Play online chess!

From	Message
bobspringett 23-May-25, 17:58	"Golden Dome"? No, we are not talking about a new, extravagant mosque in Mecca. This is Trump's idea for a missile defence system over America. Similar ideas have been proposed in that past. I recall the ABM Treaty back in the 1970's in which the Soviet Union and United States agreed the NEITHER would build a comprehensive system. To do so would have been de-stabilising. "How?" you ask. Think of it this way... You are locked in a large room with someone who doesn't like you. You both are naked, but have a small dagger. Which means that if one of you attacks the other, you could probably kill him but in the process would probably suffer wounds so severe that even the 'winner' would probably bleed to death anyway. So given this situation, there is a stalemate. Neither attacks the other. This balance was called 'Mutally-Assured Destruction', or 'MAD'. Now think of a few options available to the two enemies.... 1. One starts to make an assault rifle. This would mean that if he suspects that is about to be attacked, he would be able to kill the other from a distance, avoiding stab wounds that might make him bleed out. He does this, he says, to protect himself in case of attack. But the other sees that it also enables the rifle-maker to be the aggressor without any risk of harm to himself in retaliation. The only safety available to the guy with only a dagger is to attack the rifle-maker before the rifle is assembled. Thus, making the assault rifle DOESN'T provide protection; it actually triggers an attack. 2. After thinking through that situation, the would-be rifle-maker realises that starting to make an assault rifle would result in an attack on him. Much smarter to make a suit of armour first, to protect himself against the other guy's dagger. But the non-armour-maker sees this and realises that if the armour is completed, then the armoured guy will be able to attack with his own dagger without risking any wounds himself. The only safety available is to attack before the armour is completed. Thus commencing the construction of a purely defensive project will itself trigger an attack because the enemy will realise that if he doesn't strike now he won't be able to deter aggression later. In this sense, there is no such thing as a 'purely defensive' weapon. Simply by providing a defence, that reduces the risk involved in launching an attack. The so-called 'Golden Dome' is such a 'defensive' system. The big differences between that and a suit of armour are that:- 1. It is ridiculously expensive; 2. It will take so long to put together that it gives enemies time to develop new weapons that the Dome won't stop; 3. In the meantime, it creates in enemies a sense of panic, that if they don't strike now they might be vulnerable and without any effective deterrent in the future. This could trigger a pre-emptive attack. In short, the 'Golden Dome' will either be an incredible waste of money, or an unacceptable provocation. It will probably be both.
apatzer 23-May-25, 18:22	Fantastic post. But isn't he supposed to be bringing down the Deficit?
bobspringett 23-May-25, 19:06	Patz 18:22 <But isn't he supposed to be bringing down the Deficit?> 'Supposed' is the key word. Just like he was going to end the Russo-Ukrainian war within 24 hours (which is still going, in case you didn't notice), bring in a 'better-than-Obamacare' (which a Congress controlled by his own party couldn't accept), and provide jobs (From President Truman onward, the unemployment rate fell by 0.8% with a Democratic president on average, while it rose 1.1% with a Republican. this average is largely influenced by Trump being the only President since Carter to preside over a DECREASE in employment across his full term). As for the deficit, remember that Trump's first term included the biggest peacetime deficit in American history, and the National Debt increased as much under four years of Trump as it did under eight years of Obama, despite Obama having to manage the GFC.
lord_shiva 23-May-25, 20:45	LOL << But isn't he supposed to be bringing down the Deficit?>> Ha ha ha. Good one! Did Groper even campaign on deficit reduction? Not that it would matter—his primary promises were to finance billionaire tax cuts and corporate subsidies through a combination of slashing services to the filthy poor and middle class and massively increasing the deficit.

GameKnot: play chess online, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.