You Have the Codes(RAR!)

[aerius]

Am I the only one here that's gonna push the button and nuke something?
Bunch of killjoys, why so serious? It's a hypothetical, it's not like you're gonna start WW3!

[U.P. Cinnabar]

We haven't heard from Shep, aerius.

[Tribble]

Am I the only one here that's gonna push the button and nuke something?
Bunch of killjoys, why so serious? It's a hypothetical, it's not like you're gonna start WW3!

Psh, I totally beat you to it! And starting ww3 was definitely my 2nd choice. I'd be way better villain than Apolcalypse.

[Zixinus]

Do not use them and pretend you don't know them?

The only thing that that stuff is good for is starting a nuclear war that nobody wants.

I don't want to start a nuclear war. I cannot imagine or believe that one would in any way improve the world.

Anyone just knowing that I know ONE of these codes would ensure that I will be hunted down for life and destined to end up in a jail cell throughtly interrogated/tortured, then either disposed of or left in a jail cell to rot for the rest of my life. Because I sure as hell have no explenation as to how the hell did I get my hands on something that was not supposed to be on this continent.

Even in less serious tones, I cannot imagine any good use of even one nuke.

[The Romulan Republic]

Stay very, very quiet. Maybe chuck them into the bottom of the ocean or something.

At any other time, I'd be tempted to give them back, even if I'd probably end up in prison. That's not a responsibility I want to have.

But if I was blessed with the power to keep the nuclear launch codes out of Trump's tiny hands, I don't think I could live with myself if I gave them back to him.

Not just Trump, but also Pence(who's threatening Savannah with a visit to the Saint Paddy's parade), Ryan, Pompeo, Sessions...

But, this is what part of me wants to do with the codes. Another...well, there's this dimly remembered short story by Charles Stross, I think, where the Supreme Autocrat of the Associated Nations uses thermonuclear terrorism to enforce global unity.

Even if I was willing to play dictator of the world in theory, I know that's not a winning proposition. I don't think I'm going to win when they send the Navy Seals after me.

That, and "Do what I say or I blow you up" is a really inflexible negotiating position. You basically have one card to play, that only works if you're prepared to kill a lot of innocent people, or until someone calls your bluff. Also, how far can they push you before you will push that button? Because people will test you.

Its basically the Tarkin Doctrine- its a shitty inflexible strategy in Star Wars, and its an even shittier one in the real world.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

As I've said, personally, I would be torn.

[bilateralrope]

There is also the question of: How long will these codes work once the US knows you have them ?

I expect that disabling your launch codes will be a high priority.

[Sea Skimmer]

IIRC, Trump did leave the football unattended during one of his vacations to Mar-a-Lago.

The president does not carry the football, ever. That bag weighs something like forty pounds because it's main contents is a high power satellite radio. It is carried by a dedicated commissioned military officer at all times. A claim exists that Trump left his personal code card unattended, but so many claims exist about Trump I'm skeptical, and in any case no single code or code card can enable nuclear launch in the US system. A two man rule applies at all levels of the system; it's just that only the president can start that ball rolling. The same device also follows the Vice President around; it is not clear but likely that the Joint Chiefs of Staff also has one in attendance.

Single code = nuclear war would of course be an incredibly dumb system to implement, which is why it doesn't work that way. The football is a way to communicate with multiple headquarters which then after verification would communicate the actual launch codes to missile sites, submarines and bombers. The purpose of the presidents own code is to identify himself to said headquarters.

The E-4 command aircraft had the ability to directly fire Minuteman missiles using a UHF radio command, but this function only enables if the Minuteman silo has lost communication with all of the networked Minuteman command bunkers first, and it's one bunker per 10 missiles all connected by radio and multiple land lines. Since the E-4 no longer carries out airborne alert but the larger E-6 force does IIRC the Minuteman launch capability was also added to the E-6s. The ability to communicate normally with Minuteman launch facilities definitely was.

BTW it is an established fact that multiple presidents have lost code cards and or been separated from the football, and for that matter just the other month in China a Chinese security officer attempted to block the man with the football from following Trump into a room leading to a brief scuffle. So stuff does happen, but it doesn't create some kind of impossible security problem either; really the main concern has always been ensuring that the weapons would get used at all in a war, thus the long term resistance to codes on US strategic weapons at all (PAL codes for weapons supplied to NATO were implemented much earlier) on the basis that such codes only made nuclear war more likely by making it easier for the communists to get in a successful first strike.

Of course now the world is in the lol situation where a conventional first strike is becoming not just plausible but potentially more effective then a 1980s era nuclear one would have been. That's a non trivial driver behind Russian crazy of late and definitely a factor in why China is beefing up the scale of it's strategic nuclear forces.

[CetaMan]

In all honesty, either keep them somewhere secure no-one would bother looking and never mention them unless I seriously need a "get out of jail what the fuck happened to my life card".

Or as much as I dislike to admit it do the unthinkable and attempt to enforce world unity. This probably ends up with a few nuclear craters in various locations because at some point someone gets pissed off I have a big stick. That and this bring up a massive option of debate for ethics of using them to purge certain locations.

Don't really have them, hard to tell.

[Esquire]

EDIT: Somehow missed multiple pages when quoting, ignore/delete.

[Esquire]

EDIT: Please ignore/delete.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

IIRC, Trump did leave the football unattended during one of his vacations to Mar-a-Lago.

The president does not carry the football, ever. That bag weighs something like forty pounds because it's main contents is a high power satellite radio. It is carried by a dedicated commissioned military officer at all times. A claim exists that Trump left his personal code card unattended, but so many claims exist about Trump I'm skeptical, and in any case no single code or code card can enable nuclear launch in the US system. A two man rule applies at all levels of the system; it's just that only the president can start that ball rolling. The same device also follows the Vice President around; it is not clear but likely that the Joint Chiefs of Staff also has one in attendance.

Single code = nuclear war would of course be an incredibly dumb system to implement, which is why it doesn't work that way. The football is a way to communicate with multiple headquarters which then after verification would communicate the actual launch codes to missile sites, submarines and bombers. The purpose of the presidents own code is to identify himself to said headquarters.

The E-4 command aircraft had the ability to directly fire Minuteman missiles using a UHF radio command, but this function only enables if the Minuteman silo has lost communication with all of the networked Minuteman command bunkers first, and it's one bunker per 10 missiles all connected by radio and multiple land lines. Since the E-4 no longer carries out airborne alert but the larger E-6 force does IIRC the Minuteman launch capability was also added to the E-6s. The ability to communicate normally with Minuteman launch facilities definitely was.

BTW it is an established fact that multiple presidents have lost code cards and or been separated from the football, and for that matter just the other month in China a Chinese security officer attempted to block the man with the football from following Trump into a room leading to a brief scuffle. So stuff does happen, but it doesn't create some kind of impossible security problem either; really the main concern has always been ensuring that the weapons would get used at all in a war, thus the long term resistance to codes on US strategic weapons at all (PAL codes for weapons supplied to NATO were implemented much earlier) on the basis that such codes only made nuclear war more likely by making it easier for the communists to get in a successful first strike.

Of course now the world is in the lol situation where a conventional first strike is becoming not just plausible but potentially more effective then a 1980s era nuclear one would have been. That's a non trivial driver behind Russian crazy of late and definitely a factor in why China is beefing up the scale of it's strategic nuclear forces.

I remembered there were redundancies in the C3 system governing the nuclear arsenal, but It's been a while.

This was really a thought experiment , to see how various board members would react, if handed a recurring power fantasy/nightmare of mine, and it relieves me no end to see all those on here who have the presence of mind to resist the temptation to use that power.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Stay very, very quiet. Maybe chuck them into the bottom of the ocean or something.

At any other time, I'd be tempted to give them back, even if I'd probably end up in prison. That's not a responsibility I want to have.

But if I was blessed with the power to keep the nuclear launch codes out of Trump's tiny hands, I don't think I could live with myself if I gave them back to him.

Not just Trump, but also Pence(who's threatening Savannah with a visit to the Saint Paddy's parade), Ryan, Pompeo, Sessions...

But, this is what part of me wants to do with the codes. Another...well, there's this dimly remembered short story by Charles Stross, I think, where the Supreme Autocrat of the Associated Nations uses thermonuclear terrorism to enforce global unity.

Even if I was willing to play dictator of the world in theory, I know that's not a winning proposition. I don't think I'm going to win when they send the Navy Seals after me.

That, and "Do what I say or I blow you up" is a really inflexible negotiating position. You basically have one card to play, that only works if you're prepared to kill a lot of innocent people, or until someone calls your bluff. Also, how far can they push you before you will push that button? Because people will test you.

Its basically the Tarkin Doctrine- its a shitty inflexible strategy in Star Wars, and its an even shittier one in the real world.

It's interesting you should mention the Tarkin Doctrine, Rom, as that's what MAD boiled down to, control of the world by both superpowers through thermonuclear murder-suicide, and both the old men of the Kremlin and Washington were quite content to let that go on, except they never reckoned on the people of Eastern Europe choosing to refuse to be a part of that vicious cycle.

Art imitates life.

Once upon a time, at least.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now life imitates art.

I mean, turn on the news now, and we might as well be living in a dystopian spy thriller.

Hell, if this were the MCU, no one would bat an eye at Trump being a member of Hydra.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Or Cobra.

But it isn't just Trump, and this just didn't happen overnight. We brought this about over the course of the 3.6 decades prior to the sham Presidential elections sixteen months ago, by cynically accepting, cynically practicing, and cynically encouraging behavior that was more and more outrageously bigoted, selfish, and just plain mean, calling each new outrage heroic, manly, and in the name of Mom, apple pie, Jesus and democracy.

We kept telling ourselves "boys will be boys, it was just a little kiss," even as those boys were shooting their schools full of holes with TEC9s and shoving the little girls they raped and murdered into toilets.

We kept changing our minds about what we considered moral, as preachers and Presidents were excused for shoving their cocks where ever, because they're all whores anyway, as we accepted people being rendered off our streets into prison camps and Third World shitholes, because they were all brown anyway, as we cheered on a war we knew damn good and well we had no business fighting, a war we started opposing only after the wogs started shooting back, and our guys started coming home in boxes, because there's more dogs where those came from, and they're all losers for not getting us that Great American Curbstomp anyway.

And, then, after the war we wanted brought in the terrorists we told ourselves we were fighting against, when the power vacuum and a regime we supported the next border over combined to create ISIS, instead of taking responsibility for the refugees we created, we said "they're all terrorists because they're brown and have no oil, so fuck em."

And, then there was Gamergate, an online witchunt of women conducted conveniently before the sham elections of 2016, when there was a female Presidential candidate offered up as a scapegoat by the bipartisan political machine.

The rest, as they say, is history.

And, unless we start facing up to the things we've done, without blaming women and foreigners, like Americans have been doing for the 411 years since Jamestown, then, so are we.

So are the damn fools who come after us.

[/rambling diatribe]

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, Trump certainly did what he did because our society and institutions were already compromised. And while foreign intervention certainly played a role, that opening to subvert America would never have existed if our society did not enable men like Trump. Trump is the most visible and dangerous manifestation of the problem in recent decades, but you are certainly correct that he didn't emerge from a vacuum.

[Simon_Jester]

I blame the decline of American character (in part) on the rise of the Not Gays. Not the gays, the gays are not the problem. It's the Not Gays.

This will seem like a non sequitur, but bear with me.

See, the Not Gays are the men who are so desperate to prove that they are Not Gay, and the artists and media personalities so desperate to make sure no one could suspect them or the characters they portray in fiction or anything of being (shudder) gay.

As a result, some time starting in, oh, the late 1970s or early 1980s, it became increasingly difficult to portray psychologically healthy male behavior in fiction. This included things like:

1) Strong interpersonal ties or deep feelings of loyalty, respect, and gratitude between men (because other boys are icky and being nice to them is gay)
2) Gracious and respectful behavior towards women (because girls are weird and being nice to them is effeminate, and therefore gay)
3) A scholarly or thoughtful personality in 'strong male lead' characters (because thinking is a form of emasculation and therefore gay)

There were ways around all of these, but most of them involved shifting the emphasis of the character into a stereotypical persona such as "the nerd," and away from the 'baseline' male protagonist character template.

So starting in the '80s, fiction started portraying boastful, jocklike, reckless, bravado-ridden male characters who were incapable of forming strong interpersonal connections except through a handful of 'authorized' activities such as combat. This in turn contributed to the rise of toxic masculinity, which in turn caused everything else to get worse.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

In short, after Starsky and Hutch left the force, it was back to good old toxic typical masculinity, and all its masculine insecurities.

But, this isn't America in decline. It's what this country's always been, until that brief moment in the 70s, when we came to our senses, before the soft coup of 1980 took this country back down the hole it climbed out of , and we've been digging ourselves deeper ever since, not caring if doing our damndest to see it all go to hell, because the alternative is serving in heaven.

[Simon_Jester]

In short, after Starsky and Hutch left the force, it was back to good old toxic typical masculinity, and all its masculine insecurities.

Well no, it's like, stuff that was actually good got pulled. Some things got worse. It wasn't even a simple case of retrogression, it's that what positive features existed in the earlier conception of masculinity were in many ways actively suppressed, creating a more juvenile, pathological model of masculinity. One that held childish impulses to be disruptive, disorderly, and willful in higher regard, one in which men who were at least disciplined, sensible, and for lack of a better term sober were replaced with emotionally shallower prima donnas who "don't play by the rules" and "get results" (that is, are insulated from the consequences of constantly breaking the rules)

http://strangehorizons.com/non-fiction/ ... irk-drift/

See this blog post, which is an interesting discussion of how the old character of Captain Kirk devolved into the '80s version of Kirk (Riker) and further into outright parodies like Zapp Brannigan that have melded in the public imagination with the old real thiing.

This isn't to say there weren't massively problematic issues of sexism and so on with the earlier concept of masculinity. There totally, totally were. But at the same time, there was at least somewhat more room for males who were, y'know, not sniveling geeks or bullying assclowns or mouthy punks.

Which I think is one facet of why, despite all sorts of changes in the social order that you'd think would make things much better... things haven't gotten better in that particular way.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well no, it's like, stuff that was actually good got pulled. Some things got worse. It wasn't even a simple case of retrogression, it's that what positive features existed in the earlier conception of masculinity were in many ways actively suppressed, creating a more juvenile, pathological model of masculinity. One that held childish impulses to be disruptive, disorderly, and willful in higher regard, one in which men who were at least disciplined, sensible, and for lack of a better term sober were replaced with emotionally shallower prima donnas who "don't play by the rules" and "get results" (that is, are insulated from the consequences of constantly breaking the rules)

Like, say, John Wayne. Or Arthur Miller. Or, Joltin' Joe DiMaggio.

( the latter two having used Marilyn Monroe for a pinching bag, when each was married to her)

I contend this has always been the type of masculinity that was promoted, with only lip service paid to the positive things only men were capable of(so the false narrative ran).

Kinda like how a certain jingoistic space opera had ships bristling with the power and the will to barbecue entire planet's, and starship captains and cultural observers (allowed to teach Starfleet cadets, no less)imposing gangland mores and Nazi ideology on unsuspecting planets, while piously claiming Space America, and Space America alone was capable of peace, tolerance and good will toward men(and men alone).

See this blog post, which is an interesting discussion of how the old character of Captain Kirk devolved into the '80s version of Kirk (Riker) and further into outright parodies like Zapp Brannigan that have melded in the public imagination with the old real thiing.

It's interesting that this occurred in the same decade actual Kirk, in the works of Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer, grew up and became the model Starfleet officer and decent human being he should've been all along.

So, of course, we are treated to the toxic versions of that same character, as portrayed(to a lesser extent) by Riker, then(more so)by Ben Sisko, then Zapf Branigan, and, finally, the even more toxic version of 60s Kirk, as played by Chris Pine.

In which a life lesson learned too late, and a terrible cost becomes a "you go, JT!" moment which says cheating at life is perfectly acceptable.

[Elheru Aran]

Well no, it's like, stuff that was actually good got pulled. Some things got worse. It wasn't even a simple case of retrogression, it's that what positive features existed in the earlier conception of masculinity were in many ways actively suppressed, creating a more juvenile, pathological model of masculinity. One that held childish impulses to be disruptive, disorderly, and willful in higher regard, one in which men who were at least disciplined, sensible, and for lack of a better term sober were replaced with emotionally shallower prima donnas who "don't play by the rules" and "get results" (that is, are insulated from the consequences of constantly breaking the rules)

Like, say, John Wayne. Or Arthur Miller. Or, Joltin' Joe DiMaggio.

( the latter two having used Marilyn Monroe for a pinching bag, when each was married to her)

I contend this has always been the type of masculinity that was promoted, with only lip service paid to the positive things only men were capable of(so the false narrative ran).

I dunno. Gregory Peck? Hardly the most physically proficient gentleman, but often a leading man in intellectual roles (see Atticus Finch). Jimmy Stewart-- a beanpole, but also a leading man. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington anybody?

For better or for worse, the role of the lead male actor in most films has been reduced to either 'action hero', 'funny guy' or 'dramatic studmuffin', with combinations thereof available. You don't really see many roles where the male lead *doesn't* solve problems without being compelled to either engage in an action sequence, joke their way out of trouble, or take advantage of their heartthrob good looks and heart of gold (or whatever) to win the leading lady.

I suspect 'celebrity culture' is part of the big picture as well. This wasn't a big deal, top A-list stars like Elizabeth Taylor, Elvis Presley, and the Beatles aside, until fairly recently. Now you can hardly open even sensible news websites without seeing something about some celebrity or other, let alone the supermarket glossies, the Facebook shares, and the social media tweetstorms or whatever. And this changed things, I think-- admittedly more recently than the 80s, but it's a contributing factor-- where now before celebrity drama tended to be restricted to stuff like 'So-and-So was pulled over for driving drunk, his agent has said he apologizes sincerely and is going to rehab and will serve parole', now it's full-page spreads about So-and-so's history, his intimate affairs, the fact that he's done this multiple times before and this is the only time he's actually gotten slapped by the law... there's stuff like the OJ Simpson trial (the original) even in the early 90s, and that was definitely something of a Big Deal. I suspect this helped shape the image of a male leading man as someone who can Get What He Wants, without fear of consequences.

Another possible pop-cultural contributing factor; films in the 80s showcasing young actors doing stupid stuff without particular consequences. The Breakfast Club, Dirty Dancing (though that one is a mixed message in some ways), Ferris Bueller... actually just about any John Hughes film. The trend has largely continued-- when's the last time some cocky teenage hero (or heroine) broke the rules and got seriously punished at the end of the movie? Granted this all goes back a ways, Tom Sawyer probably being the ur-example, but there was a widespread concern for 'decency' in film until roughly the 70s that did influence depictions of delinquency, among other things.

[Simon_Jester]

Well no, it's like, stuff that was actually good got pulled. Some things got worse. It wasn't even a simple case of retrogression, it's that what positive features existed in the earlier conception of masculinity were in many ways actively suppressed, creating a more juvenile, pathological model of masculinity. One that held childish impulses to be disruptive, disorderly, and willful in higher regard, one in which men who were at least disciplined, sensible, and for lack of a better term sober were replaced with emotionally shallower prima donnas who "don't play by the rules" and "get results" (that is, are insulated from the consequences of constantly breaking the rules)

Like, say, John Wayne. Or Arthur Miller. Or, Joltin' Joe DiMaggio.

( the latter two having used Marilyn Monroe for a pinching bag, when each was married to her)

I contend this has always been the type of masculinity that was promoted, with only lip service paid to the positive things only men were capable of(so the false narrative ran).

Kinda like how a certain jingoistic space opera had ships bristling with the power and the will to barbecue entire planet's, and starship captains and cultural observers (allowed to teach Starfleet cadets, no less)imposing gangland mores and Nazi ideology on unsuspecting planets, while piously claiming Space America, and Space America alone was capable of peace, tolerance and good will toward men(and men alone).

Holy willful misinterpretation, Batman!

Firstly, my point is not "oh, these negative features were not there before." My point is "there were negative features, and a handful of positive features that at least partially restrained the negative features so that civilization didn't utterly collapse, and some of the positive features have melted away faster than the negative features they were there to restrain."

You saying "BUT THERE WERE NEGATIVE FEATURES" does not disprove this statement. Telling me Joe DiMaggio beat his wife doesn't disprove anything I said, it's just you yelling and waving your arms and pounding the table as a substitute for pounding on the facts.

...

Secondly, either stop lying about the TV shows you reference, or stop referencing them. I could go into more detail, but your entire last paragraph is a festering mass of bullshit from end to end. There is not a single clause contained therein which is free of bullshitting. You can concede now, you can concede after I prove you wrong on it point by point, or you can refuse to concede because you're drunkposting and hopefully get a kicking by the mods. Your call, Cinnabar.

See this blog post, which is an interesting discussion of how the old character of Captain Kirk devolved into the '80s version of Kirk (Riker) and further into outright parodies like Zapp Brannigan that have melded in the public imagination with the old real thiing.

It's interesting that this occurred in the same decade actual Kirk, in the works of Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer, grew up and became the model Starfleet officer and decent human being he should've been all along.

Actual Kirk in the '60s simply was not the shit you portray him to be.

So, of course, we are treated to the toxic versions of that same character, as portrayed(to a lesser extent) by Riker, then(more so)by Ben Sisko, then Zapf Branigan, and, finally, the even more toxic version of 60s Kirk, as played by Chris Pine.

In which a life lesson learned too late, and a terrible cost becomes a "you go, JT!" moment which says cheating at life is perfectly acceptable.

See, this is my point.

'60s Kirk could be, on the whole, quite respectful towards women, "a stack of book with legs" to his peers, a man versed in poetry and philosophy, a man so committed to his crew and responsibilities that he repeatedly shrugged off biochemical drugging by sheer force of will because the ship was in danger.

Chris Pine Kirk was none of these things, as far as I can determine.

Something got worse from one end of that scale to the other. And I feel like if we can clearly identify what got worse, we'll have figured out one of the key things lying at the roots of why toxic masculinity has persisted and aggressively amplified itself, while more positive models of masculinity seem to be either withering away or flailing around aimlessly.

[Titan Uranus]

Am I the only one here that's gonna push the button and nuke something?
Bunch of killjoys, why so serious? It's a hypothetical, it's not like you're gonna start WW3!

I'd "push the button", even though it doesn't even vaguely work like that. Burn a few cities, force a few authoritarian nations like Scotland to sign some unequal treaties.

You may call it "world domination", but I am above such petty concerns as conquest. I prefer to call it "world optimization."

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Optimization...yeah, yeah, that's the ticket....

[Korto]

Can I decide where these things go? Because I try to work out the best attack that coincidentally leaves Australia as the lone standing SUPERPOWER OF THE WORLD! AUSSIE! AUSSIE! AUSSIE! OI! OI! OI!

Maybe just lob a couple of bombs at our way for some plausible deniability.
Anyway, Sydney and Melbourne have it coming.