3. Eisenhower was keenly aware that Oppenheimer probably did not constitute a security risk — he had known him for years and enjoyed his input and policy ideas. He knew that the security risk charges were just old rumors, with nothing new. But...
-
Show this thread
-
...he also knew that to not suspend his clearance would leave him (Eisenhower) open to attack from McCarthy and his ilk. So the prudent political move was to suspend the clearance, like it or not. So that's a pretty big difference by itself from the Brennan affair as I see it.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
4. Under AEC regulations, Oppenheimer was given opportunity to have a hearing on his clearance suspension. That worked out poorly for him, in the end, resulting not only in the upholding of its suspension, but the airing of a lot of dirty laundry (affairs, bad judgment, etc.)...
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
...I don't know (but would love to know) whether Brennan and the potential "others" have the ability to contest? I suspect not. But I am not up to date on the regs for this. If not, then that's another key difference between the two.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
5. Lastly, it is clear that Trump is doing this to Brennan because he wants to silence his critics. Purely political. The Oppenheimer affair was more complicated, a mix of the political and the personal, and again, only reluctantly participated in by Eisenhower.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
I only write these things because I've seen some historians assert historical parallels. I think it's kind of a weak comparison, in the sense that the Oppenheimer affair was pretty complex, and the Brennan affair seems to be "merely" a form of ugly politics.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
The Oppenheimer affair, for all of its injustice, was not merely an attempt to silence a critic, or cut him off from potential income. The Brennan affair looks *only* like that, at least from my vantage point. FIN.
3 replies 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @wellerstein
Just asking, are you going to update NUKEMAP3D? You could use cesium, and other websites which had used google earth now use cesium.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ironicweirdo
Cesium won't work unless they add a buildings layer — otherwise it's just a mushroom cloud on a flat surface, which defeats the point. I have added 3D KMZ support to NUKEMAP, and am exploring VR possibilities, but am otherwise waiting for a better API to be developed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein
how about you can use cesium int he meantime, while waiting for a better API? cesium isn’t completely flat, at least it has terrain lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Without buildings the desired effect is lost. It isn't worth the time to port it. My hope is that eventually Google Maps API will allow dev access to its 3D building layer again. If that happens then I'll port it over. Until then, the Google Earth KMZ option will have to do.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.