Das Boot's soundtrack also takes the cake for me. Just compare the main title themes for Das Boot and Red October; both are good, but Das Boot's make you feel like you are in a submarine. The combination of synths, mechanical sounds, and even the sonar ping sound really adds to the artificality and claustrophobia.
Apple commissioned director Edward Berger (Academy Award-winning "All Quiet on the Western Front") to make this story of a torpedo attack on a U.S. sub during WW2.
My experience has been similar. I can't escape the feeling that these LLMs are weighted down by their training data. Everything seems to me generically intelligent at best.
idk to what extent the claim is true, but off the top of my head Britain's GCHQ discovered public key cryptography but for some reason kept it under wraps and made no use of it after WWII. It was only found out years after it was rediscovered by American researchers.
If we're chucking in on these, which seems to be the case, also Black Arrow; the UK's nascent space programme which in 1971 put a satellite into orbit (which is small beans now but in 1971 was still a serious achievement) and was then cancelled because the US said they'd give the UK discount pricing on their own launches, and then when it was cancelled the US said "Ha! Suckers! Of course you're not getting a discount!" (accounts of this may vary)
I think the UK might be the only country that developed, and then fully abandoned, its own capability to launch satellites. Now being slowly recreated, fifty years later.
The Iran deal was far from perfect, especially taking into account the ancillary payments to Iran. I find it hard to believe that the oil-rich country of Iran is interested in nuclear energy for purely altruistic means.
Preventing Iran from having a nuke is IMO a good way of preserving peace. The allies tried appeasment and most historians agree that approach was one of the main causes of WWII.
Huge difference here IMHO is that the west has been using this line for 40-50 years. At some point it's not "appeasement" and just "diplomacy between countries with differing values are complicated."
Put another way: if you want to call it appeasement, fine, it has worked for a long time. On the other hand, "peace via war" has a terrible track record.
What if the U.S. simply stopped interfering with other nations[1]? Have you considered that option? But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes.
And there's the answer: on the world stage, you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes, have your own, or be forced into a client state.
> Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask.
It's a very big ask to not proliferate nuclear weapons, because nukes correlate with sovereignty. You didn’t address that point at all.
> This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.
US friendship in the case of Iran means a puppet ruler (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran). And now Europe is in the process of decoupling itself from the US. Not to mention how the US completely dropped support for Ukraine. Turns out relying on an "ally" for defense like this is not such a great idea.
Israel also understands this, and so has multiple nukes in its arsenal. Why did Israel "simply" not proliferate nuclear weapons even when it enjoyed the protection and support of the US?
If I was Iran, or any country on the US's naughty list, I would be trying to build a nuke as quickly and quietly as I can. It seems to be the only way to not get bombed.
Given the track record in the region and the relationships involved, not getting a nuke seamless will lead to getting bombed with almost 100% certainty over a long enough period.
If they botch the quiet part, they'll almost certainly get bombed in the short term, which may or may not lead to the end of the project. But then will almost certain prevent getting bombed more in the future.
Has anyone credible said/demonstrated that they have developed nuclear weapons?
The US clearly does not believe they have operational nukes, or we would not have bombed them today. The actions undermine the official statements.
Put in realpolitik: would it be worth the US spending an Iraq War's expenditure of lives and $3 trillion to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?
Why?
What makes this moment the place where the working approach of the last half-century simply cannot work another day?
If they had already developed them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because nobody is going to war with a nuclear armed state.
The question is only, did they have the means to, and was there an indication they were? The answer is yes. They were enriching uranium at levels that go beyond anything non-nefarious. Their lead nuclear scientists were going to be meeting with their ballistic missile scientists (according to the dossier.)
On would it be worth it: nuclear proliferation is probably the most dangerous existential threat that humanity faces that is completely preventable. Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region and the cascade of nuclear proliferation that would occur if they succeeded would be a nightmare. That is easily worth $3T.
If I’m a head of state in a contested region, I would read your post as an urgent appeal to make acquisition of nuclear capability as the top priority of the state.
Nonproliferation via war is not a viable approach.
This reminds me to read more on the game theory aspect of nuclear states. But I do find it fascinating that no nuclear-armed states have ever been in a shooting war. Interesting to speculate whether the Middle East could have seen less bloodshed over the decades if all the players had been armed since near the beginning of the nuclear age.
I agree with you about accidental detonation and nonproliferation in general.
But it is also clear that enforcement of nonproliferation without similarly muscular enforcement of sovereignty in general creates a huge incentive for proliferation.
If we truly want nonproliferation, it simply follows that powerful nations must stop actions like the Russian conquest in Ukraine and whatever Israel is doing in Iran. Every government at base has an incentive to do everything possible keep bombs from falling on its cities, and a demonstrated nuclear capability is the only proven way to do that in a regime where nuclear powers are allowed to act with impunity.
I think one thing Iran could do would be to stop funding terrorism in the middle east and perhaps also not threaten the complete destruction of Israel while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons. That seems to have sent the wrong message by the looks of it.
Conflating things with nonproliferation detracts from the effort to prevent that singular threat. Now we are weighing the global, persistent threat of more nuclear weapons against regional terrorism and proving unable to decide which is more important. This, in a case where by nature of the problem, “both” is not an acceptable answer.
Maybe we are detracting from some regional terrorism at the margins while increasing incentives for nuclear proliferation. I don’t think that’s a smart trade off, but that’s where we are headed.
Doesn't seem to have worked in this case. They did not have nukes, they got attacked. How you explain that? How do these good guys protect them against evil guys if not with nukes?
Netanyahu may exaggerate the imminence of an Iranian nuke, but the reason Iran hasn't built a nuke is because Israel has been repeatedly setting Iran back in its progress over the years.
The single biggest setback was the JCPOA or the "Iran nuclear deal," which Netanyahu pressured Trump to unilaterally renege on.
Between this and Ukraine, the entire world knows now that even agreements with the previously highly-trusted counterparty of the USA won't keep you safe. Only nuclear weapons can keep you safe.
The deal was on only for about 3 years. Iran has been enriching to some extent since 2009. I'd would think there was a lot more in setting it back than a failed deal.
Iran did not have the tech to get beyond 20% at the time. The deal gave them time and funds for that, which is hardly nonproliferation work.
>Clearly that was all for nothing, so no country will ever agree to a similar deal ever again.
Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings. But that's inconvenient politically so nobody mentions who was President then.
Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time...? You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich?
You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
As Ali Bhutto said: "We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get our own [nuclear weapon].... We have no other choice!”
> Well, yeah, bombing Libya was a huge error, so you end up between a bad deal and bombings
>Except for the part that it reduced proliferation, reduced stockpiles, and dramatically increased breakout time
The breakout time was _reduced_ in the long run, since Iran was allowed to keep stocks and enrich (limits were to be removed starting from 2026 up to 2031).
>You think a workable solution is to just keep a country perpetually impoverished so it never even has the money required to learn how to enrich
They could just give up.
>You don't understand the logic of nuclear weapons, do you?
I do. They want it for offensive purposes, so it's best to handle it when it's easy. It would have been easier to handle AlQaeda without the risk of Pakistani nukes falling to it.
>Say more. What's the relevance?
Literally read the other talking points on the thread on how signing disarmament deals are cuz see how Qadaffi ended up. US did not have to make that choice.
Breakout time was not reduced lol. You have a deal, then you get another deal, then you get another deal.
"I just got a 1 year discount with a vendor"
The wise man lowered his head and muttered: "No, you have earned a price increase in 12 months."
> They could just give up.
Which makes literally no sense, as we are seeing. The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
>The only sensible move for any country is to develop a nuclear weapon as quickly and secretly as possible.
That's in contradiction, no? Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal. Iran would have been in a position where no deal was possible, and all the same arguments against what happened now would actually apply against a x100 stronger Iran.
I get the feeling you're willfully playing dumb, but to take it step by step:
Now, after having proven that deals mean nothing both in Ukraine and Iran, the only sensible move is to develop nuclear weapons.
Prior to us having broken both of these deals, there was a believable argument for the US being an honest broker who can ensure security in lieu of you having your own nuclear weapons.
> Except there never was any plan or idea on how to get another deal
What do you mean? You do the same thing again: economic normalization for non-proliferation.
Ukraine started in 2014. Libya in 2011. The truth of the world was already clear at that point, as well as Iranian intentions. The JCPOA was never going to handle a Iranian nuke but would have facilitated it. You cannot use economic incentives to fix a broken world, and Iran had many other motives for nukes.
To say that Israel has fully captured the American government is ridiculous. Pro-Israel spending is a fraction of all political spending.
take aipac, which barely scratches the top 10 of single-issue focused organizations. Aipac donated 43 mil to campaigns in 2023-24. The League of Conservation Warriors donated 50 million. Is the U.S. gov't being captured by environmental advocacy groups?
If you look at foreign agent registered spending, Israel spent 5.7 million in 2024. Compare that with China who spent 5.8 billion with a B.
Israel's influence is not just about how much money it spends openly on candidates and AIPAC is not the only foreign agent of Israel channeling cash to political campaigns.
Its about impact, not only funding, because aipac has not only carrot ($$$), but also a stick (an army of lapdog press journos willing to write and smear anybody for anything).
The data doesn't seem to support this claim. Israel has not "bought" any Presidents. Even assuming all pro-israel spending comes from the government of Israel and not from say U.S. groups that support Israel, it is a fraction of the combined and individual spending of other interest groups.
The pro-Israel lobby has spent roughly 10-15M per year since 1990 except for the past 2-3 years when it has ramped up due to the war. This is hardly enough to offset the billions of dollars spent in U.S. politics.
For this to be true it would also require Israel to "buy" presidents who acted against Israel's interests (e.g. Obama and Biden who financially bolsered Iran). This seems unlikely.
The U.S. does not unconditionally fund and defend Israel. Most (75-90%) of U.S. Federal military aid to Israel is contingent on Israel buying from American companies. This effectively makes most funding a roundabout subsidy of American defense contractors. There are also human rights conditions and many others.
Israel and the U.S. actually have common interests in the Middle East. Contrary to some opinions, allowing Israel to cease to exist is not in the interest of the U.S. although I do support having Israel be less reliant on the U.S.
> Those $10-15 mil are given to politicians and the billions are spent from US tax payers money.
regardless of where the money comes from, my point was that money is not enough compared to the rest to claim that Israel has "bought" candidates.
> You might want to look into campaign contributions made by AIPAC and similar isreli institutions to these presidents.
The pro-Israel lobby certainly donated to them, it was just not enough to justify the claim that Israel has "bought all previous US presidents." And the fact that those presidents acted against Israel's interests shows that if there was an attempt to "buy" them, it failed with respect to policy.
> Which effectively makes these weapons free for Israel. US is literally funding Israeli army.
You are right that the U.S. is funding Israel's military, but my point was that there are in fact conditions to the funding and the U.S. does get something in return if you consider the indirect subsidy of the American defense industry.
> Someone in the republican party decided "guys, advocating for slavery openly doesn't go over well
It was the Democratic party that historically supported slavery and opposed the civil rights movement. The "states rights" euphemism was invented by the Democratic party not the Republican party.
