Which was written as a call to action. The Valley should remember how trade is kept free, especially all those electronics moving Eastward across the Pacific. Worth reading Mahan if you're confused.
The difference between nukes and bioweapons is energy level. Body counts are on the same order of magnitude. Bioweapons are just way easier to make and much harder to detect.
Nukes also destroy infrastructure and irradiate surrounding areas making cleanup and rescue harder. Then there's to potential for massive fires putting debris into the stratosphere, which could dim sunlight for a time and cause global temperatures to fall.
bioweapons tend to not remain contained to the area they're deployed (with notable exceptions for things like Anthrax). Some of them even last a long time on surfaces, making cleanup and rescue harder.
1) Chikungunya - "the platform tunneled traffic through US infrastructure to evade our regional blocks, and used a zero data retention (ZDR) service to hide content."
2) bird flu - "accessed Claude from an unsupported region via US virtual private server infrastructure, using a privacy-email provider with an auto-generated username. The researcher pursued this work in a credible institutional context, and interacted with Claude over the course of several weeks, exchanging thousands of messages. In these exchanges, the researcher leveraged Claude’s knowledge of the scientific literature to assist the researcher in study planning and design, data analysis, and the interpretation and prioritization of experiments."
3) orthopoxvirus - "randomly generated email address shortly before use and operated through anonymizing US infrastructure, with operator logins traced to proxies shared with a banned account farm. It was not a single user: it was a reseller relay serving more than a dozen unrelated customers, which exchanged over tens of thousands messages with Claude in a matter of days. The grant itself was one customer’s run entirely on Opus 5 in about an hour, in which the user used Claude to draft the application end to end including the central hypothesis, experimental design, dosing, statistical plans, and contingency strategies."
4) atlas of venom toxin peptides - "the atlas contained scaffolds for both analgesic and paralytic targets: it could, therefore, be used to generate both novel therapeutic or harmful compounds. The latter are derived from toxins that are export-controlled under the Australia Group common control list due to their dual-use potential as incapacitating agents. The researchers themselves showed awareness of the dual-use nature of their work, citing journal articles that referred to the dual-use nature of protein design. Moreover, international compliance assessments for this location raise concerns about the specific class of toxins that the researcher pursued and specifically the use of AI/ML for bioweapons applications in the context of this class of toxins. In this case, we learned from information shared with Claude that the researcher’s outputs also were part of a state-supported research program."
5) computational redesign of toxins - "described state priority research under a national public research program. As a part of this research assignment, the work covered a bacterial toxin subunit and a protein of the hemorrhagic-fever virus that is on the World Health Organization R&D Blueprint priority list of diseases with the greatest epidemic and pandemic threat.
"The researcher co-wrote quarterly progress reports with Claude. Notably, the identity of the bacterial toxin and viral proteins were intentionally obscured, and the researcher specifically directed Claude to keep these descriptions deliberately low fidelity."
That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups.
Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.
Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?
The GP said "stated agenda", which is true and important. Reagan openly talked about 'Morning in America', freedom around the world ('Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.'), etc.
You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.
Wasn't it reactive from the start? From (mostly journalistic) history I've read, GBII started their administration by refusing to do all sorts of things because the adminstration associated them with Clinton, including listening to Richard Clarke's, a carryover advisor's, warnings about terrorist threats.
This is eerily suggestive of a vulnerability Hank Paulson hinted at in his 2014 book "Dealing with China"
"Every nonelectric cooler comes with 25 years of free real-time monitoring. On a visit to the company in the spring of 2012, I watched as technicians in Broad Air’s space-age control room checked on the performance of its units in locations as diverse as the Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport in Spain; Qualcomm headquarters in San Diego, California; and Fort Stewart, the U.S. Army base in Georgia [emphasis added].
"Zhang says that 80 percent of his clients are repeaters. “If you bring long-term benefits for your clients, they will choose you.”"
America's tech-sector has a similar problem, which--until recently--was tempered by the idea that it was a dependable and predictable ally to most of its customers.
Not just in the sense of secretive kill-switches, but "US government commands you to turn over this encryption key and you're not allowed to say you did so" stuff.
> "US government commands you to turn over this encryption key and you're not allowed to say you did so"
That barely even registers given the scale of more modern escalations against its 'allies'. Escalations like "US government threatens that you aren't a real country and that you can't defend yourself from it."
Guam freezers and chillers were offline several times the years when I was there. You just didn't get milk, butter, eggs, ice cream, meat, etc those weeks.
Can't recall them going offline island wide when I was there (given there are two on not quite opposite sides of the island). I do recall one having downtime when the other was up and having to deal with that.
And that is why all the pollsters were caught flat-footed by Trump in 2016. The people who did feel unheard learned to not respond.
reply