Slashdot Mirror
What's Wrong With the Manhattan Project National Park
Lasrick writes Dawn Stover describes the radioactive dirt behind the creation of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, from its inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act (the park legislation wouldn't pass otherwise) and lack of funding for national parks in general to the lack of funding for cleanup at Superfund nuclear sites like Hanford. And then there is how the Parks Service is presenting exhibits: at least some of them are described in the past tense, as if nuclear weapons were a thing of the past. Here's the description of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota: "Nuclear war loomed as an apocalyptic shadow that could possibly have brought human history to an end." Can the National Park Service be ignorant of the fact that missiles remain on station, nuclear weapons are still being stockpiled, and saber rattling did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall?"
We all know that after he tore down the Berlin Wall with his death-ray eyes the cold war came to a screeching halt and the entire world was saved by the infinite awesomeness of the free market!
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If this is the only way to get the sites maintained and cleaned up, that's one solution to lack of funding for the Superfund. As for the rest, it's a rant at the national park service for things outside its mandate. They're not some sort of historical society or museum.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The sky is falling.
The sky is still falling. BTW grats on your own saber rattling there.
Jeffrey works at the Parks Department, a career that causes his father tremendous pride.
Can the National Park Service be ignorant of the fact that missiles remain on station, nuclear weapons are still being stockpiled, and saber rattling did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall?
This shows a disturbing lack of understanding of how the world was then, vs. how it is now... we are vastly less likely to face a large scale nuclear assault than we were during the cold war. Even if a city or two is eventually hit by a terrorist nuclear weapon (likely), it's NOTHING like was was being nearly expected at the time.
Heck, Russia con indiscriminately shoot down passenger jets now without repercussion, it's not like nuclear weapons are going to go flying over just abut anything.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's going to be a blast.
Seriously ? I read the rant and it sounded like a caricature of the old point counterpoint skits on saturday night live. I really expected him to end with we should have "vegetarian native americans running the country".
I mean look at this
Preserving a history that dates back thousands of years is apparently of less value to the United States than preserving the mid-20th century apparatus of war.
When he talks of the less important history, he means land that might have historical sites and will be surveyed before it is put to other uses. The " Mid 20th century apparatus of war" is from WWII and the Cold War, two of the most significant events in human history and arguably shaped the world we live in now.
I know, for a fact, that you have been on /. in the past bitching about various riders on bills and how awful they are. But now that it's a project that you deem "worthy", well, the ends justify the means. Not surprised at all, fag.
I'm not even an American, you ignorant clod.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Only a halfwit (or a Republican) would think that there was any possibility of any nuclear weapons ever being used again.
If we have them, it's an eventuality, not a possibility. That's the entire argument against keeping them around.
The argument for keeping them around is that the positive deterrent effects are worth that eventuality. Arguably nuclear weapons prevented the US/Europe from invading the Soviet Union as much as they kept the Soviet Union from invading Europe/US.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You expect the government to take responsibility and act respectfully towards its citizens by telling them the truth?
LOL.
Due to the ridiculous outcome and backdown over the Cuban missile crisis I'd say there's not much of an argument, instead it looks like the USSR were aware that they had already bitten off more than they could chew and had to work hard to sustain their empire at it's current size.They had Kennedy's balls in that crisis, and squeezed with an offer and a worse offer until he gave in. Johnson interfered with a French colonial war to try to show he had balls without risking them in contact with Russians. Nixon flashed his balls at the Russians with his "madman theory" but the Russians had a lot of experience with real madman, so barely noticed his antics. Ford's balls were for sale. Carter lost due to actually having the balls to go up against Iran. Reagan put his, and America's, balls in the mouth of the dying Russian bear and kept kicking it with the hope that it was going to bite. We owe our survival to some mid ranking Russian officers with a fragmented chain of command above them and little intelligence about the NATO troops massing in front of them.
The history of the cold war interpreted through balls. That's a new one. To me it sounds like a swift kick.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Some experts place the probability of a nuclear incident in the next 10 years at 29%
I think it's more like 80%. But we are talking about a smaller attack against one city.
Back then we were looking at ALL LARGE CITIES in the U.S. and Russia being wiped out, with the remaining best case being a nuclear winter, the worst case being that plus a lot of radiation making the whole Earth unlivable. That scenario was not unlikely at the time; that kind of thing is not going to happen anymore. We have moved well past a world-ending nuclear engagement now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.
Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:
Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.
Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?
To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:
Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes
I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.
I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.
As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.
Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story
You mean like the current executive mandate for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to focus on issues surrounding climate change, rather than, say, Aeronautics and maybe Space?
Can you provide the document that says that NASA's focus is now on climate change and no longer on aeronautics and space?
I think it might be in a file cabinet right next to the current occupant's Kenyan birth certificate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
All up it there are some that suggest that the nuclear deterrent value against the USSR is overstated since they did whatever they wanted to anyway, and in the end had more nukes than the USA (which was more of a symptom of them fucking up their economy than anything else - far more very expensive nukes than they could ever possibly find rockets for, as distinct from the USA with a lot less nukes but most potentially usable).
I used balls because in hindsight there was so much ridiculous posturing when the stakes were high - the Cuban missile crisis was testosterone ruling over common sense and the outcome showed that Kennedy had taken things so far that the USSR had him by the balls and he had to take whatever was offered in case the deal got worse for a second time.
All up it there are some that suggest that the nuclear deterrent value against the USSR is overstated since they did whatever they wanted to anyway
That's definitely not true. The Soviet plan was to spread communism by force ('liberation'). And there were certainly people in the US who wanted to destroy the communist threat completely (Von Neumann, for example). He was a smart man, but in retrospect that would have been a clearly awful decision.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, I can document NASA's task change.
Under the auspices of the White House OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy), the NTSC (National Science and Technology Council) created CENRS (Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability) as a response to a presidential mandate in 1989 (in case you were wondering, this was under president George H.W. Bush).
The CENRS created as part of itself the SGCR (Subcommittee on Global Change Research), which is the steering committee for the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), which consists of 13 organizations:
- Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Agency for International Development
- Department of the Interior
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense (Acting)
- Smithsonian Institution
- Department of Agriculture
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration http://www.globalchange.gov/ab...
From their web site.
As part of this, as a result of a presidential budgetary mandate by President Obama that an additional $1.8B (for a total of $2.4B) be earmarked for the Earth Observation Satellites (effectively canceling the asteroid capture mission - this i a redirection of existing budget, not an increase of funds):
http://www.nasa.gov/about/obam...
Obama's April 15th 2010 speech at Kennedy:
"We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world -- science that will garner tangible benefits, helping us to protect our environment for future generations."
http://inhabitat.com/obama-giv...
"NASA’s about to lend a heavier hand in the fight against climate change. The news that President Obama would be rearranging NASA’s budget to focus more on what can be done to stop global warming was met with some opposition, but we’re elated that he’s bringing some of that cash down to Earth."
See also:
http://inhabitat.com/obama-giv...
http://spectator.org/blog/5978...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...
http://inhabitat.com/new-nasa-...
Meanwhile, actual NASA budgets have remained flat, so these monies have come from actual space and aeronautics programs, rather than new budget:
http://www.behindmyback.org/20...
"NASA’s investment in the 13-AGENCY CCSP is 58% of the total amount of the President’s 2009 Budget Request for CCSP."
= most of the money is coming from NASA.
See also this report, which indicates that 37% of the 2014 NASA budget went to the Earth science program, supporting climate change research - and NOT space or aeronautics research:
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/m...
But you know... feel free to argue with the congressional record, newspapers, NASA itself, and President Obama's speech at Kennedy.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
No airline stock was shorted prior to 9/11.
Per the Snopes Article:
"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks."
We aren't debating whether the puts occurred, we are merely debating the reason for the puts. See also:
http://www.sfgate.com/business...
its inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act (the park legislation wouldn't pass otherwise)
You guys seriously need to fix your shit. Having bill riders is a fundamental government fail.
In the civilized world, a bill has a strictly defined topic, and anything not directly pertaining to that topic simply isn't allowed to be attached.
Seriously ? That's quite insane seeing as we had more deliverable weapons than them throughout the early coldwar by the time they pulled ahead it was because we had a completely absurd number of weapons and couldn't come up with a justification for maintaining what we had. (Over 20,000 deliverable weapons enough to nuke everything nuke it again, and yet again just to make sure it has a really nice glow). That didn't even include our chemical and biological stockpiles.
Also if Kruschev had Kennedy by the balls and got such a "great deal for the Russians" why the hell was he ousted and unpersoned over that crisis ? The deal you are talking about left the USSR only bombers to hit the U.S. while we were able to hit them with ICBM's and IRBMs.
The comparison is completely laughable, I don't even want to go into the differential between the west and eastblock on submarine launched nukes.
Eh, not quite. The world revolution rhetoric died with Lenin and was definitely buried with Stalin for good.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Desire - yes. Plan to commit more than token resources to, not so much.
Think a little bit about what ICBM stands for and you'll get a bit of an idea why they didn't care about a deal that meant they couldn't site in Cuba. Then think about what was offered in the first private offer and how much less was in the public offer the next day - the offer that Kennedy decided he had to take.
Precisely, that is my point - despite the vast superiority Kennedy caved in which is an illustration of the nuclear threat not deterring the USSR anywhere near as much as is assumed by soundbite history.
Big deal. Would you dredge up and dispose of the USS Arizona? Would you sell off Gettysburg to real estate developers? The point is that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The Manhattan Project has tremendous historical significance and peaceniks need to pull their heads out of the sand and remember why we went to such lengths.
That's not true either.....the reason Stalin was able to hold off Hitler for so long wasn't just the winter. He had been working on his army for a while, and certainly after the war he took over what he could.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If that were true, the Soviet Union wouldn't have 're-liberated' Hungary. Even today you'll find some Russians who want to conquer the rich countries to spread the wealth.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Have a "The Future" exhibit, a three-room 1:1000-scale model of cities, parks and suburbs showing what a full-scale nuclear war by major powers would look like. The first room would be pre-war, the second as it was happening, and the third what it would look like 100 years later. It that doesn't sober people up then only the real thing will.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
I was discussing what was happening after Stalin died, but fair enough.
Certainly the fervor was reduced after Stalin (and especially after Kruschkev's Hungary), but I would suggest that the Soviet involvement in Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc, even as late as the 80s was motivated by ideological reasons as much as (if not more than by) any sort of military concerns against the United States.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, but AK47 levels of support not MIG levels of support. More a desire than a plan backed with the sort of cash required for world domination.
True
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So? What part of "not as good as the first offer" do you not understand? What part of not unconditional do you not understand? There was vast superiority yet the USSR did not just flee in terror but offered diminishing deals. Why are you putting so much "spin" on this when it's done and dusted history and just a dry example as to why it's not the fear of nukes that does it but the fear of someone using the nukes.
They knew how much they could push Kennedy despite his "pay any price" speech - ultimately it's stupid to pay a high price for not much even if it sounds good in a speech.
Look - my point is very simple and you are completely failing to address it. If there was fear it would have been an instant cave-in instead of a drawn out situation and a deal resulting in the US removing the missiles from Turkey and Italy (which IMHO was a huge backdown). If you want to assert that such a backdown was a non-event I can't see how I can continue to even pretend to take you seriously without looking like an idiot as well.
This is off my bookshelf don't know if you will be able to find it online.
One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and
Kennedy, 1958–1964, Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali,
(New York: Norton, 1997), 354
This quote is from a post crisis speech by Dimitry Polyansky Deputy Chairman of the council of ministers for the soviet union
" “You insisted that we deploy our missiles on Cuba. This provoked the deepest crisis, carried the world to the brink of nuclear war,and even frightened terribly the organizer of this very danger. Not having any other way out we had to accept every demand and condition dictated by the U.S This incident damaged the international prestige of our government, our party, our armed forces, while at the same time helping to raise the authority of the United States."
If you don't want to search the web or grab a book on this, there's plenty of good documentaries available on the crisis. It may well be the most studied event in super power relations.
Although you've been insulting my intelligence enough to get me very angry (I was not born yesterday) I can at least get some amusement that a blind cheerleader for apparently anything any US government has ever done is presenting a speech in the 1960s Soviet Politburo as FACT! Even more amusing is that it reinforces my point about not being scared of the nukes and not being dettered from going into Cuba. Once again, despite there being a vast difference in capability it did not lead to one sided diplomacy - the nuclear threat wasn't to be as great a threat than many like to pretend. The USSR did more or less what it wanted, as seen with the Berlin Wall etc etc. However it was an empire stretched very thin with huge overheads controlling it's people by force, so the early 1960s was the high water mark.
I challenge you to provide a list of corrections to the wikipedia article and prove them instead of just treating me and anyone unfortunate enough to read your warmed up propaganda as idiots.
Bombs Away LeMay ?
You're lack of understanding is beyond monumental. LeMay thought we could win a nuclear war. Kennedy despite his problems as president realized the best we could do was not lose as badly as our enemies.
It would also do you some good to understand our system of government is and was different than the Soviet Unions. Denouncing the First Secretary was not something that was done, until the person in power was done for. For a general to complain in our system is not only protected but often a prelude to seeking political office. Wesley Clark is a good current example.
Anyway, http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... this article details JFK's very difficult relationship with our military
Relevant quote for you
From the start of his presidency, Kennedy feared that the Pentagon brass would overreact to Soviet provocations and drive the country into a disastrous nuclear conflict
(I was not born yesterday)
BTW you may not have been born yesterday, but to anyone that was alive at the time of the crisis it's pretty obvious you weren't.
I should have guessed. Your "The removal of the Jupiter 2 missiles was if anything a win for Kennedy" shows that you are one of those people with contempt for the "reality based community" who cares more about propaganda instead of what actually happened - because those missiles were not REPLACED with something better, they WERE REMOVED.
So what happened?
1/ Missiles were placed in Turkey and Italy.
2/ In response the USSR placed missiles in Cuba.
3/ Both deployments were withdrawn.
That's reality. Do you dispute that reality? Better get busy rewriting all those sources with your cheerleading then, because reality shows a step backwards instead of keeping that step 1.
Even if you were five, ten or twenty years old in 1962 how does that make you in some way an insider to those secret shameful deals instead of just what you appear to be - a victim and wilful spreader of worn out propaganda that nobody cares about any more. Why are you inflicting such stupid lies on the kiddies now and why are you putting yourself up as a better authority on the issue than the head of Strategic Air Command at the time?
I'm really insulted that you think so little of me and anyone else reading that you spray such pointless drivel at this site just so that you can push the counterproductive line of victory in all things.
Now that lie really depends on the reader getting 1962 and 1964 mixed up. What an utterly slimy weasel trick. You should be ashamed of yourself for giving Kennedy credit for something that happened the year after he died and almost exactly two years after the end of the Cuban missile crisis. What's with the lying cheerleading bullshit? Haven't you got anything better to do?
The logic is laughable.
By your reasoning, if we had a deal where I throw away a penny and you throw away a dollar, I would be the loser because I threw away a penny,
What's more you can't tell people I threw away a penny, and I get to brag see I made that idiot toss away dollar.
Even if you were five, ten or twenty years old in 1962 how does that make you in some way an insider
Well it hardly makes me an insider but it does give me a hella better viewpoint than some wet behind the ears pup, who thinks the Soviet Union didn't care about western nuclear arsenal. It also means I that I understand the difference between a crazy general venting and the First Secretary being dressed down by the Politburo.
Wet behind the ears? From someone who is either incredibly naive or cynically attempting "re-education" of straying comrades. Who is probably only four or five years older than me? So - how old were you in 1962? Two? Five? Ten? How would you have a fucking clue what was going on as a kid especially with all the lies floating about at the time? My parents thought carrots gave you super eyesight in the dark thanks to wartime misinformation to hide radar, but they worked out later it was a lie - why haven't you twigged about the secret bits of the crisis decades after they were revealed? Why hold on to the propaganda?
I really don't get why you are pushing this bullshit. A dead pilot, calling off the blockade, pulling the missiles out - Kennedy was way out of his depth with insane sabre rattling and no resolve to carry through and the USSR knew he was all wind on the issue. They had him by the balls. He drew a line he never intended to step up to, and the USSR knew that it was perfectly safe for them to go into Cuba and maybe kill a US pilot or two that came to take a look. That happened. Denying reality just to try to brainwash the kiddies is somewhat disgusting.
I am laughing myself silly.
You are attacking a horrible president on what was undeniably a success for him. Nevermind the geopolitics where we came out by far the winner, convincing our allies we were willing to go toe to toe with the Soviets, from a military/strategic position we went from trading U.S. cities for Russian cities, back to trading European cities, for Russian cities.
You speak of denying reality, if Russia felt they had Kennedy by the balls why aren't the missiles still in Cuba ? Why didn't the Russians just say "We are arming an ally suck it up" and put the missiles there publicly instead of a secret build up ? It's because they didn't have us by the balls and were well aware of it.
The missiles in Italy were a penny?
The missiles in Turkey were a penny?
Hands off Cuba was a penny?
A dead pilot was a penny?
The barely established expeditionary force of the USSR in Cuba was a dollar?
You make me sick reading to your attempt to brainwash the kiddies. What an utterly nasty little prick you are. You do not deserve the protection of the military folk whose lives you consider just something to throw away and ignore - so much for you ultra-patriot America has never done anything wrong bullshit - it's done something wrong in giving birth to you.
You are still going on about this? Whether they were no good compared with newer missiles is irrelevant because it was a political and not technical failure that resulted in their removal.
Your "I never wanted it anyway" argument is childish stuff you should have left behind in the sandpit.
Reality?
I see a pattern here with your attack on me over my joke and the attack on the other poster.
This site is clearly your escape from reality where you get to attack what you see as subhuman little puppets in the machine to feel superior and take your mind off whatever failures are bothering you in reality.
It's not reality so you can put words in my mouth and it doesn't matter - am I correct? It's not reality so you can vent off at the other poster that didn't do much to deserve that bile you sent in his direction - am I correct?
With every pathetic post you are typing to expose more and more character flaws you are building my ego up immensely - but surely you are not such a pathetic creature in real life?
Are you going to be man enough to give an apology for bearing false witness or do I get to continue to see you as a pathetic little weasel attempting to brainwash the kiddies with stories of a past that never happened?
There we go again - yet another example just like you dumping on my joke, dumping on the other poster and thinking it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against someone on this site because it's this site.
Clearly all a game to you so it's clearly fine in your mind to treat the other posters as if they are not human beings.