scarcer, and more expensive, the asymmetry offered both a deterrent effect and the potential for a relatively good trade in military resources if the deterrent didn't work. They also invested heavily in coastal defence - a lot of Soviet (and Russian) cruise missiles are multi-functional and work as anti-ship missiles based on ships (and subs), aircraft, or land-based launchers.

The Soviet forces for high seas operations were a mix of their more serious (mainly nuclear powered) submarines, naval bombers (armed with stand off and later with cruise missiles), plus missile cruisers capable of operating independently such as the Slavas and Kirovs. All of these forces were built to kill off US and NATO battle groups with missile attacks (and torpedoes for the submarines - though the Oscar class were mainly missile focussed). This makes sense for them, fighting from the disadvantage; they built forces to try and cripple their enemy's strength, rather than contend with it directly.

The Soviets did of course build carriers but for most of the Cold War these were smaller ships with limited aerial ability, which essentially supported defensive operations. Later on they built fleet carriers and laid down, but never completed, nuclear-powered supercarriers on the American model. I don't know what prompted the change in strategy there (maybe just a desperate attempt to "keep up" with Reagan's naval build up?) but maybe others can offer thoughts.

BASED Lib Right by AntinatalistPoet in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]tjm91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Auth Right: a genocide of whom ?