Pentagon Recruiting Elon Musk to Win a Nuclear War(scheerpost.com)
scheerpost.com
Pentagon Recruiting Elon Musk to Win a Nuclear War
https://scheerpost.com/2025/02/11/the-pentagon-is-recruiting-elon-musk-to-help-them-win-a-nuclear-war/
17 comments
Also see https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_syst...
This is frankly scary. Elon has been thoroughly radicalized. And the US casually talks of invading other nations. We need to reduce defense spending and maybe reduce all money that flows to SpaceX or other Musk companies. Otherwise this merger of the government and corporate power could be a dark future.
Also an interesting note from the comments on that website:
> Yes Heritage Foundation is the same org that developed Reagan’s Star Wars / SDI in the ’80s and more recently wrote Project 2025
Also an interesting note from the comments on that website:
> Yes Heritage Foundation is the same org that developed Reagan’s Star Wars / SDI in the ’80s and more recently wrote Project 2025
Musk wasn't radicalized, he's always been this way. As the article says, SpaceX was founded with Michael D. Griffin, the head of Strategic Defense Initiative -- the very space weaponization program that Golden Dome is now modeled after. Griffin started the Mars Society with Zubrin (another war hawk), then took over NASA and funneled billions of dollars + people and plans to SpaceX before they had done anything.
The whole let's pretend to try and colonize Mars with private enterprise to help build the technology for SDI in plain view was conceived by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Advisory_Council_o...
(and indeed, lots of them were Heritage Foundation people)
The whole let's pretend to try and colonize Mars with private enterprise to help build the technology for SDI in plain view was conceived by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Advisory_Council_o...
(and indeed, lots of them were Heritage Foundation people)
What's really scary about it? What happens if US actually attacks baddies and wins the war?
It might sound like an impossible task; but it's not. Defences are mainly to augment the first strike, that is, to counter the (relatively) few second-strike weapons that survive American first strike. It's not hundreds but perhaps only a few of a few dozens of them, and defence does not need to be absolute, if a few slip through, it's still OK.
It might sound like an impossible task; but it's not. Defences are mainly to augment the first strike, that is, to counter the (relatively) few second-strike weapons that survive American first strike. It's not hundreds but perhaps only a few of a few dozens of them, and defence does not need to be absolute, if a few slip through, it's still OK.
> It's not hundreds but perhaps only a few of a few dozens of them, and defence does not need to be absolute, if a few slip through, it's still OK.
No, it isn't. We can tell by all the forest fires that the USA's power grid has not been maintained. This matters in this context, because we know that a single nuke in the right place would have been able to fry most of the nation's systems by EMP a few decades ago, and no upgrades means it's almost certainly still vulnerable.
Losing all of it at the same time means losing the industrial capacity to repair it. It also means losing most logistics, not just EVs but also combustion vehicles because of the fuel pumps. It also means losing reliable refrigeration: yes, those could now be directly connected to local PV, but without reliability you get random spoilage.
The estimates from before renewables got interesting were in the order of 50-90% of the US population dying from a single high-altitude EMP, within the first 12 months.
No, it isn't. We can tell by all the forest fires that the USA's power grid has not been maintained. This matters in this context, because we know that a single nuke in the right place would have been able to fry most of the nation's systems by EMP a few decades ago, and no upgrades means it's almost certainly still vulnerable.
Losing all of it at the same time means losing the industrial capacity to repair it. It also means losing most logistics, not just EVs but also combustion vehicles because of the fuel pumps. It also means losing reliable refrigeration: yes, those could now be directly connected to local PV, but without reliability you get random spoilage.
The estimates from before renewables got interesting were in the order of 50-90% of the US population dying from a single high-altitude EMP, within the first 12 months.
Ummmmmmmmm, for starters killing millions of civilians? Then filling the atmosphere with the soot of nuclear war resulting in global famines? Consider also that 1 singular missile reaching NYC kills 1.5 million Americans in the 1st 24h, and injures 3 million more. You can't 'win' a two sided nuclear war lmao. Only someone completely microwave-brained by ideology and with a deep hatred for human life would consider an offensive first strike.
These days, offensive first strike doesn't need to be nuclear at all. Nuclear will work even worse than conventional (because airborne debris from nondestructive previous nuclear hits may wreck subsequent incoming warheads).
The really scary part is in how your reply differs from the comment you're replying to. So, Here are the relevant parts from your parent comment:
> And the US casually talks of invading other nations.
> Otherwise this merger of the government and corporate power could be a dark future.
And here is the relevant part from your reply:
> What happens if US actually attacks baddies and wins the war?
I get frequently downvoted for saying this. But I'm going to say it anyway on behalf of the 96% of human beings who are not US citizens. To the Americans, the "baddies" are anyone who America chooses to pick a fight with. But the rest of the world has a very different perspective.
I won't say that everything that the US did in the past was evil. But if you throw a dart at the world map, you're more than likely to hit a place that's a memorial to the US mission of 'spreading freedom and democracy around the world'. Except, those places (and sometimes the whole world, like in case of Venezuela) would have been better off without the US brand of freedom. There are far too many examples of this, but I'll just mention two that are currently relevant. Check out the history of Venezuela and Iran to see why they became 'rogue' nations to begin with.
The US preoccupation with wars and immensely destructive weapons has always been a serious security concern for the rest of the world. US warhawks and neocolonial corporations were always on the prowl for resource-rich nations to 'liberate', especially oil rich nations. But the current regime is off the charts and doesn't even bother to hide their greedy motives. Their predecessors at least cared about their international image enough to make something up as excuses (Iraq, anyone?). Now you have a government of racial supremacists and a bunch of billionaire tech bros who drool about technofascism! Why wouldn't the world be worried?
But honestly, I'm not as worried as the others are. They think they're above every law. And that includes even the laws of physics and economics.
> And the US casually talks of invading other nations.
> Otherwise this merger of the government and corporate power could be a dark future.
And here is the relevant part from your reply:
> What happens if US actually attacks baddies and wins the war?
I get frequently downvoted for saying this. But I'm going to say it anyway on behalf of the 96% of human beings who are not US citizens. To the Americans, the "baddies" are anyone who America chooses to pick a fight with. But the rest of the world has a very different perspective.
I won't say that everything that the US did in the past was evil. But if you throw a dart at the world map, you're more than likely to hit a place that's a memorial to the US mission of 'spreading freedom and democracy around the world'. Except, those places (and sometimes the whole world, like in case of Venezuela) would have been better off without the US brand of freedom. There are far too many examples of this, but I'll just mention two that are currently relevant. Check out the history of Venezuela and Iran to see why they became 'rogue' nations to begin with.
The US preoccupation with wars and immensely destructive weapons has always been a serious security concern for the rest of the world. US warhawks and neocolonial corporations were always on the prowl for resource-rich nations to 'liberate', especially oil rich nations. But the current regime is off the charts and doesn't even bother to hide their greedy motives. Their predecessors at least cared about their international image enough to make something up as excuses (Iraq, anyone?). Now you have a government of racial supremacists and a bunch of billionaire tech bros who drool about technofascism! Why wouldn't the world be worried?
But honestly, I'm not as worried as the others are. They think they're above every law. And that includes even the laws of physics and economics.
Well, we all live in a peaceful, cooperative and interconnected world order which is created and maintained by America. Look at those suffering in the countries they can't control - only thing those poor souls are concerned with is how to get out of there.
Here in Cyprus, society is acutely aware of the impact America makes on us. It effectively defines us. But yes, they also blame America on our troubles left and right.
https://cyprus-mail.com/image/s1100x766/fill/webp/path/wp-co...
Just take coders. Virtually no one i know, and me included, simply won't take up coding if not the rich US market. It simply won't make any economic sense at any point, it won't be a lucrative employment.
Also if i make money - where do i even put it? SP500 is the only truly viable long-term investment.
Some people may feel trapped, and that's sad, but the truth is, what's good for America, is good for all civilised world and being directly or indirectly controlled by America more or less defines whether some place is a part of a civilised world at all.
Here in Cyprus, society is acutely aware of the impact America makes on us. It effectively defines us. But yes, they also blame America on our troubles left and right.
https://cyprus-mail.com/image/s1100x766/fill/webp/path/wp-co...
Just take coders. Virtually no one i know, and me included, simply won't take up coding if not the rich US market. It simply won't make any economic sense at any point, it won't be a lucrative employment.
Also if i make money - where do i even put it? SP500 is the only truly viable long-term investment.
Some people may feel trapped, and that's sad, but the truth is, what's good for America, is good for all civilised world and being directly or indirectly controlled by America more or less defines whether some place is a part of a civilised world at all.
How do you know that all of those were inevitable? After WWII, most nations had little appetite for another conflict. The world order wasn't something America imposed on the others. World nations voluntarily chose it.
Meanwhile, you also have never seen an alternative to say that the current world order is the best there could be. If the US had so much interest in world peace, why were they involved in so many conflicts? Also, do you know how many projects by American allies got sabotaged, that they silently blame the US for?
This is what I was alluding to. From your perspective, it's hard to see the other side of the narrative.
Meanwhile, you also have never seen an alternative to say that the current world order is the best there could be. If the US had so much interest in world peace, why were they involved in so many conflicts? Also, do you know how many projects by American allies got sabotaged, that they silently blame the US for?
This is what I was alluding to. From your perspective, it's hard to see the other side of the narrative.
Well, after WWII, America saved the world from the spectre of Communism, firstly by blunt threat of total nuclear annihilation (which was sadly never put in practice when it could be), then when it became impossible, by continuous overt and covert work to undermine it, until success in 1991.
I come from the Soviet Union and i know what i'm talking about. Blessed are those who never had to live under this dystopian system of dehumanisation and torture - and if not US efforts, sometimes heavy-handed and sometimes not so, a lot more countries if not all the world would be subject to it.
It won't be much of a 'conflict'. No one except US had much power to resist.
I come from the Soviet Union and i know what i'm talking about. Blessed are those who never had to live under this dystopian system of dehumanisation and torture - and if not US efforts, sometimes heavy-handed and sometimes not so, a lot more countries if not all the world would be subject to it.
It won't be much of a 'conflict'. No one except US had much power to resist.
This is exactly what I was referring to in the first comment. To the American fans, America is the hero who swoops in to save the day and can do no wrong. This is exactly how it is depicted in popular media too. But the reality is that the US is hardly the benevolent savior you imagine it to be. I will need an entire book to just list out the atrocities since WWII that the US is responsible for or complicit in. Even the inhumane suffering people had to suffer outside the US that you're referring to, often had a US hand in it. To you, communism is nothing more than a convenient bogeyman that you don't understand in reality, while the numerous warhawks of the US (like Kissinger) have caused unimaginable suffering on this planet. Honestly, you ought to see the world a lot more to even start to understand the depth of the problems that the US has left on this planet. Even the problems within the US right now is merely the birds coming home to roost.
I come from Soviet Union. I know what i'm talking about. I lost family members to Bolshevik repressions in multiple generations and so did my wife's family.
How does that change the fact that the US style capitalist imperialism is equally, if not even worse? This isn't a zero sum game. Two opposing sides can be evil at the same time.
For that matter, I wasn't the one who introduced communism into this discussion. On top of that, you're talking about the Leninist and Maoist streams of communism. The original Marxist style communist revolution is what is happening in the US right now - something explained splendidly by an American. The US power elite must have recognized this early on and demonized Communism as whole for it. If you're going to argue about communism, at least get that much right.
Look, I am not at all interested in a debate about political systems here. The real topic is what an empire did to the world for its expansion and its consequences. That too is politics, but an entirely different matter from the capitalism vs communism debate.
For that matter, I wasn't the one who introduced communism into this discussion. On top of that, you're talking about the Leninist and Maoist streams of communism. The original Marxist style communist revolution is what is happening in the US right now - something explained splendidly by an American. The US power elite must have recognized this early on and demonized Communism as whole for it. If you're going to argue about communism, at least get that much right.
Look, I am not at all interested in a debate about political systems here. The real topic is what an empire did to the world for its expansion and its consequences. That too is politics, but an entirely different matter from the capitalism vs communism debate.
> The original Marxist style communist revolution is what is happening in the US right now
Having read the communist manifesto, I'd say what's happening in the US right now is the sort of thing Marx was complaining about, not what he was in favour of.
The only similarities I see are that Marx would approve of women's liberation over the last century. But my sense is that's not what you meant by "right now".
Marx was anarchic, sure, but he was *actually* anarchic and viewed corporations as the exact same kind of problem as states, so tech bros saying "I'm an anarcho-capitalist" are who Marx would have chosen to put up against the wall first when the revolution comes.
Having read the communist manifesto, I'd say what's happening in the US right now is the sort of thing Marx was complaining about, not what he was in favour of.
The only similarities I see are that Marx would approve of women's liberation over the last century. But my sense is that's not what you meant by "right now".
Marx was anarchic, sure, but he was *actually* anarchic and viewed corporations as the exact same kind of problem as states, so tech bros saying "I'm an anarcho-capitalist" are who Marx would have chosen to put up against the wall first when the revolution comes.
> What's really scary about it? What happens if US actually attacks baddies and wins the war?
The really scary part is that the US are the baddies right now. What if they win the war?
The really scary part is that the US are the baddies right now. What if they win the war?