Miscellaneous desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 14

North Korea, Samson Option, and targeting China

Is there any indication that the government of China takes serious consideration of a Samson Option by North Korea that could result in nuclear use against Beijing? Like if the Kim family knows they are about to be destroyed (South Korea and the US have crossed the border and have encircled the capital), their last act will be to launch nuclear missiles in all directions including Beijing because they are either angry at Beijing for their act of omission in allowing the Kim family to be destroyed or even suspect Beijing is a co-conspirator with South Korea and the US in their destruction. Muzzleflash (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone thinks that a likely scenario. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree based on the lack of any relevant search results. But it seems plausible to me, to at least warrant discussion. Muzzleflash (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The seriousness of China's investment in WMDs that has included 45 actual tests of nuclear bombs and its close border relations with DPRK has obviously included analysis of their own and the other's deterrance postures. The Samson Option is simply a new term for the deterrent strategy known as Mutual assured destruction that has never been provoked into a test but is easy to use in sabre-rattling polemics and armchair strategising. Blooteuth (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAD is the strategy between enemies. Samson Option refers to destroying targets that aren't enemies but as punishment for acts of omission. Why do you think the concepts are the same thing? Muzzleflash (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzzleflash Since you ask, I think the Samson Option is the name that some military analysts and authors have given to Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has destroyed much of Israel and I don't think that refers to destroying targets that aren't enemies but as punishment for acts of omission. Blooteuth (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article intro doesn't summarize the article's entire content. In the last section of the article, some author's views of the Samson Option to mean retaliation against non-enemies who did not act is discussed. Muzzleflash (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which author and what view? You have not answered a question about a distinction between MAD and Samson Option on the article Talk page where any change to its lede must be discussed. To my mind "retaliation against non-enemies who did not act" makes as little sense as "punishment for acts of omission". Be warned that all Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages are subject to discretionary sanctions. Blooteuth (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the last section of the article in the Samson Option. It deals with various authors who discuss the Samson Option as a strategy for retaliating against non enemies for acts of omission in preventing Isreal's downfall. I didn't want to debate whether it made sense, just that the idea existed. Muzzleflash (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muzzleflash You had the article already before you posted on this ref. desk. When you survey thoughts but do not seek information references you waste the time of volunteers here with what I termed "armchair strategizing". Blooteuth (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My question about Chinese government perception about North Korean strategy stands. You are wasting your own time. Muzzleflash (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remember by most estimates, North Korea only has about 10-20 nuclear weapons at the current time [1]. Since these are nuclear weapons, this is quite a few, still considering the quality of North Korea's weapons and their systems for targeting places with these weapons, and the defensive systems in place against them, it seems likely they'd need more than one if they want to be fairly sure to hit their target. If they only want to hit Seoul and Tokyo (and if they can hit Beijing, it's starting to seem likely they could hit Tokyo), then maybe they will have some left over, but if they want to hit multiple targets in South Korea and Japan, probably including at least one or two US targets (whether Guam or a US military base somewhere), they're starting to run out of nukes. So they'd have to really want to hit Beijing. A lot also depends on on how many nukes North Korea have that they can fit on ballistic missiles, if any [2], and how many of those ballistic missiles they actually have and I suspect, China, the US etc know a lot better than us. Realistically, it seems unlikely North Korea could successfully nuke anyone with a bomber except themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nil for that response. That's a good point. They don't have many bombs and there are many targets before Beijing. Muzzleflash (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truck (lorrie) interlock system ?

There've been incidents where dump trucks or cherry pickers have been driven with the back up, taking out power lines and even bridges. Is there a system to block putting the vehicles into drive when they are in "deployed" position ? Is this required anywhere ? StuRat (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there could be. Watch a dumper truck empty its load, and it is normally necessary for the truck to move forward a bit to allow everything to fall out cleanly. Wymspen (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised there isn't an ear-piercing alarm when you try to drive at normal speeds with the back up.

"Body up" indicators do seem to be available as aftermarket additions to trucks, but most of them don't seem to have any special behavior when the truck is moving.

https://arlweb.msha.gov/accident_prevention/innovativeproducts/2005/bodyup.asp

Google search : Body Up alarm

ApLundell (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a joke here to be made here based on your misspelling of the word "lorry" and the exactly same way you just above pissed on someone else for misspelling "plumber". Sorry I can't just now figure out how to formulate the joke. Pick one of the people named Lorrie and go on from there. Karma is a bitch, amiright? 91.155.195.247 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak BR Eng, so it's asking a lot for me to know how to spell it. StuRat (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

_{@StuRat WP:CIR here. Blooteuth (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Where is Christopher Lee buried?

Please try to find where Christopher Lee is buried. It is currently unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E790:5800:24AE:A6D2:A31C:451D (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably kept secret to prevent people from digging him up and driving a stake through his heart. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The internet appears to have absolutely nothing about Christopher Lee's burial, ashes, scattering, interment, etc. Even findagrave has nothing on him. I take this to mean it is a total family secret, and one that people aren't even talking about. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usually reliable findagrave.com tells us that he died in Chelsea, London but says "Burial: unknown". Alansplodge (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. [3] Alansplodge (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find an obituary, it might say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through several and no mention. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any actual people named Jebediah?

Investigation of uses such as the one in the linked entry have turned out to be mistakes for Jedediah. DTLHS (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you start typing "Jebediah" in the search box, it will auto-suggest possible articles. The first couple of names turn out to be fictional, but Jebediah Smith was not. Or do you want someone currently alive? --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, that one is indeed a Jedediah. --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through Google Ngrams, there are plenty of genealogical and historical works mentioning people named "Jebediah" back to the 19th century. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if you actually look at those results they are almost always OCR or editing errors. DTLHS (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Putzier. --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though actually I don't find a ref for his full first name being Jebediah. It says so in our article, but without a cite. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Texans source says "Jebediah Lee Putzier". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Twitter reveals NY Magazine editor Jebediah Reed. Although who knows if that's his birth name or just a pen name. ApLundell (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Facebook produces a long list of pages for people named Jebediah. Wymspen (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My grandson. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article named Jeb, which may give some leads. Jeb may be a nickname for "Jebediah" or it may be a complete name unto itself, depending on the person. Some of the Wikipedia articles on variosu Jebs are short, and do not indicate full birth names, so it may take some research. --Jayron 32 11:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]