hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 76 of 84 FirstFirst ... 266673747576777879 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,520 of 1670

Thread: North Korean Nuclear Boogaloo

  1. #1501
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,441
    "That Hawaii missile alert was no UI blunder. Someone really thought the islands were toast"

    The individual who sent an emergency text to everyone in Hawaii warning them of an imminent missile attack did not hit the wrong button as first claimed – and was actually convinced a real attack was happening.
    (well, probably)

  2. #1502
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,701
    That tends to happen when you say "This is not a drill" in your drill.

  3. #1503
    Smarnca's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 30, 2013
    Location
    SVN
    Posts
    8,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    "That Hawaii missile alert was no UI blunder. Someone really thought the islands were toast"

    The individual who sent an emergency text to everyone in Hawaii warning them of an imminent missile attack did not hit the wrong button as first claimed – and was actually convinced a real attack was happening.
    (well, probably)



  4. #1504
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,518
    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    That tends to happen when you say "This is not a drill" in your drill.
    EXERCISE EXERCISE EXERCISE this is not a drill EXERCISE EXERCISE EXERCISE

    I wonder if this is an exercise or legit...

  5. #1505

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    3,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    "That Hawaii missile alert was no UI blunder. Someone really thought the islands were toast"

    The individual who sent an emergency text to everyone in Hawaii warning them of an imminent missile attack did not hit the wrong button as first claimed – and was actually convinced a real attack was happening.
    (well, probably)
    Employee 1 has been a source of concern for the same SWP staff for over 10 years. Employee 1’s poor performance has been counseled and documented and the SWP members have stated that they are “not comfortable with Employee 1 as a supervisor, two-man team, or as a part of the SWP in general. He does not take initiative and has to be directed before he takes action. He is unable to comprehend the situation at hand and has confused real life events and drills on at least two separate occasions.
    Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nts=1&start=40

    But that "Excercise! No, not really ... or is it? Who knows? It's not a drill! Haha, fooled ya right there: Excercise!" wasn't exactly helpful either.
    Last edited by Hel OWeen; February 1 2018 at 02:47:57 PM.

  6. #1506
    Chakrai's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,677
    As a civil servant I appreciate a good government cock up, but this really brings a tear to my eye. Fucking amazing stuff hawaii, I will never top that.
    She did what?

  7. #1507
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    "That Hawaii missile alert was no UI blunder. Someone really thought the islands were toast"

    The individual who sent an emergency text to everyone in Hawaii warning them of an imminent missile attack did not hit the wrong button as first claimed – and was actually convinced a real attack was happening.
    (well, probably)
    Employee 1 has been a source of concern for the same SWP staff for over 10 years. Employee 1’s poor performance has been counseled and documented and the SWP members have stated that they are “not comfortable with Employee 1 as a supervisor, two-man team, or as a part of the SWP in general. He does not take initiative and has to be directed before he takes action. He is unable to comprehend the situation at hand and has confused real life events and drills on at least two separate occasions.
    Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nts=1&start=40

    But that "Excercise! No, not really ... or is it? Who knows? It's not a drill! Haha, fooled ya right there: Excercise!" wasn't exactly helpful either.
    So you accidentally told a million people they are going to die: What next? Your essential guide...

    Analysis It's a common enough scenario: you are in charge of a critical piece of your company's computing infrastructure, and you make a simple mistake with far-reaching implications.

    It could be a mail server misdirecting internal documents into journalists' inboxes, or a poorly configured border firewall. Perhaps you accidentally changed access permissions to a shared drive. It all happened so quickly, one mouse click, and now you and your department are being inundated with people demanding to know what happened.

    What should you do? In the blur of such an event, it can be all too easy to make the wrong decisions, or even take the right actions but do them in the wrong order. When time is a critical factor, pressure can make it even harder to stay level headed.

    Which is why we are all lucky to have reports on precisely what happened at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (EMA) – which earlier this month texted more than a million people on the US islands that ballistic missiles were about to rain down on their heads.

  8. #1508

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,914
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.

  9. #1509
    theBlind's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.
    Tanks: theBlind[URBAD] (in my heart there will always be a place for [FAIL])
    Planetside2: [UBAD]theAngelic

  10. #1510

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    3,949
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.
    While I agree with you in general, in this case it seems like a real problem with that particular person. I encourage you guys to read that Ars article I linked above. If that's to be believed, that guy seems more like a disaster waiting to happen than a competent guy, carefully making decisions based on thoughts that Nicholai formulated above.

  11. #1511
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.
    The thing is this isn't a person who is alone situation, he heard this warning in the same room as a group of people. The resolution to confusion or uncertainty is one question away. He not only didn't ask, but has a history of making mistakes and documented no confidence reviews from his coworkers. The question should be 'what barriers were in place to prevent him from being removed before this?' not a misplaced hand wringing over the poor guy losing a job.

  12. #1512
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.
    The thing is this isn't a person who is alone situation, he heard this warning in the same room as a group of people. The resolution to confusion or uncertainty is one question away. He not only didn't ask, but has a history of making mistakes and documented no confidence reviews from his coworkers. The question should be 'what barriers were in place to prevent him from being removed before this?' not a misplaced hand wringing over the poor guy losing a job.
    or, somebody higher up the corporate ladder is talking to the press planting these stories in an attempt to cover their own arse over a badly planned and managed exercise that went wrong.

    a "internal investigation" with a pre-determined outcome is hardly unheard of and the fact we're not hearing the other side of the story is a probable indication of legal action under-way.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  13. #1513
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.
    The thing is this isn't a person who is alone situation, he heard this warning in the same room as a group of people. The resolution to confusion or uncertainty is one question away. He not only didn't ask, but has a history of making mistakes and documented no confidence reviews from his coworkers. The question should be 'what barriers were in place to prevent him from being removed before this?' not a misplaced hand wringing over the poor guy losing a job.
    or, somebody higher up the corporate ladder is talking to the press planting these stories in an attempt to cover their own arse over a badly planned and managed exercise that went wrong.

    a "internal investigation" with a pre-determined outcome is hardly unheard of and the fact we're not hearing the other side of the story is a probable indication of legal action under-way.
    Ah yes, the everything is a horrible conspiracy approach. This came out after the cover your ass press releases. They had everything packaged and already started public delivery the message that everything was to blame on the alert software and how easy it was to send the wrong alert and forgotten passwords for the delay in rescinding the alert. Kudo's to the guy that made the mistake for being honest during the internal review I guess.

  14. #1514
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    If you get a mixed message like that, you assume the worst case scenario and send out a real warning.

    You are basically weighing up a risk to your job (in the instance its a drill) against the lives of the people who will get to shelter in time (in the instance it is real).

    He made the right call given the information sent to him and I hope he keeps his job.
    The thing is this isn't a person who is alone situation, he heard this warning in the same room as a group of people. The resolution to confusion or uncertainty is one question away. He not only didn't ask, but has a history of making mistakes and documented no confidence reviews from his coworkers. The question should be 'what barriers were in place to prevent him from being removed before this?' not a misplaced hand wringing over the poor guy losing a job.
    or, somebody higher up the corporate ladder
    I'm going to stop you right there. It's the Hawaii government. Not a corporation. That's not actually how it works.
    meh

  15. #1515
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,441
    So with Tillerson going and talk that the rest of the Axis of Adults might be on the way out soon, I thought I'd post this opinion piece by (in part) our former Ambassador to the U.S.

    OPINION

    War with North Korea: From unthinkable to unavoidable?

    One of the coldest northern winters for many years proved a piece of good fortune for the Winter Olympics in South Korea, but it may be the last happy moment on the Korean Peninsula for a long time. A war there is a distinct possibility. Some form of military action to disrupt North Korean nuclear weapon developments is even more likely.

    Diplomacy may have run its course. We are at the most dangerous moment since the Korean War armistice in 1953. A war today could have unimaginable consequences: a catastrophic death toll, missile strikes beyond the peninsula, the first nuclear bombs to be used in conflict since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The risk has long been real and in 2018, with Donald Trump in the White House, it is alarmingly high. Events unfolding on the Korean Peninsula and in Washington are pointing in a direction that is difficult, but essential, to contemplate.

    A fear of mass civilian casualties and the perception that North Korea has a low bar on pre-emption have haunted US administrations. At least 10 major North Korean atrocities and provocations since 1967 have been essentially passed over. The response has been sporadic attempts at diplomacy, backed by ever-tightening sanctions.

    The Obama administration, faced with a paucity of good options and a hope that at some point the North Koreans would bend, articulated the Allied tactic as "strategic patience". The Trump administration has said those days are over.

    Insecure enemies

    What has changed to bring us to this point? The first shift is the emergence of Kim Jong-un as supreme leader following his father's death in 2011. Clearly the most insecure of the dynastic line, Mr Kim's regime has been marked by regular and brutal purges of his retinue and deepening oppression of his people.

    North Korea's nuclear capabilities are entwined with Mr Kim's legitimacy. Recognition of North Korea's status as a nuclear power is non-negotiable. Last year there were 23 tests of missile capability, culminating in the launch of the Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). At that point, Mr Kim declared his program "complete".

    Mr Kim's 2018 New Year statement attracted attention for its outreach to South Korea, an obvious attempt to drive a wedge between the United States and its ally. This produced a flurry of diplomacy to include the North in the Winter Olympics.

    For some, this raised hopes. But most observers had the sense that we had been here before, and none should be fooled. More significant was Mr Kim's indication that North Korea will focus on "mass-producing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles for operational deployment".

    The second major change in the Korean situation is the election of Mr Trump. His approach to national security has deviated more from his campaign promises than any other set of policies.

    He has dismissed allies, including South Korea, even suggesting that nation might want to provide its own nuclear umbrella. He sensed his voter base was tired of American commitments and wars, yet now finds himself on the verge of a war that would dwarf any in recent times.

    Mr Trump's grasp of most matters in international politics and military affairs is rudimentary. His interventions, by tweet or otherwise, provoke instant mockery among the informed community. But he is the man in charge, and so his views bear close analysis. They reveal his method of processing the information and intelligence he is receiving.

    In response to a New Year nuclear boast from Mr Kim, Mr Trump tweeted: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

    Most commentary mocked this schoolyard exchange, but it was significant. Mr Trump is seriously contemplating a war to disarm North Korea of its weapons.

    Man in the middle

    It would be folly to assume that Mr Trump's views are not widely held within his administration. His national security adviser, HR McMaster, who has described North Korea as "the greatest immediate threat to the United States", is a leading proponent of military action.

    This has posed some unique challenges for the secretary of defence, Jim Mattis, who understands the scale of a likely conflagration. Mr Mattis has repeatedly warned that a conflict with North Korea would be "catastrophic", while also providing assurances of the ultimate outcome total US victory and the end of Pyongyang's nuclear program so as to maintain deterrence.

    Mr Mattis works in tandem with the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, to achieve a diplomatic solution through a tighter sanctions regime. But Mr Mattis matters to Mr Trump; Mr Tillerson doesn't. Mr Trump was angry about Mr Tillerson's suggestion that the US was prepared to begin talks with North Korea without preconditions.

    Mr Trump is more on song with his UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, who stated in January:

    We consider this to be a very reckless regime. We don't think we need a band-aid and we don't think we need to smile and take a picture. We think we need to have them stop nuclear weapons and they need to stop it now."

    Mr Trump's principal source of advice is the Pentagon, which for years has worked on military options to pre-empt North Korea. The Pentagon's primary duty is to work out how things can be done, a different task from saying whether they should be. Those who carry the diplomatic argument are sidelined.

    This leaves Mr Mattis in the weighty position of having to find both a solution and the enabling argument.

    Battle options

    Mr Mattis says the US has some potential military options that would not result in the devastation of Seoul, though he has not provided any details. How would it be done?

    An apparent "preferred option" is the use of joint CIA and special forces teams like those used in Afghanistan in 2001 to seize the nuclear sites.

    However, a covert operation of this kind would probably not be a standalone activity extensive use of bombers and cruise missiles is likely. The possibility of a broader war through an accident or misinterpretation is substantial.

    What would be the North Korean reaction to a limited punitive event? If Mr Kim is as "rational" as is commonly claimed, a cruise missile strike to pre-empt a test would hardly trigger a massive response. Most likely, it would be a hit at a soft South Korean target or military base, or a cyberattack.

    But neither a limited operation nor a wholesale assault on North Korea's nuclear capabilities could be attempted without having in place the mechanisms for an all-out war. Defending Seoul would require the rapid degrading of the mortar, rocket, missile and artillery capabilities ranged against it.

    Given the erosion of North Korea's conventional capabilities, that might be doable. The problem would lie in what Mr Kim might do in a situation where his regime's survival was in question. Has he secreted nuclear weapons that could unleash devastation on South Korea and Japan? Half a dozen weapons would be economy-destroying; a dozen would be civilisation-destroying.

    This brings us back to the question of why Mr Trump would try. For him, the game is simple: North Korea shall not have an ICBM.

    For the experts and advisers advocating a pre-emptive strike, it goes to the nature of Mr Kim's regime. North Korea is a nuclear power like no other, and its intentions are an open question. Does North Korea desire a nuclear capability simply for deterrence and regime survival, or does it have a more aggressive ambition to use that capability to try to reunify the peninsula?

    Diplomatic alternatives

    It is difficult to imagine that a pre-emptive US strike can do anything other than risk the devastation of South Korea and Japan, with dreadful human and environmental consequences. Small wonder former Trump strategist Steve Bannon said, before leaving the White House: "There's no military solution, forget it."

    There is a closing, not closed, window for diplomacy. Any attack would need to be preceded by a comprehensive diplomatic strategy involving China. The US might want to test the waters with China and North Korea on solutions involving a major standdown rather than entire elimination of North Korea's nuclear capability.

    We probably have not yet seen the full weight China is capable of bringing to bear on North Korea. It would have to be a great deal to bring Mr Kim to heel, and it is difficult to envisage such an outcome that would not undermine his sense of his regime's legitimacy.

    It is not yet midnight, but as the crisis deepens, the diplomatic and military options get more and more complex. In averting catastrophe, having a bigger nuclear button will not guarantee success. That is obvious to most informed observers.

    But is it obvious to Mr Trump? The answer is unknowable. What is certain is that his own sense of legitimacy is bound up in North Korea having no ICBMs. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, puts the prospect of war at 50/50.

    The prediction is chilling. This is going to be a hard year.

    That judgment remains valid, but last week a sliver of light appeared. Motivated at least in part by concern over the march toward confrontation we describe, both during and after the Olympics South Korean President Moon Jae-in has sought to buy time for diplomacy.

    High-level negotiators from the South, following meetings with the North, reported a possibility their counterparts might be prepared to put their nuclear capability on the table in return for security guarantees.

    Some analysts suggest the latter means the removal of US forces and guarantees to the South they might think about it, essentially a delaying tactic. Mr Moon wants to test this at a meeting with his counterpart. Mr Trump himself said this might be a start.

    Certainly in terms of management of allied relationships, the US would want to see what it means, though public statements by the North suggests it is pressing on with the nuclear plan.

    Past experience would indicate this is nothing more than an effort at confusion. Still, we don't know how the other side of the hill interprets Mr Trump's obvious preparedness for war. The US will certainly need to do some thinking about a matter that has attracted only sporadic attention to date what does a diplomatic end game look like?

    One senses the US clock is still ticking to midnight, and this is not an endless process without credible developments. A hard year ahead remains the case.

    This is an edited extract of Kim Beazley and L. Gordon Flake's essay in Australian Foreign Affairs 2, Trump in Asia: The New World Disorder.

    Kim Beazley is senior fellow at the Perth USAsia Centre, part of the University of Western Australia, and a former Australian ambassador to the US; L Gordon Flake is CEO of the Perth USAsia Centre.
    Waaay back up there in the 4th paragraph the line "At least 10 major North Korean atrocities and provocations since 1967 have been essentially passed over." caught my attention. I didn't think there had been so many, then a quick google threw up this list from USA Today, back in 2013:

    1960s

    April 27, 1965: Two North Korean MiG-17s attack a U.S reconnaissance plane above the Sea of Japan. The aircraft is damaged.

    Jan. 17,1968: A unit of the North Korean army disguised as South Korean soldiers crosses the DMZ in an attempt to kill South Korean President Park Chung Hee. The assassins make it to Blue House, the official residence of the president, but are stopped in a firefight. Twenty-eight members of the unit are killed.

    Jan. 23, 1968: The U.S. Navy ship the USS Pueblo is boarded and captured, along with its crew, by North Korean forces in the Sea of Japan in North Korean waters. One sailor is killed in the attack. The 83 other crewmembers are held until Dec. 23.

    Oct. 30,1968: A wave of more than 100 North Korean commandos begins landing on the northeast shore of South Korea to wage a guerrilla war against the South Korean government. A total of 110 commandos and 20 South Koreans are killed.

    April 15,1969: A U.S. reconnaissance plane is shot down off the North Korean coast, killing 31 Americans.

    1970s

    June 5,1970: North Korean patrol boats seize a South Korean broadcast vessel with 20 crew on board.

    Feb. 15,1974: North Korea sinks two South Korean fishing boats.


    Aug. 18, 1976: Two U.S. officers cutting down a tree in the DMZ are killed with axes by North Korean troops.

    1980s

    March 1980: Three North Koreans are killed trying to cross the Han River.

    July 1981: Three North Koreans are killed trying to cross the Imjin River.

    November 1984: Nine North Korean soldiers and one South Korean soldier are killed in firefight after a Soviet man tries to escape into South Korea.

    1990s

    May 1992: Three Northern soldiers in South Korean uniforms are killed in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do.

    December 1994: North Koreans shoot down U.S. Army helicopter, killing one American.

    May 1995: North Korean forces fire on a South Korean fishing boat, killing three.

    May 1996: Seven North Korean soldiers cross into the DMZ but return after warning shots are fired.

    April 1997: Five North Korean soldiers cross the DMZ in Cheolwon, Gangwon-do, and fire on South Korean positions.

    June 1997: Three North Korean vessels cross into South Korean territorial waters and attack South Korean boats. A unit of North Korean soldiers crosses the DMZ and are turned back in a firefight.

    June 1999: Several clashes between North and South Korean vessels take place in the Yellow Sea near the border between the two countries.

    2000s

    June 29, 2002: North Korea vessels attack a South Korea naval ship, killing four South Korean sailors and sinking the vessel.

    July 17, 2003: North and South Korean forces exchange fire at the DMZ.

    Oct. 9, 2006: North Korea conducts its first nuclear test, in violation of international agreements it has signed.

    May 25, 2009: North Korea conducts a second nuclear test, in violation of a U.N.Security Council resolution.

    Nov. 10, 2009: Naval vessels from North and South Korea exchange fire near the border.

    2010s

    March 26, 2010: North Korea sinks the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan with a torpedo in the Yellow Sea. Forty-six sailors are killed.

    Nov. 23, 2010: North Korea fires artillery shells at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians are killed, and dozens of houses are destroyed.

    April 12, 2012: North Korea rocket launch fails, as rocket breaks apart.

    Oct. 9, 2012: North Korea warns that the U.S. mainland is now within the "scope of strike" of its missiles.

    Dec. 12, 2012: North Korea fires long-range missile and says it has launched a satellite into orbit.
    ~ obviously, that doesn't cover the last 5 years of things going bang or whizzing over fair Nippon.

  16. #1516
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,441

  17. #1517
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,546
    Drones are so 2014.

    I'm going to utilise the blockchain to defend me from nukes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  18. #1518

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,914
    America should network all the drones together to provide an AI controlled protective net over its skies.

    A sky-net, if you will.

  19. #1519
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Drones are so 2014.

    I'm going to utilise the blockchain to defend me from nukes.
    I'll be in The Cloud (with the fallout)

  20. #1520
    Sandzibar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    America should network all the drones together to provide an AI controlled protective net over its skies.

    A sky-net, if you will.
    Nice one Dad.


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •