Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

I was hoping Manos would sound like Arnold

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

For new page.

THE PODCAST IS UP!!!

Download it here!

I'm on ebay looking at PC microphones right now. I noticed a few times in the podcast when my voice cut out or sounded distorted when I tried to chime in. I didn't realize how bad I sounded.

I've heard worse. What kind of mic were you using?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I was hoping Manos would sound like Arnold

Nah, best voice impression I could ever do was Don Frye.

 

[RustyNails]

Nah, best voice impression I could ever do was Don Frye.

We should do podcasts in the voice of our avatars!

Edit: Didn't puddles used to have Eddie Murphy avatar? Or was it a different puddles?

 

[Puddles]

I've heard worse. What kind of mic were you using?

It's the one built into my laptop. I've been using it for skype for three years now, but I'd never heard myself before.

 

[Oblivion]

We should do podcasts in the voice of our avatars!

But..then that would mean that I wouldn't be able to say anything. D:

 

[besada]

But..then that would mean that I wouldn't be able to say anything. D:

And I'd be speaking in drunken Greek.

 

[Jackson50]

You were pretty prepared. Good job! I definitely want to participate some time.

Indeed. That was actually impressive. Splendid job, guys. I may even grace the podcast with my presence.

Yes, you are correct, I was in error.

Personally, what I find intriguing are the hypothetical responses from the Soviets. How would they have reacted to such an overwhelming disadvantage in deterrence? If there ever was a genuine missile gap, it would have been to our advantage. Fortunately, they collapsed simultaneously with its inception.

We should do podcasts in the voice of our avatars!e

Edit: Didn't puddles used to have Eddie Murphy avatar? Or was it a different puddles?

Uh, no.

 

[besada]

Uh, no.

You just need a vocal transformer.

Hey, can I run my voice through a vocoder to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner for the podcast?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Personally, what I find intriguing are the hypothetical responses from the Soviets. How would they have reacted to such an overwhelming disadvantage in deterrence? If there ever was a genuine missile gap, it would have been to our advantage. Fortunately, they collapsed simultaneously with its inception

Well look at their reactions the Pershing II and GLCM's in Europe. They were extremely paranoid about it and it permeated the Kremlin during the early 1980s. Reagan was actually shocked when he found out how nuts they were starting to act and felt he had to get face to face with them to demonstrate that the US wasn't secretly planning a first strike doctrine/capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Exercise_Able_Archer_83
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Soviet_reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#American_reaction

The greatest catalyst to the Able Archer war scare occurred more than two years earlier. In a May 1981 closed-session meeting of senior KGB officers and Soviet leaders, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and KGB chairman Yuri Andropov bluntly announced that the United States was preparing a secret nuclear attack on the USSR. To combat this threat, Andropov announced, the KGB and GRU would begin Operation RYAN. RYAN (РЯ&#1053 was a Russian acronym for "Nuclear Missile Attack" (Ракетное Ядерное Нападение Operation RYAN was the largest, most comprehensive peacetime intelligence-gathering operation in Soviet history. Agents abroad were charged with monitoring the figures who would decide to launch a nuclear attack, the service and technical personnel who would implement the attack, and the facilities from which the attack would originate. In all probability, the goal of Operation RYAN was to discover the first intent of a nuclear attack and then prevent it.[10][11]

The impetus for the implementation of Operation RYAN is still largely unknown. Oleg Gordievsky, the highest-ranking KGB official ever to defect, suspected that it was born of the increased "Soviet Paranoia" coupled with "Reaganite Rhetoric". Gordievsky conjectured that Brezhnev and Andropov, who "were very, very old-fashioned and easily influenced … by Communist dogmas", truly believed that an antagonistic Ronald Reagan would push the nuclear button and relegate the Soviet Union to the literal "ash heap of history".[12][13][14] Central Intelligence Agency historian Benjamin B. Fischer lists several concrete occurrences that likely led to the birth of RYAN. The first of these was the use of psychological operations (PSYOP) that began soon after President Reagan took office.

The purpose of the operation was to collect intelligence on potential contingency plans of the Reagan administration to launch a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union."[1] It was initiated in May 1981 by KGB director Yuri Andropov, then chairman of KGB.

RYAN took on a new significance after the announcement of plans to deploy Pershing II nuclear-capable missiles to West Germany. These missiles were designed to be launched from road-mobile vehicles, making the launch sites very hard to find. The flight time from West Germany to European Russia was only four to six minutes (approximate flying time from six to eight minutes from West Germany to Moscow), giving the Soviets little or no warning.

On 23 March 1983 Ronald Reagan publicly announced development of the SDI program. Soviet leadership felt that the use of SDI technology was to render America invulnerable to Soviet attack, thereby allowing the US to launch missiles against the USSR with no fear of retaliation. This concern about a surprise attack prompted sudden expansion of the RYAN program. The level of concern reached its peak after the Soviets shot down KAL 007 near Moneron Island on 1 September 1983, and during the NATO Exercise Able Archer 83. The Soviet Union believed that a United States first strike on the Soviet Union was imminent.[1]
Operation RYAN was downscaled in 1984, after the deaths of its main proponents, Yuri Andropov and defense minister Dmitriy Ustinov.

Some historians, including Beth A. Fischer in her book The Reagan Reversal, pin Able Archer 83 as profoundly affecting President Reagan and his turn from a policy of confrontation towards the Soviet Union to a policy of rapprochement. Most other historians say that Reagan always intended to increase the United States defensive ability and then negotiate with the Soviet Union from a position of strength. The thoughts of Reagan and those around him provide important insight upon the nuclear scare and its subsequent ripples. On October 10, 1983, just over a month before Able Archer 83, President Reagan viewed a television film about Lawrence, Kansas being destroyed by a nuclear attack titled The Day After. In his diary, the president wrote that the film "left me greatly depressed".[40]

Later in October, Reagan attended a Pentagon briefing on nuclear war. During his first two years in office, he had refused to take part in such briefings, feeling it irreverent to rehearse a nuclear apocalypse; finally, he consented to the Pentagon official requests. According to officials present, the briefing "chastened" Reagan. Weinberg said, "[Reagan] had a very deep revulsion to the whole idea of nuclear weapons ... These war games brought home to anybody the fantastically horrible events that would surround such a scenario." Reagan described the briefing in his own words: "A most sobering experience with [Caspar Weinberger] and Gen. Vessey in the Situation room, a briefing on our complete plan in the event of a nuclear attack."[40][41]

These two glimpses of nuclear war primed Reagan for Able Archer 83, giving him a very specific picture of what would occur had the situation further developed. After receiving intelligence reports from sources including Gordievsky, it was clear that the Soviets were unnerved. While officials were concerned with the Soviet panic, they were hesitant about believing the proximity of a Soviet attack. Secretary of State George P. Shultz thought it "incredible, at least to us" that the Soviets would believe the US would launch a genuine attack.[42] In general, Reagan did not share the secretary's belief that cooler heads would prevail, writing:

"We had many contingency plans for responding to a nuclear attack. But everything would happen so fast that I wondered how much planning or reason could be applied in such a crisis… Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope and decide whether to unleash Armageddon! How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?"[43]
According to McFarlane, the president responded with "genuine anxiety" in disbelief that a regular NATO exercise could have led to an armed attack. To the ailing Politburo—led from the deathbed of the terminally ill Andropov, a man with no firsthand knowledge of the United States, and the creator of Operation RYAN—it seemed "that the United States was preparing to launch ... a sudden nuclear attack on the Soviet Union".[13][44][45] In his memoirs, Reagan, without specifically mentioning Able Archer 83—he states earlier that he cannot mention classified information—wrote of a 1983 realization:

"Three years had taught me something surprising about the Russians: Many people at the top of the Soviet hierarchy were genuinely afraid of America and Americans. Perhaps this shouldn't have surprised me, but it did … During my first years in Washington, I think many of us in the administration took it for granted that the Russians, like ourselves, considered it unthinkable that the United States would launch a first strike against them. But the more experience I had with Soviet leaders and other heads of state who knew them, the more I began to realize that many Soviet officials feared us not only as adversaries but as potential aggressors who might hurl nuclear weapons at them in a first strike … Well, if that was the case, I was even more anxious to get a top Soviet leader in a room alone and try to convince him we had no designs on the Soviet Union and Russians had nothing to fear from us."[46]

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that the Cold War was mass hypebole. The Soviets never wanted to invade the US or do any harm.They were just scared shitless that the US might invade them.

We should do podcasts in the voice of our avatars!

Which pony should I be?

Rainbow Dash?
Rarity?
Twlight?
Applejack?
Pinke Pie?

 

[Black Republican]

anyone surprised the media isnt talking much about the perry - inoculations mandate?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that the Cold War was mass hypebole. The Soviets never wanted to invade the US or do any harm.They were just scared shitless that the US might invade them.

No, the Soviets did want to be the dominant global power and acted upon it. They were the reason the Korean War was even possible. Placing Missiles in Cuba was another example.

I don't think if the US had just withdrawn to it's borders for lack of a better word, they would have done the same.

Now does that mean they wanted Red Dawn, no, but they wanted to be the ones out on top.

They were massively paranoid (as mentioned above) part of which I link back to WWII, but it got far far worse over time.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

No, the Soviets did want to be the dominant global power and acted upon it. They were the reason the Korean War was even possible. Placing Missiles in Cuba was another example.

I don't think if the US had just withdrawn to it's borders for lack of a better word, they would have done the same.

Now does that mean they wanted Red Dawn, no, but they wanted to be the ones out on top.

They were massively paranoid (as mentioned above) part of which I link back to WWII, but it got far far worse over time.

So they wanted to be what America is today.

I always wonder what really killed the USSR. The Communist model or the fight to be America.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So they wanted to be what America is today.

Correct.

I always wonder what really killed the USSR. The Communist model or the fight to be America.

Both. The fight to be America while using the Communist model.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Both. The fight to be America while using the Communist model.

I see. I wonder why China has been so successful while everyone else has fallen?

 

[PhoenixDark]

31 Million Watched Obama Speech

The Nielsen ratings just came out for last night’s presidential address. An astonishing 31 million viewers tuned in to listen to Obama address the joint session of Congress. In comparison, only 5.4 million viewers watched the GOP debate at the Reagan Library the previous night. Not even the opening game of the NFL season could outdraw the president; the Saints and Packers attracted 27 million ecstatic football fans.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates#204

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I see. I wonder why China has been so successful while everyone else has fallen?

China is fighting to be American with Capitalist economy with Authoritarian control. It still stands to see if they will succeed. There is a question of whether economic gains without political gains will still satisfy the people (and if it's not then what happens)?

 

[AlteredBeast]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates#204

I listened to it on the radio.

 

[scorcho]

I see. I wonder why China has been so successful while everyone else has fallen?

China isn't locked in an arms race with the US, and their successful integration into the global capitalist economy has pacified enough of its population from demanding more freedoms.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I'm definitely going to do a special Podcast edition, "Communism: The Rise, The Fall, The Legacy

Spoiler

lol

" on December 26th.

China is fighting to be American with Capitalist economy with Authoritarian control. It still stands to see if they will succeed. There is a question of whether economic gains without political gains will still satisfy the people (and if it's not then what happens)?

Ah. So China doesn't care about Communism or Capitalism, they just want what will give them the most power over their people.

China isn't locked in an arms race with the US, and their successful integration into the global capitalist economy has pacified enough of its population from demanding more freedoms.

Sad.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I see. I wonder why China has been so successful while everyone else has fallen?

China had smart leaders. They started to gradually introduce capitalism in the 70s. Had the Soviets done the same thing (though obviously a bit different considering they had 15 satellite states to look out for), there's a strong possibility they'd still be around. With the amount of detente the arms race would've leveled itself out, eventually.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

China had smart leaders. They started to gradually introduce capitalism in the 70s. Had the Soviets done the same thing (though obviously a bit different considering they had 15 satellite states to look out for), there's a strong possibility they'd still be around. With the amount of detente the arms race would've leveled itself out, eventually.

I see. Its so ridiculous being on one end of the political spectrum. Just look at the U.S. over the past 20 years for example. The righter it gets the more it fucks up (see Great Recession, Growing Poverty Rates, Horrid Education, etc.)

 

[TacticalFox88]

I see. Its so ridiculous being on one end of the political spectrum. Just look at the U.S. over the past 20 years for example. The righter it gets the more it fucks up (see Great Recession, Growing Poverty Rates, Horrid Education, etc.)

You can thank President Ronald Reagan for that. *salutes*

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

One more question about this matter. Is it true that Capitalism, or I should say the private market is always better for evolving and creating higher quality products faster than a public market? Like yes America's health care sucks but we have some of the best technologies in medicine because of it (not that its worth it).

So in other words if public transportation and schools were made private, would the higher up of them be more advanced? Or is this right fallacy?

 

[SoulPlaya]

China had smart leaders. They started to gradually introduce capitalism in the 70s. Had the Soviets done the same thing (though obviously a bit different considering they had 15 satellite states to look out for), there's a strong possibility they'd still be around. With the amount of detente the arms race would've leveled itself out, eventually.

The USSR would probably still be around if the arms race had let up a bit. They had tremendous industrial capability, but they dedicated so much of it to the military, when they should have focused on consumer goods for their people.

 

[TacticalFox88]

One more question about this matter. Is it true that Capitalism, or I should say the private market is always better for evolving and creating higher quality products faster than a public market? Like yes America's health care sucks but we have some of the best technologies in medicine because of it (not that its worth it).

So in other words if public transportation and schools were made private, would the higher up of them be more advanced? Or is this right fallacy?

To an extent, yes it is. But it also depends on the product. For instance, you mentioned health care. Most of that was a contribution of both the private AND public sector working in harmony. Private sector's motive is purely profit. If they can turn a profit by selling a technologically inferior project they will do so, until competition kicks in. The private sector very rarely improves without competition, whereas the public sector this is a non-issue because most of the funding comes from tax dollars.

If schools were made private, it wouldn't matter if they were more advanced because the general public wouldn't have access to the education. And an uneducated populace (you can make the argument that the US is ignorant largely, but "uneducated" no) in the 21st century is asking for complete disaster.

So the best answer is this, the best thing that creates higher quality products is both the Private and Public sector working together in harmony, without one "interfering" with the other (besides obvious regulations, depending on the industry, product, etc), with the Public sector being a better choice, but not the end-all-be-all if left unchecked.

 

[KtSlime]

One more question about this matter. Is it true that Capitalism, or I should say the private market is always better for evolving and creating higher quality products faster than a public market? Like yes America's health care sucks but we have some of the best technologies in medicine because of it (not that its worth it).

So in other words if public transportation and schools were made private, would the higher up of them be more advanced? Or is this right fallacy?

I think it depends on the market. Obviously things like phones/chairs/canned soup/etc are probably best handled in using a mostly free market, however when you look at aerospace, pretty much all the advancements there have been done by the government. Businesses have shown very little interest in that particular market, and it probably wouldn't be as well developed as it is now without the government stepping in.

 

[speculawyer]

We should do podcasts in the voice of our avatars!

How can I sound like a gas pump shooting someone in the head?

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think it depends on the market. Obviously things like phones/chairs/canned soup/etc are probably best handled in using a mostly free market, however when you look at aerospace, pretty much all the advancements there have been done by the government. Businesses have shown very little interest in that particular market, and it probably wouldn't be as well developed as it is now without the government stepping in.

This is also true, which goes back to my post above. It all depends on a variety of factors. Politics have a hand in it as well, as you can see by our current crisis. If it were not for government spending the Internet would've probably never gotten off the ground. Or if it did, it'd STILL be in it's primitive stages.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

So the best answer is this, the best thing that creates higher quality products is both the Private and Public sector working together in harmony, without one "interfering" with the other (besides obvious regulations, depending on the industry, product, etc), with the Public sector being a better choice, but not the end-all-be-all if left unchecked.

Nice response but what do you mean Private and Public working together in harmony?

 

[reilo]

How can I sound like a gas pump shooting someone in the head?

I think that's a hint that they want you to keep quiet.

 

[speculawyer]

And I'd be speaking in drunken Greek.

I was speaking drunken Norwegian.

 

[speculawyer]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates#204

Wow. I did'nt bother to listen.

He really needs to do more speeches. He sucks as a governor, he needs more speeches.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Nice response but what do you mean Private and Public working together in harmony?

By working together, they need to basically "compete" with each other. If companies start seeing everyone using a product that's government made, and want a piece of the pie, the logical solution would be to make a better product and market it as such.

Also, you can also see them working in harmony with contracts. One of the best examples of these is government contracts with construction companies to improve infrastructure. Government needs to give them incentive to do so because unless a construction company sees "$$$" at the end of the tunnel they couldn't give two shits if 1st streets bridge is crumbling or the road needs fixing.

 

[cooljeanius]

So apparently the way Republicans are framing the jobs bill is as "Stimulus Number 2" because apparently "Stimulus" is more unpalatable than "Jobs"

 

[Oblivion]

Puddles, here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#44443363

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Uh, no.

Azula lecturing me on foreign policy might be the best thing ever.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Wow 72 downloads so far. 72 individual people have downloaded the podcast and its only morning.

If it has continued success I'll likely open up my own website for it.

EDIT - I'd make a second OT, but I don't think it would come near living up to Pather's excellent OT.

 

[Stinkles]

I have a Facebook friend who does nothing but post Libertarian smokescreen rants about Obama, and they are poorly thought out and nonsensical, but he keeps framing them with the idea that Obama is a terrible CEO, and that he could never be a real CEO,as if that's what the job is supposed to be.

He's a former senior executive at my company and I am not sure if I should delete him or not, but he's annoying the shit out of me.

And I don't know what his contribution to society is, exactly.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I have a Facebook friend who does nothing but post Libertarian smokescreen rants about Obama, and they are poorly thought out and nonsensical, but he keeps framing them with the idea that Obama is a terrible CEO, and that he could never be a real CEO,as if that's what the job is supposed to be.

He's a former senior executive at my company and I am not sure if I should delete him or not, but he's annoying the shit out of me.

And I don't know what his contribution to society is, exactly.

Delete him. Life is so much easier when you can squelch differing opinions.

 

[ReBurn]

If I let Facebook political commentary upset me I would have died of a stroke a long time ago. I just chuckle and think "well bless your heart" when I see something stupid.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Wow 72 downloads so far. 72 individual people have downloaded the podcast and its only morning.

If it has continued success I'll likely open up my own website for it.

EDIT - I'd make a second OT, but I don't think it would come near living up to Pather's excellent OT.

Thanks for the podcast. I was one of the 72. It was nice to hear everyone.
Criticism: It was a little too calm and reasonable and far too much agreement on issues to keep my interest. I would have liked to hear a little more back and forth. Needs more anger.

 

[scorcho]

i'll download it once Bulbo is brought on as a counterpoint, or if someone can resurrect Jaydubs.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Thanks for the podcast. I was one of the 72. It was nice to hear everyone.
Criticism: It was a little too calm and reasonable and far too much agreement on issues to keep my interest. I would have liked to hear a little more back and forth. Needs more anger.

Yeah. That's why I REALLY want to get some libertarians and conservatives on the Podcast.

Also keep in mind that this is the first time. I'm still deciding how I should do the shows format, tone, etc.

 

[Particle Physicist]

i'll download it once Bulbo is brought on as a counterpoint, or if someone can resurrect Jaydubs.

I agree, there needs to be some differing opinions on there.

By the way, you guys never added my vote for Bulbo in the GAF presidential election count!

 

[empty vessel]

By the way, you guys never added my vote for Bulbo in the GAF presidential election count!

Ironic votes don't count.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I agree, there needs to be some differing opinions on there.

By the way, you guys never added my vote for Bulbo in the GAF presidential election count!

i'll download it once Bulbo is brought on as a counterpoint, or if someone can resurrect Jaydubs.

I asked every single person if they wanted to be on the podcast. Out of the dozens (if not hundreds) of posters and lurkers in this thread if they wanted to be on the podcast. Only 5 were interested, and of the 5 only 3 were able to make it.

Hopefully after the success of this more people will be willing to jump in.

I'm considering doing my next podcast either Wednesday or tomorrow for a special 9/11 10th anniversary edition. Haven't decided yet if that will be too sensitive, for some.

 

[TestOfTide]

No, the Soviets did want to be the dominant global power and acted upon it. They were the reason the Korean War was even possible. Placing Missiles in Cuba was another example.

I thought it's well known that russia gave cuba missiles because we had missile silos in turkey. I'm pretty sure that was the basic deal between the US and USSR: Cuba missiles go away and the turkey missiles go away to even it out.

EDIT: WIkipedia says so at least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis (check the section "crisis ends")

 

[Lathentar]

By working together, they need to basically "compete" with each other. If companies start seeing everyone using a product that's government made, and want a piece of the pie, the logical solution would be to make a better product and market it as such.

Also, you can also see them working in harmony with contracts. One of the best examples of these is government contracts with construction companies to improve infrastructure. Government needs to give them incentive to do so because unless a construction company sees "$$$" at the end of the tunnel they couldn't give two shits if 1st streets bridge is crumbling or the road needs fixing.

Don't forget public funding of research to produces innovations, many of which end up causing spin offs and start ups in the private sector.

Aerospace was brought up as "advancements only brought around due to government," while this might be partial true. The aerospace private industries (lockheed, boeing, etc) compete heavily for government contracts, which certainly helps drive innovation.