Children in 1979 vs 2011

[Razgovory]

I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope.  I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there.  Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty.  They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.

Ours was nuclear as well.  I think the radioactivity of the weapons would destroy the electronics of the controlling devices.  So it really wouldn't work that well.  I imagine theirs had the same problem, though who knows?  Maybe they used vacuum tubes or something.  I don't know about the wisdom of putting Moscow on this list.  In the event of a nuclear war they would be isolated, how would they know how much damage their country had sustained?  How would they be able to order their own missiles to stand down?

[jimmy olsen]

I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope.  I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there.  Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty.  They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.

According to the Ford-Carter era documents I posted earlier we believed their Civil Defense preparations were quite effective. I'm just wondering if that was true, or if like so many other estimates on the Soviets it was inflated. I can see it going either way. Concrete bunkers are after all a lot easier to build then sophisticated weaponry.   

[Ideologue]

I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope.  I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there.  Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty.  They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.

Ours was nuclear as well.  I think the radioactivity of the weapons would destroy the electronics of the controlling devices.  So it really wouldn't work that well.  I imagine theirs had the same problem, though who knows?  Maybe they used vacuum tubes or something.  I don't know about the wisdom of putting Moscow on this list.  In the event of a nuclear war they would be isolated, how would they know how much damage their country had sustained?  How would they be able to order their own missiles to stand down?

I would expect that the Soviets had something like the Post-Attack Command and Control System that we had.  I don't believe they had constantly airborne systems, but I might be wrong about that.

Anyway, I don't see the percentage in decapitating the Soviet leadership myself--it's unlikely to be more dangerous than a dead hand response--and I know some plans did indeed contemplate a withhold on Moscow.

[Razgovory]

I would expect that the Soviets had something like the Post-Attack Command and Control System that we had.  I don't believe they had constantly airborne systems, but I might be wrong about that.

Anyway, I don't see the percentage in decapitating the Soviet leadership myself--it's unlikely to be more dangerous than a dead hand response--and I know some plans did indeed contemplate a withhold on Moscow.

What was suppose to keep those planes flying in case of a nuclear attack?  Wouldn't they be effected by EMPs and bursts of radiation that destroy electronics?  It also assumes a fairly short nuclear exchange.  It's possible that that a nuclear exchange might be a tit-for-tat affair where we destroy one city and they destroy one city then we destroy another city etc.  It's possible that it could last for days or even weeks.  In fact, with the silos this was somewhat anticipated.

[jimmy olsen]

I would expect that the Soviets had something like the Post-Attack Command and Control System that we had.  I don't believe they had constantly airborne systems, but I might be wrong about that.

Anyway, I don't see the percentage in decapitating the Soviet leadership myself--it's unlikely to be more dangerous than a dead hand response--and I know some plans did indeed contemplate a withhold on Moscow.

What was suppose to keep those planes flying in case of a nuclear attack?  Wouldn't they be effected by EMPs and bursts of radiation that destroy electronics?  It also assumes a fairly short nuclear exchange.  It's possible that that a nuclear exchange might be a tit-for-tat affair where we destroy one city and they destroy one city then we destroy another city etc.  It's possible that it could last for days or even weeks.  In fact, with the silos this was somewhat anticipated.

Faraday cages?

[Razgovory]

Don't those have limits?  I don't think they protect against bursts of radiation.

[alfred russel]

I dunno.  Really, what does a willingness to do charitable work, or play football, have to do with any job, that isn't at a charity, or involve football?  Relevant experience I can give a pass (internships, and the like), but how do the moon-person activities Mongers was referring to make you a better candidate for, I dunno, being a doctor, than playing Halo with your pals, or preferring solitary hobbies, like drawing?

And yeah, I'm still pissed that two out of three of my attempts to pad my resume failed.

Because the world is collaborative. Part of what makes a good doctor is networking to share best practices, participating (and ideally leading) conferences, etc.  People who show a willingness to work in structured groups in school are probably more likely to do so as professionals.

[DGuller]

If anyone would, it would be Dguller.  I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.

I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike.  If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.

[Iormlund]

In 1979 the average IQ of the parent was 26. In 2011 it was 19. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-19.

[Malthus]

As in all things, moderation is key. Being involved in your child's education up to - and possibly through - 8th grade is being a good parent. After that, your job is to teach your children how to handle things on their own. At least, that's what I believe, and it seems to be working fine for my crew, just as it did for my parents.

Clearly, teaching kids to be self-reliant is a good thing. What I'm saying is that of the two extremes - total neglect on the one hand and helicopter parenting on the other - if one has the resources, total neglect is the worse.

Sure, kids will learn to be self-reliant if their parents interfere not a jot in their education - but at a low level.

No doubt. The question isn't whether there were spoiled kids. The question is in the sheer numbers of them. They were unusual enough when I was a kid that they were pointed out among our friends. My kids, on the other hand, are the ones being pointed out for having actual chores, having to cook dinner, and actually being allowed to go out and play without me tagging along. That, to me, is the tell.

The amazing thing is that, not only are there more bratty kids in each generation than the one before, but this has always been true throughout recorded history! Clearly, there must have been in the past some golden age when all kids were perfectly well behaved. 

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in
places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their
food and tyrannize their teachers."

-attributed to Socrates (?)

[jimmy olsen]

If anyone would, it would be Dguller.  I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.

I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike.  If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.

How old where you when you left?

If you were over 12 then I'd say that means that we vastly inflated their capability. The analysts in those articles I posted believed that the Soviets built enough bunkers and practiced evacuations enough that most of the population would survive. I'd expect that you would have noticed that if true.

[Iormlund]

I dunno.  Really, what does a willingness to do charitable work, or play football, have to do with any job, that isn't at a charity, or involve football?  Relevant experience I can give a pass (internships, and the like), but how do the moon-person activities Mongers was referring to make you a better candidate for, I dunno, being a doctor, than playing Halo with your pals, or preferring solitary hobbies, like drawing?

And yeah, I'm still pissed that two out of three of my attempts to pad my resume failed.

Because the world is collaborative. Part of what makes a good doctor is networking to share best practices, participating (and ideally leading) conferences, etc.  People who show a willingness to work in structured groups in school are probably more likely to do so as professionals.

A lot of other activities are collaborative. You specifically mentioned video-games as the wrong thing to spend your time in, yet - to put forward just two examples - downing a new boss on WoW or progressing on clan competitions on Counterstrike require intense coordination with your teammates, among many other useful skills*.



* Such as spatial awareness (interpreting X-Ray or MRI tests); hand-eye coordination (performing procedures); fast, out of the box thinking (diagnosing); multitasking ...

[DGuller]

If anyone would, it would be Dguller.  I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.

I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike.  If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.

How old where you when you left?

If you were over 12 then I'd say that means that we vastly inflated their capability. The analysts in those articles I posted believed that the Soviets built enough bunkers and practiced evacuations enough that most of the population would survive. I'd expect that you would have noticed that if true.

I was exactly 12 when I left in 1994.

[szmik]

If anyone would, it would be Dguller.  I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.

I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike.  If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.

How old where you when you left?

If you were over 12 then I'd say that means that we vastly inflated their capability. The analysts in those articles I posted believed that the Soviets built enough bunkers and practiced evacuations enough that most of the population would survive. I'd expect that you would have noticed that if true.

I don't know about Soviets, but in Poland there were no such activities, and I'm pretty sure there weren't any bunkers for civilians either, maybe a few for high lvl commies, but otherwise nothing. There would be a nuclear desert in case of any such attack.

[Martinus]

Yeah, the soviet satellite states each had their own independent policies when it came to shit like that.

In fact, beyond having troops stationed in Poland and making sure the first secretary got the Moscow's blessing, Russians rarely interfered - people from the West have a wrong idea about the level of influence Soviets had.