4 ms·
Right, but they're hardly a single point of failure with regard to internal oversight of missile defense systems; that alone is a multiple $Bn per year endeavor
by leroy_masochist 7y ago
Right, but they're hardly a single point of failure with regard to internal oversight of missile defense systems; that alone is a multiple $Bn per year endeavor with several competing bureaucracies analyzing weak points and areas to improve.
The cricket thing is just a hypothesis; the article itself says that, "No definitive cause of the illnesses has been determined".
I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just kind of skeptical.
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoThey're not a single point of failure, they're one of a myriad of important analysis of weak points and areas to improve. Note that in the article the scientists are not defining the illness, merely were able to identify the source of the sound. I'm mostly skeptical at the skepticism. Why wouldn't one want to retain world class researching talent to be queried at a moment's notice regarding anything that could possibly threaten the country?
- sverige 7y agoWhy would a retainer be something we should put tax dollars toward? Why not pay them when they are needed, instead of paying them for who they are? Reminds me of Nixon trying to get rid of the Tea Tasting Board. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/13/archives/nixon-drops-plan-to-abolish-tea-testing-board.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/13/archives/nixon-drops-plan...
- SolaceQuantum 7y agoThey are paid for when they're needed. They've been scheduled for 15 studies.
- addicted 7y agoI'm sure top scientists working on stuff for the military are just filling public research journals with all the work they are doing. And you don't think the people in charge of keeping nukes safe saying they are needed to keep the nukes safe justifies their position?