I posted about that a long time ago. He's an extremely militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith, which is a humongous red flag for a woman or man purporting to be 'of science'. Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question.
I don't think there's any contradiction between being a scientist and an atheist. In fact atheism is much more common among scientists than the population in general.
All I gather from this is they're trying to pressure google into working with the military more
https://www.express.co.uk/finance/c...ompany-removed-don-t-be-evil-code-conduct-spt
I am more amazed that you believe this nonsense. The actual incident didn't take place in Tianamen Square at all.
So what would you like me to call it? That’s what it’s referred to as. I didn’t state it happened in the square itself. I’m amazed you believe you read that anywhere. If I’d stated World War One would you feel the need point out the entire world didn’t take part in it?
No need to believe what anyone tell me. Just go and find out for yourself by asking people who were there.
? Eh I didn’t tell you anything. I made a post stating the incident is severely censored in China and many Chinese don’t know it happened. It’s a fact.
Dunno man, seems not to have harmed Dawkins, or Hawking or Penrose's (to choose 3 are random well known athiests) scientific reputations
Obviously as Taiwan also claims all of mainland China. Mainland China has been willing to maintain the status quo of Taiwan having being run by a rebellious party. The same way Taiwan says mainland China is run by a rebellious party. It's the current ruling party in Taiwan who is creating the problems. The original party who lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan, KMT opposes independence and also unification with mainland China. They want to maintain the current status. Currently they are the opposition party.
Could anyone be sure?
The Cuban missile crisis got a lot of us in the west alerted to the nuclear threat. But your analysis as to why it happened is slightly off I think, and it's relevant. The Cubans, Raoul more than Fidel had asked a few times but the deciding factor was the presence of US missiles in Italy and Japan and the huge ICBM gap between the Soviets and the US. I just say this because in your analysis the USSR was the aggressor, but the reality is that it was a defensive move in a wider context. Rarely are the US missiles flanking the Soviets brought into the discussion of Cuba in 62.
and a year after the US invaded Cuba!
Well I was showing all my restraint
You're right on that of course; there's none at all. 'Extremely militant' was the active term there. Again, THAT is the marker. Not atheism.
In the bolded one's case, among people smarter than him, it did/does. Third one (Penrose) has never been the "militant aggressive kind", although I'm sure you would have found that out with some more research or perhaps listening to him speak.
A little more background information would help. The original party (KMT) was winning the civil war by a large margin, until both parties agreed to cease fire due to the invasion of Japan. It turned out KMT was the only party who fought Japan, while the Communists bought time to dodge, recover and eventually win the civil war. They basically stole China.
The Aussie deal is for nuclear powered attack subs, they aren't able to carry ballistic missiles (although they could probably carry tactical nukes if needed but those aren't in the deal). Just means they can stay submerged for months and are hard to track, they are designed to be a threat to Chinese ships. Australia isn't becoming a nuclear state because of this.
All the research I needed to do, is of your original post where you included the phrase, "Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question", since both Penrose and Hawking have/had world class acumen and aren't benignly agnostic but publicly atheist. So maybe you are talking bollocks?
Not really, it was the move itself, not the wider context, that produced the world wide anxiety i.e. putting your tanks on my lawn ..so to speak, that I was referring to; also it allowed the US more (if they needed it) latitude to become aggressive towards Cuba, which they did not long after. The 'political' aggression continued for many years.
Not sure the Chinese, in the longer term, would view it that way? The pact between Aus/UK/USA, could possibly be tantamount to putting your tanks on my lawn (as described above) as viewed by the Chinese?
Again, the US missiles in Italy and Japan, the tanks on the Soviets' lawn, caused huge anxiety, just not to us. What Kruschev's move did was cause anxiety in the English speaking world. Also this gamble on the Soviets' part was in no uncertain terms defence; albeit a very aggressive one (unless you decide there is no wider context). People on both sides of the Iron Curtain were already pretty anxious about the missiles in situ on US military outposts, and the overwhelming missile superiority in favour of the US. In this context of vastly inferior firepower, if the Soviets were are aggressive as you suggest it would have been borderline suicidal. Also I disagree with your assertion that the US became more aggressive towards Cuba, as they had invaded the previous year in the famous Bay Of Pigs debacle. The US consistently overstated Soviet power so they could assemble their own military and global presence.
Agree with most of what you posit here, but the world population was not certain there was an overwhelming missile superiority for the US in the first part of the 1960s. It was in the early 60s when the false narratives of a Soviet missile gap were broadcast through media institutions & the Red Scare was at one of its peaks. But you are spot on about the drumbeat of both constructed Soviet missiles & their anticipated build up being used to augment the US military presence around the world.
I think we are at cross purposes here, I was using the 1962 Russian Missile saga as an example of tanks on lawns, not the rights and wrongs of it, clearly the Russians had issues about being threatened themselves. My whole point is that escalation was imminent and it caused world wide anxiety, (not just in the English speaking world) much the same as if the US were to put tactical nuclear missiles into Taiwan these days, it wouldn't just be in Chinese speaking areas where anxiety would be felt, the whole area in and around the South China Sea would be anxious.
My point was the english speaking world suddenly engaged their level of engagement, like I say, a lot of the world, was already quiet freaked out by nuclear outposts. Just as alarmed as we were by Russian nuclear outposts in Cuba. I just disagree with analogy as the context is entirely different. I will apologise, I'm a devil for conext
Yes, 100%. I didn't mean that in context of the world opinion, just in context of the Russian motives being clearly defensive dude mainly to their lack of ICBM capability.
Gotcha.
If I remember correctly, and I sometimes don't, the problem the Russians had was that the US put intermediate-range missiles in Turkey which were close enough for a first strike, that is to hit Russia before they had time to arm and launch their own weapons. Previously ICBMs or aircraft could be detected in time, the new ones couldn't be. Russia's intention was to duplicate that in Cuba, and when challenged said they would not if the US removed it's missiles from Turkey. Eventually, and totally contrary to US propaganda, the US agreed to remove it's missiles if the Russia turned back it's deliveries. That agreement held, and in a sense Russia won their objective, the US did withdraw their intermediate-range missiles.
OK we are clear now.My point was the english speaking world suddenly engaged their level of engagement, like I say, a lot of the world, was already quiet freaked out by nuclear outposts. Just as alarmed as we were by Russian nuclear outposts in Cuba. I just disagree with analogy as the context is entirely different. I will apologise, I'm a devil for conext
And yes, the missile crisis did definitely escalate things. That's clear.
Just to be a pedant, those missiles in Turkey were MRBMs, not ICBMs. But to your point, Turkey was basically in Moscow's backyard, and even medium range missiles were enough to threaten European Russia.
The Jupiter (& Nike?) missiles in Turkey were functionally obsolete by 1962, so the Soviet win wasn't that substantive, save for propaganda purposes. What's scary was how many tactical nukes were already on Cuban soil about which we knew nothing, weapons Castro would have used if we invaded the island even though he knew the consequences for the Cuban populace.
Yeah I know, it was parallel to the huge ICBM gap.
OK we are clear now.
In another 'context', how often did the British send gunboats into ports and/or up various rivers around the world to intimidate or to quell possible rebellion in far flung parts of the Empire... further examples of 'tanks on lawns' or as it also become known as 'Gun boat diplomacy'.
I would argue either way, whether responding to perceived threats or trying to enforce your will, such actions always inflame a situation because the action cannot be misconstrued and anyone in close proximity is entitled to be anxious.
Obviously the 'nuclear aspect' ratchets things up even more.
Don't get me started. That was often borderline genocide. I'm out.I'd be interested in reading up on that if you point me in the right direction.
Little blurb here...
I think the propaganda came more from the US, with JFK 'saving the free world', and even today most people in the US go along with that. And coming the 'they were obsolete so we didn't really back down' seems part of that propaganda to me. The missiles were only put into Turkey in 1960/61, why put them in if they were obsolete?
You seem to have missed certain nuances in the post that you tangentially replied to.
You do indeed have that record, believe it or not. Especially in comparison to quote fabrication.
