... missiles malfunctioned at the same time was debunked in a SUNLite article.
This is an interesting point and one I am sensitive to most certainly. I do think there's an additional descriptive element that is important here. That is the concept of the mega-corporation. I think regulation becomes more important as the entity being regulated scales in size. Its likely understood by most as implicit to this line of thinking, but I do think its important to be specific.It's a class issue and a structural problem for unregulated capitalism.
This is an interesting point and one I am sensitive to most certainly. I do think there's an additional descriptive element that is important here. That is the concept of the mega-corporation. I think regulation becomes more important as the entity being regulated scales in size. Its likely understood by most as implicit to this line of thinking, but I do think its important to be specific.
The drug store that dominated a rural community's market through unfair trade practices (i.e., a local variant on "unregulated capitalism") did not have the ability to drive Regulatory Capture at a federal level. Walmart certainly did and does. To the point that, as we all know, the number of small, family owned drug stores have diminished greatly. This concentrated tens of billions of dollars in wealth to one family (Waltons). All things equal probably not the outcome a society would want.
It is nuanced though as progress in commerce should be considered a good thing. Large corporations have the scale that's needed to drive innovation that would otherwise be impossible for a small business. So size does matter in some respects.
Seems like hastings wins this one ...
You could apply this to any p/e/m at any point during the process (any where from inception, to dissolution), and those of us who care most about the inspiration/reason/true-origin of it are basically screwed, because we're dealing with a master class of narrative-magicians.
Not really. In addition to the evidence in the SUNlite article, skeptics have compared the statements made over time by the various witnesses, revealing inconsistencies in the stories that look more like hole patching than failing memory. But either way, unless I simply ignore the other side of the debate for no good reason, much of the intrigue surrounding UFOs and nukes falls into the realm of uncertainty ( for me ).
But believers will be believers — nothing will change their minds. I see the same sort of believerism with respect to the Sitgreaves National Forest incident, a.k.a. the Travis Walton Abduction case. Personally, my own belief is that alien visitation is a reality, and that many eye-witness accounts are true and reasonably accurate. The problem is being certain about exactly which ones those are.
Always a good show — and thanks for the reply :)
ok, but I don't think the counter argument stands up:
After launch — yes. But prior to launch, launch control centers are connected to more than one missile. In other words, there wasn't a separate launch control center for each missile. The piece of hardware that failed was the circuit board that controlled the interconnectivity between the missiles and the launch control center before launch.ok, but I don't think the counter argument stands up:
1 these weapons systems were designed to be autonomous. a failure in one silo should have zero effect on any of the others
What should be and what are, are often different things. Parts fail, and the article had a photo of the board. Sure, maybe it was a fake picture. I don't know, but that was their explanation, and it seems reasonable to me. Exactly why it failed is another story. But being a PC tech, I can safely say that parts do wear out and cause failures. Capacitors eventually get old and leak and fail. In those days I don't think solid state caps were even around yet.2. there should be no failures... I mean we're talking about nuclear weapons. they built in every safeguard that they possibly could these things should never go offline... and it's not like they didn't consider EMI.
Not really astronomical at all if you consider the explanation.3. if they go offline they shouldn't immediately come back online... certainly not in an EMI situation
So even if the chances of one of these silos going down is one in a thousand ( it's almost certainly closer to one in a million) then the chances of all 10 of them going down simultaneously is astronomical.
When I was looking into that, it turned out that the failsafe for US based systems caused the missile launch to deactivate for obvious safety reasons. However, the soviet based failsafe systems were designed on the presumption that if the launch crew was killed in an attack, the missiles would launch regardless, so when theirs failed, instead of shutting down, they went into launch mode. They were able to get them back under control, and subsequently changed their failsafe protocol to avoid a future similar mishap.And remember that the ukrainian missile silos we're simultaneously activated ( actually there's some us ones that did the same) and we didn't know this until the wall came down. so it's doubtful that someone is controlling this narrative.