View Full Version : Fear over possible war with Russia or Iran?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/syrian-president-assads-allies-u-attack-crosses-red-125458248.html
I will start of by saying that I am in no way scared of the US being involved in a full on exchange of war with the Russia, Iran, or N Korea for that matter. Even if the US had to confront all three at the same time. The actions that we have taken in Syria, which I consider to be well within our scope of our global peace keeping objective, was warranted as well as deserved. I know the US has allies as also has NATO's blessing when we have a clear objective in regards to human rights. But given the circumstances, Syria or Bashar al-Assad has his allies consisting of Iran and Putin- but not necessarily Russia as a whole, but none the less as long as Putin has interest in Syria, Russia as a whole has an interest in Syria. I don't see a war between the US and Russia ever happening, especially over a country like Syria, but I could see a war in Syria where neither Russia or the US is directly involved but Syria being like that of a chess board and the US and Russia playing the human chess pieces. Obviously Russia would have Iran along with the other lowest forms of life on there side and the US would have the better half of what could be considered ex Taliban, al-Qaeda, Kurds and heavy special forces but not going as far as actually confirming the presence of special forces.
I do think a lot of people on the internet and media are over reacting to our new president and his actually having balls to take action against Syria in front of Russia, Iran and the rest of the world. Because I all keep reading about and seeing on TV is a bunch talking heads from Russia and Iran running there mouth about what will happen if the US does something this outrageous ever again. You would think from what we and the rest of the world have learned in the last few years regarding the NSA, CSI spying capibilities, stealth drones, smarter weapons and even the UBL raid in Pakistan where we crashed a super top secret prototype stealth helicopter and killed the leader of al Qaeda without anyone knowing and with the recent air base attack in Syria, should indicate the level of capacity and capability the US has.
I don't really want another war but if it comes to that I think it would be the Joe Frazier vs Mohammad Ali fight of the century. I think the entire world would be in shock to see the strength of the US military. Regardless, I don't think any war between the US and Russia will ever result in nuclear weapons- the whole world would be outraged by the use of nuclear weapons from either the US or Russia.
Any thoughts???
This is way out of date now, as it's from a book written in the '80s, and my mind is a bit foggy on the details now, but it was alleged by at least one Soviet defector that in the event open hostilities with the US ever came to pass Soviet doctrine called for an immediate nuclear strike against the US rather than an escalation to the use of nuclear weapons. I don't know if such a doctrine (If in fact that was the doctrine at the time) remains in effect today or not, but it seems reasonable that it might. Russia doesn't seem like a country that is particularly concerned about attracting international scorn either. I think if sufficiently riled, they would go nuclear. Remember, these are the people whose approach to rescuing a theater full of 700 hostages is to pump fentanyl gas into the building and kill almost 150 of them in order to also kill the 40 terrorists holding them (Some of whom were executed while unconscious, just mentioning that as a point of interest, not because I disagree with it.).
And don't mistake that as an anti-Russian remark, I have a lot of regard for the Russian people, but their approach to things has to me always seemed more like a blunt instrument than a scalpel and in the event of a real war I don't know as the Russian government would have the patience for this tit-for-tat escalation that eventually, at some point, after all other avenues have been exhausted, results in nukes being launched. I see it going more along the lines of "Russia at war? Russia smash!" and the red button getting pushed.
So basically it's quite likely I have no idea what I'm talking about here because I have no background in global affairs or intelligence or whatever, but my overall point is: Can I envision a scenario where there is a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia? Yes. Do I think it will happen over Syria? Probably not.
Getting into any kind of a confrontation with Russia over Syria would be idiotic. Doing anything to weaken Assad is idiotic, because we've seen time and time again what happens when a secular strongman is removed from power in the Mideast.
I agree. Your statement on Russia's doctrine comes from a time where Russia was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and at that time and for the 3 decades leading up to that time, the US along with the USSR were manufacturing and stockpiling an incredible amount of everything designed to kill. Fortunately, the USSR went bankrupt and many of the countries that were in the CCCP, gained independence and formed partnerships with NATO. Russia today is nothing like it was in the 1980s or even 1990s. Russia technically has not recovered from decades of socialism. A very few people are wealthy in Russia, the vast majority however lives in poverty. Russia has only about 150 million people (half of the US population), Russia's GDP was 3.8 Trillion compared to the US GDP of 19.9 Trillion. Russia as a free country does not have the capital needed to conduct a large scale exchange with the US. Moscow is most populated with 12.5 million people, St Petersburg comes 2nd with just over a 5 million, the next 5 biggest cities combined is around 5 million total. Some of these cities don't have a high way or rail connecting them to each other. Something like 60% of Russians don't have internet or cellular phone.
The Russian military is outclassed compared to the US- hence why they have a nuclear strike first doctrine. The Russian Navy fleet of submarines is well past its scheduled maintenance cycle. A lot of Russian subs and their crew are sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor. Russia relies on just 1 aircraft carrier, diesel powered, with a range of just 4,300 miles. And lets not forget that once Russia's navy is beyond there waters, there isn't any Russian friendly docks for a few thousand miles. I don't think Russia has the equivalent of a RC-135, E-4, E-6 Mercury or a JSTARS to conduct recon and counter surveillance from hundreds of miles away. If Russia was going to launch a thermos nuclear exchange with the US, I think we would know about it before any official orders were received at an ICBM silo. A lot of the Russian airworthy aircraft currently available for combat is at it all time low, something like 67% of all military manufacturing is for export- that is one of Russia's largest industries. Only a hand full of countries purchase commercial aircraft from Russia. Most people stick to Boeing or Airbus. I do believe Russia still maintains a military but not like that from the USSR era. Up to today, it is hard to get someone under the age of 30 to join the military, a. because it pays there version of minimum wage and b. a lot of the millennial Russians don't want a career in the military.
I just don't think Russia could hold up to the US for more than a couple of months is a conventional war. I think Russia would collapse and go bankrupt. In the event that there was escalation to the point were we would use nuclear weapons, than the US along with NATO would retaliate and Russia would be no more.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 04:29
Sleep peaceably in your beds.
http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif
ETA:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1f/47/6d/1f476dbcb1b8c6e59f34aded9422c24f.jpg
Eurodriver
04-10-17, 06:10
OP: you aren't scared of a war with Russia? Interesting.
OP Post 2: thanks for the insight. I will admit guilt as I thought Russia's military was equivalent to the USSRs.
OS: LOL @ both pics
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 06:17
My only regret is that T-Daddy hasn't gone scorched Earth, and subjugated the planet in the name of MAGA.
Pax Americana, 21-st Century Warfare Style.
We could literally rename Earth planet America.
Eurodriver
04-10-17, 07:10
America retains the Stars and Stripes but the rest of the world under rule gets a Kek on a white background.
All hail Kek.
I don't know that "scared" is the right word, but I am nervous, worried, concerned.
Man for man, plane for plane, etc., we are definitely at the head of the class. That said, while I know Russia's combat-ready aircraft suffer from chronic undermaintenance, right now, so do we.
I would rather see a conflict never happen.
Eurodriver
04-10-17, 07:38
I do not believe we are considering something Russia has that we have lacked for 50 years.
The will to do whatever it takes to win.
Straight Shooter
04-10-17, 07:42
"Scared" of the war? No. KNOWING how people here are gonna lose their shit and go all Walking Dead sans the walkers? YES.
The Stock Market would bomb...oil would go up God only knows how high for several days...runs on gas/groceries/water/food/guns/ammo ect.
Long term effects? Literally no one knows.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 07:50
Warfare is the natural state of humankind.
The relative "peace" we've experienced has been a blip on the timeline of history.
No. The US is simply sending a message around the world. The fact that there's so much saber rattling and puffed-up talk only tells us that they got the message. In the end the needle will swing back toward the status quo. I'm sure there will another war, maybe soon, but not over this little spanking that al-Assad got. Nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states are the ultimate focal point that will drive us to war, not chemical weapons, ISIS, or Syria.
Russians actually are ahead of us in several areas, just because we spend more doesn't mean we are automatically better. Their new MBT and APC system is next gen. Their combat aircraft are built around a doctrine of ordnance first, all can dog fight. Stealth may be limited compared to our current gen but we sacrificed a lot of capability for that philosophy. Look at all the readiness issues with our forces. There is no win if nukes are involved. If it happens and goes to that level it's pretty much fallout 3 & 4 afterwards.
Notice all the talk of WWIII is coming from the same group of all-or-none thinkers who invisioned Americans side by side with Russians kicking down ISIS's door if only Trump won. Now, they are squirming because the reality of the world that Trump sees is no longer aligned with their own.
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much - according to these Nostradamuses we should be swimming in Ebola by now.
Russians actually are ahead of us in several areas, just because we spend more doesn't mean we are automatically better. Their new MBT and APC system is next gen. Their combat aircraft are built around a doctrine of ordnance first, all can dog fight. Stealth may be limited compared to our current gen but we sacrificed a lot of capability for that philosophy. Look at all the readiness issues with our forces. There is no win if nukes are involved. If it happens and goes to that level it's pretty much fallout 3 & 4 afterwards.
Their avionics are usually a good decade (or more) behind ours. Plus, their doctrine really never got out of the centrally-directed C&C (en masse, I am sure once there is visual a lot of that goes out the window and a dogfight is on.
They always looked more impressive than they really were.
You are dead on regarding our readiness issues. None of the three services can keep enough pilots, up to 75% of aircraft are grounded at any given point, etc. But I am sure if conflict broke out there would be magic funding for all of those issues.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war... Not the President.
OP: you aren't scared of a war with Russia? Interesting.
Nah, very few folks are particularly worried about a war in which they won't be the one fighting.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war... Not the President.
And that has not been done since WWII.
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much - according to these Nostradamuses we should be swimming in Ebola by now.
Ah. I remember that thread. Lots of critical thinking there.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war... Not the President.
Did we declare war on Syria?
My only regret is that T-Daddy hasn't gone scorched Earth, and subjugated the planet in the name of MAGA.
Pax Americana, 21-st Century Warfare Style.
We could literally rename Earth planet America.
You do realize that the so-called Alt-Right is practically having a cow over Trump's TLAM attack in Syria? Trump is being called every code word that sets them off: Globalist, Zionist, Bankster and the bonus word is: Jew.
These extreme fringe far right radicals (anarchists) are one weird bunch....
Doc Safari
04-10-17, 11:15
I think Trump launched the airstrike on Syria so he could show the world that he's got great big brass ones and he's not afraid to kick some ass. This will blow over.
And that has not been done since WWII.
I know. And look at the results.
Did we declare war on Syria?
Firing missiles into a sovereign nation is tantamount to declaring war in my eyes.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 11:33
You forgot to mention:
He's a Deep State Shill
He's McMaster's Puppet
We've been Bait-an-Switched
I think they've shown themselves to be either be as fickle as the left, or naive enough to believe that any one candidate would be 100% in line with their opions/beliefs.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Traitor Trump meme was from the Russians.
If you ever find yourself in 100% agreement with ANY political ideology, that's a good sign you've been brainwashed or aren't thinking.
I still hold to my assertion that the base nature of human existence is warfare, and have no issue with T-Daddy shit pushing baby-gassers.
You do realize that the so-called Alt-Right is practically having a cow over Trump's TLAM attack in Syria? Trump is being called every code word that sets them off: Globalist, Zionist, Bankster and the bonus word is: Jew.
These extreme fringe far right radicals (anarchists) are one weird bunch....
Firing missiles into a sovereign nation is tantamount to declaring war in my eyes.
It's all a gray area. Both NATO and the UN have provision for that type of action for the reason we did it. But to take your statement further, we have forces in what, all but a half-dozen countries? The some of the ones in which SOF are operating there are definitely rounds going downrange; it's not all FID. So to that effect, have we declared war in those 40 countries?
https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_8720_where_us_troops_are_based_around_the_world_n.jpg
https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_7984_us_special_forces_deployed_to_70percent_of_the_world_in_2016_n.jpg
I don't know that "scared" is the right word, but I am nervous, worried, concerned.
Man for man, plane for plane, etc., we are definitely at the head of the class. That said, while I know Russia's combat-ready aircraft suffer from chronic undermaintenance, right now, so do we.
I would rather see a conflict never happen.
There's not one single thing I can do to control what happens regarding global conflict, therefore I don't worry or concern myself with it at all. If something happens, I'll take that information and compare it to my personal situation, then act as necessary, if action is necessary at all.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 11:54
Serious question.
Why didn't Russia prevent the Trumpahawks from booty-slamming Homs?
1) Because they wouldn't
2) Because they couldn't
Read between the lines, folks. GEOTUS embarrassed the shit out of the Russians. If you think the timing was accidental whilst he was dining on New York Strip with the CHICOM-in-Chief, check EE for the bridge I'm selling...
What makes these fringe extremists on the right (Alt-Right) even more troubling is they literally hate anything about the US Armed Forces. They called our forces murderers, pawns of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. I guess I never thought I'd see a day when the right went off the rails to that extreme. Anti-government and anti-military like the far left wackos.
You forgot to mention:
He's a Deep State Shill
He's McMaster's Puppet
We've been Bait-an-Switched
I think they've shown themselves to be either be as fickle as the left, or naive enough to believe that any one candidate would be 100% in line with their opions/beliefs.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out the Traitor Trump meme was from the Russians.
If you ever find yourself in 100% agreement with ANY political ideology, that's a good sign you've been brainwashed or aren't thinking.
I still hold to my assertion that the base nature of human existence is warfare, and have no issue with T-Daddy shit pushing baby-gassers.
What makes these fringe extremists on the right (Alt-Right) even more troubling is they literally hate anything about the US Armed Forces. They called our forces murderers, pawns of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. I guess I never thought I'd see a day when the right went off the rails to that extreme. Anti-government and anti-military like the far left wackos.
It's the fluoride in their water, just ask them. ;)
MountainRaven
04-10-17, 12:38
I just don't think Russia could hold up to the US for more than a couple of months is a conventional war. I think Russia would collapse and go bankrupt. In the event that there was escalation to the point were we would use nuclear weapons, than the US along with NATO would retaliate and Russia would be no more.
The US, Canada, and Europe would be gone, too.
China, South America, and Africa would inherit the world. At least until the radioactive fallout and nuclear winter killed them.
Would the US and NATO win a conventional war against Russia? Probably. What would their objectives be? I doubt Russia wants to occupy Western Europe and the US and NATO don't want to occupy anything as far east as Moscow - never mind the Urals or anywhere further east. Perhaps the conflict would be regionally limited to Ukraine, the Baltic states, or Syria.
However, whichever side loses the conventional war in any of those theaters would immediately begin fighting those conflicts with 'little green men', guerrillas, and terrorists (except maybe in the Baltic states).
Any war with Russia is going to automatically include cyber warfare - and I don't know enough about America's capabilities there to say how that would end. Except that America's vulnerabilities there are such that we don't win: At best they destroy our electronic infrastructure and we destroy theirs. Which means we "win" in the same sense that the Russians "win" and we both "win" in the same sense that any nuclear confrontation would totally destroy both our countries (and most of our allies).
What makes these fringe extremists on the right (Alt-Right) even more troubling is they literally hate anything about the US Armed Forces. They called our forces murderers, pawns of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. I guess I never thought I'd see a day when the right went off the rails to that extreme. Anti-government and anti-military like the far left wackos. Are we sure the "alt-right" are right at all? I'm thinking like Nazis are portrayed as right (because the opposition were communists) when the truth is that they were socialists and left to the core. Even so called "neo-conservatives" were mostly leftists by definition. At least until Cheney and Wolfowitz came along. Hillary Clinton is a neo-con by definition. Anarchists are mostly left...
What makes these fringe extremists on the right (Alt-Right) even more troubling is they literally hate anything about the US Armed Forces. They called our forces murderers, pawns of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. I guess I never thought I'd see a day when the right went off the rails to that extreme. Anti-government and anti-military like the far left wackos.
When I was in school a history teacher described it this way: imagine political leanings not on a linear scale, but in a more circuitous one. i.e. the farther Left or Right you go they eventually meet in some form of totalitarianism. Nazism and communism were the examples he used. Nazi's were supposedly far to the Right while communists were to the extreme left. They both are essentially the same.
When I was in school a history teacher described it this way: imagine political leanings not on a linear scale, but in a more circuitous one. i.e. the farther Left or Right you go they eventually meet in some form of totalitarianism. Nazism and communism were the examples he used. Nazi's were supposedly far to the Right while communists were to the extreme left. They both are essentially the same.
http://new2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+had+to+make+this+just+to+explain+this+_d21c0da89404ea6d8683de1fe5b4f155.png
MountainRaven
04-10-17, 13:08
Are we sure the "alt-right" are right at all? I'm thinking like Nazis are portrayed as right (because the opposition were communists) when the truth is that they were socialists and left to the core. Even so called "neo-conservatives" were mostly leftists by definition. At least until Cheney and Wolfowitz came along. Hillary Clinton is a neo-con by definition. Anarchists are mostly left...
The Nazis have been considered right-wing ever since they came into existence.
The left has to blame someone.
Something to think about:
Russia claims they knew beforehand about the US intentions to attack the Syrian air base but did not know of what method. This was really an opportunity for Russia to showcase some of there so called, "advanced missile defense systems" and "early threat detection radars" that apparently can detect missiles from several hundred miles away. Apparently, those systems are in place in Syria but as I understand, they were turned off for the night. The US destroyed something like 8 Russian helicopters that were parked and 5 airplanes that were under 8 feet of steel reinforced concrete, 7 bunkers, storage facility and rendered the active runway inoperable: It took a couple of hours, no airplanes were needed, just 2 destroyers a few hundred miles away and all they had to do was use a mouse and scroll and click on an image that they wanted to blow up and push a button. This is what warfare looks like today.
44946
44947
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 13:23
Roger that.
Don't forget cops. The extremists can't tolerate LE, either.
The other thing is the "Everything is a Conspiracy Theory."
I'm all for Conspiracy Facts, but when EVERYTHING is a Conspiracy Theory, nothing is.
Pretty sure that when your AF pilots are geriatric, and your enemies have your ass on the ropes, you might be willing to drop some CWs on your opposition.
Not everything is a goddamned False-Flag, Saudi-Arabian/JaN, FSA, CIA, elaborate ruse.
What makes these fringe extremists on the right (Alt-Right) even more troubling is they literally hate anything about the US Armed Forces. They called our forces murderers, pawns of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. I guess I never thought I'd see a day when the right went off the rails to that extreme. Anti-government and anti-military like the far left wackos.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 13:25
This.
Utterly embarrassing for them. They didn't prevent the Trumpahawks, because they COULDN'T prevent the Trumpahawks.
All the tough-talking, saber-rattling is posturing and political maneuvering / face-saving.
Something to think about:
Russia claims they knew beforehand about the US intentions to attack the Syrian air base but did not know of what method. This was really an opportunity for Russia to showcase some of there so called, "advanced missile defense systems" and "early threat detection radars" that apparently can detect missiles from several hundred miles away. Apparently, those systems are in place in Syria but as I understand, they were turned off for the night. The US destroyed something like 8 Russian helicopters that were parked and 5 airplanes that were under 8 feet of steel reinforced concrete, 7 bunkers, storage facility and rendered the active runway inoperable: It took a couple of hours, no airplanes were needed, just 2 destroyers a few hundred miles away and all they had to do was use a mouse and scroll and click on an image that they wanted to blow up and push a button. This is what warfare looks like today.
44946
44947
Something to think about:
Russia claims they knew beforehand about the US intentions to attack the Syrian air base but did not know of what method. This was really an opportunity for Russia to showcase some of there so called, "advanced missile defense systems" and "early threat detection radars" that apparently can detect missiles from several hundred miles away. Apparently, those systems are in place in Syria but as I understand, they were turned off for the night. The US destroyed something like 8 Russian helicopters that were parked and 5 airplanes that were under 8 feet of steel reinforced concrete, 7 bunkers, storage facility and rendered the active runway inoperable: It took a couple of hours, no airplanes were needed, just 2 destroyers a few hundred miles away and all they had to do was use a mouse and scroll and click on an image that they wanted to blow up and push a button. This is what warfare looks like today.
44946
44947
Those pictures were from last year? And the names of the pictures imply it was ISIS that caused the destruction.
Those pictures were from last year? And the names of the pictures imply it was ISIS that caused the destruction.
Also says something about ISIS at the bottom in fine print.
Those pictures were from last year? And the names of the pictures imply it was ISIS that caused the destruction.
these photos were taken with the Boeing World View II satellite and uploaded to several .gov websites last year, and I uploaded the wrong photos: here are the photos from the Shayrat Airbase attack:
44949
44950
44951
44952
before
44953
after
I am not afraid of a war with Russia or Iran.
I think a war with Russia would be ill advised but as long as it didn't involve nukes.
WIN USA.
I find a great deal of humor from these web masters of warfare, that have never served a day in uniform. Oh Russia has moved it's best air defense systems into Syria, all USA planes that attack Syria are doomed.
Yeah then please let me know how the IAF has been running bombing raids on Hizballah and other positions inside Syria almost every week and hasn't lost a single plane.
Last time the IAF took on the Syrian Air Force was 1982 qnd the score was like 80 or 90 flamed out Syrian migs, zero IAF.
I would like American leaders to pull their collective heads out of their rectums.
This is not the Cold War.
Putin and Trump need to meet to see if we can join together, allow Assad to stay in power and together we rid the world of nukes in Iran, ISIL, Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. Thus making the world a better place.
What makes these fringe extremists on the right (Alt-Right) even more troubling is they literally hate anything about the US Armed Forces. They called our forces murderers, pawns of the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. I guess I never thought I'd see a day when the right went off the rails to that extreme. Anti-government and anti-military like the far left wackos.
Lol.
Oh, those silly anarcho-capitalists.
It's not their fault you've been brainwashed into thinking that a constant state of war is necessary.
Orwell, anyone?
Official Kremlin Transmission
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 14:24
I'm the one who suggested a constant state of war.
Lol.
Oh, those silly anarcho-capitalists.
It's not their fault you've been brainwashed into thinking that a constant state of war is necessary.
Orwell, anyone?
Official Kremlin Transmission
Doc Safari
04-10-17, 14:36
I suggest a constant state of skepticism. This whole thing just smells of people getting together over drinks to decide who gets what territory. I could be wrong, but I think within two weeks this will all be much ado about nothing.
Now, China and North Korea do send shivers up my spine, just because Kim Jong Dong is crazy enough to actually fire missiles at us or South Korea and because China jumps for joy every time we get a bloody nose.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 14:51
Get your shivers ready, Doc. China just sent 150k troops to Kim Jong Ding Dong town.
Check the NK thread...
Doc Safari
04-10-17, 14:56
Get your shivers ready, Doc. China just sent 150k troops to Kim Jong Ding Dong town.
Check the NK thread...
Wow. Haven't gotten back to that thread lately. Time to put on the lead skivvies and the dark glasses and wait for the mushroom clouds.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 14:58
Take Dr. Sensei's Linament Cure-All. Good for colds, moles, and nuke explodes:
http://c1.thejournal.ie/media/2013/05/irish-people-eat-too-much-salt-390x285.jpg
Wow. Haven't gotten back to that thread lately. Time to put on the lead skivvies and the dark glasses and wait for the mushroom clouds.
Doc Safari
04-10-17, 14:59
Take Dr. Sensei's Linament Cure-All. Good for colds, moles, and nuke explodes:
http://c1.thejournal.ie/media/2013/05/irish-people-eat-too-much-salt-390x285.jpg
I was deliberately over-exaggerating. I do think we will have more trouble with Korea and China than with Russia, though.
I suggest a constant state of skepticism. This whole thing just smells of people getting together over drinks to decide who gets what territory. I could be wrong, but I think within two weeks this will all be much ado about nothing.
Now, China and North Korea do send shivers up my spine, just because Kim Jong Dong is crazy enough to actually fire missiles at us or South Korea and because China jumps for joy every time we get a bloody nose.
The US would destroy China!!! NATO countries would cease all business transactions with China and China would begin to collapse instantly. There green water navy is no match for our Navy and there "technologically advanced modern 7th generation stealth fighters" couldn't last more than a few minutes in a air to air confrontation with a Eurofighter let alone a F-15 or F-22. Plain and simple, China is a luxury version of Mexico!
Doc Safari
04-10-17, 15:03
The US would destroy China!!! NATO countries would cease all business transactions with China and China would begin to collapse instantly. There green water navy is no match for our Navy and there "technologically advanced modern 7th generation stealth fighters" couldn't last more than a few minutes in a air to air confrontation with a Eurofighter let alone a F-15 or F-22. Plain and simple, China is a luxury version of Mexico!
LOL--let's hope so.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 15:08
I don't foresee a war with China, due to too much Fortune 500 blowback.
Apple's stock would instantly implode.
The US would destroy China!!! NATO countries would cease all business transactions with China and China would begin to collapse instantly. There green water navy is no match for our Navy and there "technologically advanced modern 7th generation stealth fighters" couldn't last more than a few minutes in a air to air confrontation with a Eurofighter let alone a F-15 or F-22. Plain and simple, China is a luxury version of Mexico!
Get your shivers ready, Doc. China just sent 150k troops to Kim Jong Ding Dong town.
Check the NK thread...
Swazye is dead, Sheen has got da AIDS, C. Thomas Howell looks like shit warmed over, and Jennifer Grey fixed her nose. Who the hell is left to save Merca from dem Russians?
Doc Safari
04-10-17, 15:13
Swazye is dead, Sheen has got da AIDS, C. Thomas Howell looks like shit warmed over, and Jennifer Grey fixed her nose. Who the hell is left to save Merca from dem Russians?
Chuck Norris. How the F did you forget Chuck Norris? Maybe Stallone, but Nah.
Outlander Systems
04-10-17, 15:14
Lea Thompson's got dis shit on lock!
Swazye is dead, Sheen has got da AIDS, C. Thomas Howell looks like shit warmed over, and Jennifer Grey fixed her nose. Who the hell is left to save Merca from dem Russians?
MountainRaven
04-10-17, 15:17
The US would destroy China!!! NATO countries would cease all business transactions with China and China would begin to collapse instantly. There green water navy is no match for our Navy and there "technologically advanced modern 7th generation stealth fighters" couldn't last more than a few minutes in a air to air confrontation with a Eurofighter let alone a F-15 or F-22. Plain and simple, China is a luxury version of Mexico!
And five minutes after we do that, Wal-Mart and Wall Street will back a US military coup.
And if they don't, the peoples of the trailer parks shall burn the suburbs.
If they don't both happen simultaneously.
most Americans don't choose to buy from china, its our only choice thanks to Wall St. and Wal-Mart and every other major big box store who marks up Chinese shit 900% and pays minimum wage forcing people to live in said trailors. If it wasn't for these dickless cocksuckers, the US would have a pretty robust economy and we would be number 1 in trade and number 1 in GDP.
I'm the one who suggested a constant state of war.
Lol statist
Official Kremlin Transmission
Chuck Norris. How the F did you forget Chuck Norris? Maybe Stallone, but Nah.
Chuck Norris wasn't in Red Dawn. Perhaps he should have been, but he wasn't.
Chuck Norris wasn't in Red Dawn. Perhaps he should have been, but he wasn't.
Sure he was. He piloted the Huey that strafed the T62 with rocket and machine gun fire which allowed the kids to escape in their truck. It was a minor, uncredited role...
My greatest fear is what we have to draw from if we have a boots on the ground, toe to toe, war. Looking at the people I see as I go about my day, I do not see many young people who would survive bootcamp much less an A school or pre-deployment training.
If the U.S. engages in a large scale conflict that requires conscription, we are going to be in the hurt locker.
Sure he was. He piloted the Huey that strafed the T62 with rocket and machine gun fire which allowed the kids to escape in their truck. It was a minor, uncredited role...
Okay, my mistake. I watched the first couples minutes and you could clearly see Chuck if you looked closely as the UH1 flew by the store as they were loading up. The aircraft was closed up, the sun was glinting off the windshield and Chuck had his visor down, but it was obviously him.
Dist. Expert 26
04-10-17, 23:15
My greatest fear is what we have to draw from if we have a boots on the ground, toe to toe, war. Looking at the people I see as I go about my day, I do not see many young people who would survive bootcamp much less an A school or pre-deployment training.
If the U.S. engages in a large scale conflict that requires conscription, we are going to be in the hurt locker.
I was going to make this point earlier in the thread but didn't have time to type it out.
I think we would be in for a major shock squaring off against a well trained, well equipped, professional military. The Taliban know how to fight without a doubt, but a fight where both sides have artillery, air support, etc would be an entirely different story. Like Pacific theatre casually levels or higher. America doesn't have the stomach for that anymore.
I was going to make this point earlier in the thread but didn't have time to type it out.
I think we would be in for a major shock squaring off against a well trained, well equipped, professional military. The Taliban know how to fight without a doubt, but a fight where both sides have artillery, air support, etc would be an entirely different story. Like Pacific theatre casually levels or higher. America doesn't have the stomach for that anymore.
You assume that there is some other country out there like Sparta. Trust me, it doesn't exist; Walmart is still the warrior elite. As pathetic we have become, everyone else is far worse - especially Russia. As for China, they are good at ping pong and the high dive - neither of which help you in a war.
Dist. Expert 26
04-11-17, 00:15
You assume that there is some other country out there like Sparta. Trust me, it doesn't exist; Walmart is still the warrior elite. As pathetic we have become, everyone else is far worse - especially Russia. As for China, they are good at ping pong and the high dive - neither of which help you in a war.
It's all relative I suppose.
But even a poorly trained Russian artillery unit or helicopter pilot can do a hell of a lot more damage than Johnny Jihad and his trusty AK-47.
I guess my point is that a war with any of the listed countries isn't going to look anything like the last 16 years of warfare. Sure, we'll win, but the cost would be significantly higher than we've grown accustomed to.
Billions of Chinese ping pong players ain't nothing to sneeze at. Anyway, I think that the Chinese would use tactical nukes before we would. They are not hindered by Christian ethic, nor burdened by fear of public opinion polls, and have hated our Korean and Japanese allies before any of us were born. Fighting them would also result in Taiwan's takeover. Furthermore the Chinese view us an uncouth barbarians. On top of that, losing several hundred thousand citizens would be a non issue. I hesitate to discount them. Trump would receive all blame.
Nobody wants to mess with America.
We have our moments but....
They'd literally have to nuke us. Red Dawn was the civilised view of what we would do to an invading force.
Honestly, Putin can kinda kiss my ass. I was willing to give it a chance but...naw.
The world needs to be afraid of us. We have PTSD. We also have DGAF.
They can propagandize women in US Flag hijabs all they want. Wont happen, our women are bitches.
Soviets can bow up all they want, a stand up fight would not go well and a nuke would hurt them worse than us.
The Red Chinese got a population problem as-is. I saw tbis one China Uncensored clip where most Chinese soldiers are NOT taught marksmanship but Communism. Plus equipping a single soldier with what we consider super basic kit is the monetary equivalent of 20 of theirs. The only expensive thing is their gay ass bullpup rifle
It seems cliche but I really love this country
Sleep peaceably in your beds.
http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif
And that doesn't necessarily mean as much as you would think.
Dollars doesn't translate into capabilities.
First, there are a lot of things that we include in our defense budget other countries don't include in theirs.
Second, other countries such as Russia and China do not have to pay the same amount as the US does for troops or equipment. China pays its soldiers about 1/9 as much as their US counterparts. Likewise with equipment. China and Russia buy their weapons from state owned industries, so the equipment costs less and the people in the company are paid less.
Just because the US may pay more, doesn't mean that we have weapons that can deal with everything a potential enemy has.
Take the Russian Frigate that passed through the Bosporus to the Med where the two US destroyers who launched the missile strike against Syria are located.
That ship carries 16 Kalibr anti ship missiles with a max range of 400 miles. This missile travels at sea level at mach .8 and then accelerates to mach 3 when it gets within 20 miles of the target. It also takes evasive maneuvers in flight. The US has not improved their anti ship missiles since the 1980s, and their ship based missile defenses are not geared against low flying fast moving missiles like this one. That Frigate could fire multiple missiles against each of those Ageis equipped destroyers and take them both out.
War is not like a board game or an emptying of toy boxes where the entirety of our forces face off against the entirety of an enemies. We have to get our forces there and in certain places we would loose. If Russia were to decide to invade Lithuania and Estonia, which are right on their border--there is nothing that NATO or the US could do. Both of those countries are right on Russia's border and we don't have a lot of forces there.
Take a look at China's expansion and claims in the East China sea. They have been investing heavily in area-denial weapons such as anti-ship ballistic missiles and land based anto ship
missiles similar to the one described above. China has been hard at work on anti-access weapons, strategies, and tactics which would make it impossible for use to fight them in the south
China sea without suffering heavy losses.
We would be fighting them in their home waters where they have lots of shorter ranged fast patrol craft equipped with some surprisingly modern anti-ship missiles. They
might not be good for power projection but they would be hell in home waters. They have DF-21 antiship ballistic missiles and YJ-12 and YJ-18 land, sea and air launched anti-ship missiles.
Their YJ-12 and YJ-18 se skimming anti ship missiles are actually more advanced and longer ranged than our decades-old Harpoon antiship missiles. They are similar to the Russian Kalibr anti ship missiles that I mentioned. They have a range of 150-300 miles and can be launched from ships, planes, and land based launchers. If we got into a war with China, I would expect them to hit our bases in Japan, Korea, and Guam with ballistic missiles equipped with conventional warheads.
Well there you have it. I suppose we should just curl up into the fetal position and suck our collective thumbs.
Outlander Systems
04-11-17, 12:40
Yeah man.
We're done.
It's over for us.
Kiss your kids, kiss your wife, and slip into death's embrace.
#WorldOfWimpcraft
Well there you have it. I suppose we should just curl up into the fetal position and suck our collective thumbs.
We look at their propaganda, they look at our 6 o' clock news.
Trust me, they dont want none of this
And that doesn't necessarily mean as much as you would think.
Dollars doesn't translate into capabilities. yes it does, maybe if our government quit punishing our troops for killing children, we would have a decent military that people around the globe respected
Second, other countries such as Russia and China do not have to pay the same amount as the US does for troops or equipment. China pays its soldiers about 1/9 as much as their US counterparts. Likewise with equipment. China and Russia buy their weapons from state owned industries, so the equipment costs less and the people in the company are paid less.
just remember, even the F-22 was built by the lowest bidder, likewise with all other modern day advanced generation weapons
Take a look at China's expansion and claims in the East China sea. They have been investing heavily in area-denial weapons such as anti-ship ballistic missiles and land based anto ship
missiles similar to the one described above. China has been hard at work on anti-access weapons, strategies, and tactics which would make it impossible for use to fight them in the south
China sea without suffering heavy losses. this happened in Obamas time, which was easy knowing that Obama was afraid of confrontation, hence why Obama focused more on gender and social issues
We would be fighting them in their home waters where they have lots of shorter ranged fast patrol craft equipped with some surprisingly modern anti-ship missiles. They
might not be good for power projection but they would be hell in home waters. They have DF-21 antiship ballistic missiles and YJ-12 and YJ-18 land, sea and air launched anti-ship missiles.
Their YJ-12 and YJ-18 se skimming anti ship missiles are actually more advanced and longer ranged than our decades-old Harpoon antiship missiles. They are similar to the Russian Kalibr anti ship missiles that I mentioned. They have a range of 150-300 miles and can be launched from ships, planes, and land based launchers. If we got into a war with China, I would expect them to hit our bases in Japan, Korea, and Guam with ballistic missiles equipped with conventional warheads.
What is this, the Battle of Midway? You seem to think our Harpoons are obsolete. Those chinese weapon systems that you mentioned are all on boats and I think the US would render those boats useless before we engaged in a open water conflict with them. It would take a lot of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads to his out bases in Japan, Korea and Guam, the US just took out a small air base in Syria with 52 Tomahawk cruise missiles, I think china would need about 1200 to be effective and they would have to be launched at the same time to have the element of surprise, and in doing so, the US would respond with a nuke, 1200 cruise missiles fired at one time at US assets is an act of war on a biblical scale.
My greatest fear is what we have to draw from if we have a boots on the ground, toe to toe, war. Looking at the people I see as I go about my day, I do not see many young people who would survive bootcamp much less an A school or pre-deployment training.
If the U.S. engages in a large scale conflict that requires conscription, we are going to be in the hurt locker.
Only thing is that with conscription, during a national emergency, some punk-ass kid ain't gonna have a choice. "I'll just refuse or be a dick and they'll throw me out" won't fly at that point in time. You WILL comply or we will incarcerate you, f**k with you, then you'll get a shot at it again, but going home ain't in your future son.
Everybody looking at this wrong.
When you think of Russia, people think of Ivan Drago. NEWP.
Most Russians are still way smaller than Americans, have a man drought, and well....just not seeing it.
Everyone thinks the Chinese are a bunch of Bruce Lees. Nope. Most who apply for military are turned away for being fat, illiterate, or too nearsighted. Don't have it on me but like most chinese have really bad eyesight due to just poor health and conditions. Like not even need reading glasses but like 20/400 both eyes.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/02/05/383765377/why-is-nearsightedness-skyrocketing-among-chinese-youth
Are most American kids pussies? Yeah probably. But tell them they get to shoot somebody and get paid for it and most will adapt within a few weeks.
It may not be a strack military at all and would resemble a chain gang or something but I'm not worried.
JMHO
Yeah man.
We're done.
It's over for us.
Kiss your kids, kiss your wife, and slip into death's embrace.
#WorldOfWimpcraft
http://theworldaccordingtoalice.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/game-over-man-game-over.jpg
I think it's interesting that mindset doesn't get weighed as heavily as it should. If we're attacked outright by a foreign belligerent, we swoop in like the Wrath of God. If we're tasked with maintaining an unstable peace in a foreign hot zone that doesn't effect us on our home turf, we dither until it gets too ugly and then we leave with things left unfinished. That's U.S. foreign policy in a nutshell.
The reasons Japan was such a tough nut in WWII didn't have as much to do to do with their actual capabilities as their mindset. It had to do with their utter belief in the infallibility of their Emperor, and being taught that American heathens would eat their children if given the chance. We literally had to nuke them to avoid extermination their entire race. Likewise Nazi Germany felt they had a legitimate complaint with the Treaty of Versailles and many were indoctrinated with the "master race" nonsense. That coupled with a formidable arsenal made for a much longer war, made winnable more because of the Reich's arrogance and greed than any real weakness.
You can be sure that propaganda will factor heavily in the resolve of the NorKs and Chinese. However, that will be tempered if their troops are at or near starvation levels. Regardless, the dumbest thing we could do is hand them a reason to be righteously indignant. :(
Only thing is that with conscription, during a national emergency, some punk-ass kid ain't gonna have a choice. "I'll just refuse or be a dick and they'll throw me out" won't fly at that point in time. You WILL comply or we will incarcerate you, f**k with you, then you'll get a shot at it again, but going home ain't in your future son.
We need to reinstitute mandatory Physical Education in the school system. That would alleviate some concerns.
Dist. Expert 26
04-11-17, 18:50
We need to reinstitute mandatory Physical Education in the school system. That would alleviate some concerns.
Physical fitness doesn't make up for mental weakness. There's plenty of snowflakes that go to the gym every day.
Outlander Systems
04-11-17, 18:54
Rough Times Create Strong Men
Strong Men Create Good Times
Good Times Create Weak Men
Weak Men Create Rough Times
http://theworldaccordingtoalice.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/game-over-man-game-over.jpg
I think it's interesting that mindset doesn't get weighed as heavily as it should. If we're attacked outright by a foreign belligerent, we swoop in like the Wrath of God. If we're tasked with maintaining an unstable peace in a foreign hot zone that doesn't effect us on our home turf, we dither until it gets too ugly and then we leave with things left unfinished. That's U.S. foreign policy in a nutshell.
The reasons Japan was such a tough nut in WWII didn't have as much to do to do with their actual capabilities as their mindset. It had to do with their utter belief in the infallibility of their Emperor, and being taught that American heathens would eat their children if given the chance. We literally had to nuke them to avoid extermination their entire race. Likewise Nazi Germany felt they had a legitimate complaint with the Treaty of Versailles and many were indoctrinated with the "master race" nonsense. That coupled with a formidable arsenal made for a much longer war, made winnable more because of the Reich's arrogance and greed than any real weakness.
You can be sure that propaganda will factor heavily in the resolve of the NorKs and Chinese. However, that will be tempered if their troops are at or near starvation levels. Regardless, the dumbest thing we could do is hand them a reason to be righteously indignant. :( Problem is, this isn't America circa 1941. How long did patriotism last after 9/11? I went to war. Most of America went to the mall. People nowadays could not ration and otherwise do without for any amount of time.
I have a much better glimpse into part of the Russian military, that most people.
I have only one area of concern should the USA and Russia get into a real war. Putin prior to the end in an effort to save himself from a major defeat, might resort to nukes.
But trust me in a straight up fight, it would not even be close.
Rough Times Create Strong Men
Strong Men Create Good Times
Good Times Create Weak Men
Weak Men Create Rough Times
Twas ever thus and evermore shall be so.
I wrote: "Second, other countries such as Russia and China do not have to pay the same amount as the US does for troops or equipment. China pays its soldiers about 1/9 as much as their US counterparts. Likewise with equipment. China and Russia buy their weapons from state owned industries, so the equipment costs less and the people in the company are paid less."
Elephant responded:
just remember, even the F-22 was built by the lowest bidder, likewise with all other modern day advanced generation weapons.
This is not anywhere near the same thing. The F-22 was selected by a flyoff between two companies who were capable of building a plane to meet the required some very sophisticated requirements. It is not like Olympic arms is building F-22s.
Compare the salary of someone working at Boeing to someone working at Sukhoi, who builds the SU-35 and the T-50, or that of Chengdu, the state owned Chinese manufacturer who builds their stealth F-20 and a host of Sukhoi licensed built planes and knockoffs. Their salaries are way less. Both countries pay less for the components they produce, and for the finished products. Thus it is not accurate to compare money spent because they can buy similar and in some cases better weapon systems for much less money.
[COLOR="#FF0000"]What is this, the Battle of Midway? You seem to think our Harpoons are obsolete. Those chinese weapon systems that you mentioned are all on boats and I think the US would render those boats useless before we engaged in a open water conflict with them.
There won't ever be another battle of Midway because the Chinese and Russians have satellites that can warn them of the approach of naval vessels well in advance. So we are not going to get close enough to them to render them useless while they are still in the harbor. The Harpoon is still usable, but we are facing potential enemies who have anti ship missiles that have several times its range, can employ evasive maneuvering, and travel several times as fast at their final approach.
[COLOR="#FF0000"] It would take a lot of ballistic missiles with conventional warheads to his out bases in Japan, Korea and Guam, the US just took out a small air base in Syria with 52 Tomahawk cruise missiles, I think china would need about 1200 to be effective and they would have to be launched at the same time to have the element of surprise, and in doing so, the US would respond with a nuke, 1200 cruise missiles fired at one time at US assets is an act of war on a biblical scale.
I agree that it would be an act of war on a biblical scale. But I don't think we would cross the nuclear threshold unless China or Russia used Nukes first. If we nuke a military target in their country they would nuke one in ours. Needless to say we do not want that.
Straight Shooter
04-11-17, 20:52
Physical fitness doesn't make up for mental weakness. There's plenty of snowflakes that go to the gym every day.
Went to the range today..was bitching because the city doesn't do SHIT for upkeep...they'll mow grass ever blue moon, that's it. The downhill drive got ruts so deep Id have to call a wrecker to get my car out. Anyway, I was asking why they wouldn't do more, I said it was cause the damned ballparks get all the money & attention.
My mentor/friend told me that aint the case no more..aint enough young-uns playing ball to keep all the fields open. Got 4 teams that just apparently play each other over & over. Unknown to me, some of the ball fields are closed.
So-these cell phone obessesd kids are too lazy to even play ball now. I swear- SATAN invented those damned things...I hate mine with a passion and don't even take it with me most times.
I agree that it would be an act of war on a biblical scale. But I don't think we would cross the nuclear threshold unless China or Russia used Nukes first. If we nuke a military target in their country they would nuke one in ours. Needless to say we do not want that.
I agree with you 100%. America with their "Pearl Harbor must come first, before Hiroshima or Nagasaki" mentality. I think that attitude will get us into trouble one day.
I have a much better glimpse into part of the Russian military, that most people.
I have only one area of concern should the USA and Russia get into a real war. Putin prior to the end in an effort to save himself from a major defeat, might resort to nukes.
But trust me in a straight up fight, it would not even be close.
It depends where we are going to get into the fight.
If it is in Europe for some of the newer NATO countries that are closer to Russia, they have far more forces nearby and could overwhelm them before we could do anything. It would take us a while to move forces to counter--all the while being subject to attack.
Sadly, we the US has assumed that no peer threat would emerge and has let things slide. We were busy fighting other wars and complacent about weapon developments from other countries.
As I said about the Russian Frigate that passed through the Bosporus to the Med where the two US destroyers who launched the missile strike against Syria are located. It carries 16 Kalibr anti ship missiles with a max range of 400 miles. This missile travels at sea level at mach .8 and then accelerates to mach 3 when it gets within 20 miles of the target. It also takes evasive maneuvers in flight. The US has not improved their anti ship missiles since the 1980s, and their ship based missile defenses are not geared against low flying fast moving missiles like this one. That Frigate could probably fire multiple missiles against each of those Aegis equipped destroyers and take them both out.
Even if it is not Russia or China, we could find ourselves facing those weapons employed by a client state. That doesn't mean that we could not defeat that client, but it does mean we would suffer far more casualties and losses than we have in the past.
Dist. Expert 26
04-11-17, 21:32
Went to the range today..was bitching because the city doesn't do SHIT for upkeep...they'll mow grass ever blue moon, that's it. The downhill drive got ruts so deep Id have to call a wrecker to get my car out. Anyway, I was asking why they wouldn't do more, I said it was cause the damned ballparks get all the money & attention.
My mentor/friend told me that aint the case no more..aint enough young-uns playing ball to keep all the fields open. Got 4 teams that just apparently play each other over & over. Unknown to me, some of the ball fields are closed.
So-these cell phone obessesd kids are too lazy to even play ball now. I swear- SATAN invented those damned things...I hate mine with a passion and don't even take it with me most times.
I dunno, maybe that's just because baseball is pretty boring. I don't see football fields falling into disrepair.
But on the point of the cell phones I totally agree. My kid won't have one until he can buy his own. I refuse to raise a zombie.
Physical fitness doesn't make up for mental weakness. There's plenty of snowflakes that go to the gym every day.
I am not talking about going to the gym and pushing weights by yourself, I am talking about group regimentation and teaching young people self discipline and teamwork. During the 1960s and early 1970s the coaches pushed us hard and never let up. They treated us like adults and held us accountable as such. We were assigned longer runs and man killers if we left anyone behind on a 3 mile run. It was not unusual to show up late for the next class without time for a shower and all the faculty were all onboard with the program. As one coach put it "There are a lot of young men coming home in body bags. None of you are going to die because you are not strong enough, fast enough or can run long enough." He brought up the rear of the group carrying a paddle. He was one of the kinder, gentler, coaches.
Physical Education is not just about physical development, it's also about mental discipline and teamwork. Once the Cold War ended we seem to lose touch with that concept in the school system.
I do not know if I agree with some of the ideas here.
I could chump on young people all day but boot camps and police academies don't seem to be in short supply. I dare argue more young people are into shooting. Not just hunting.
My personal experience as a youth in the 90s was that....no. We were very, very mean.
Russia is ate up with AIDS, dope addiction, and just not exactly the best. We look at the propaganda but really..
no.
It would be a very one sided fight if conventional. In the 70s....maybe.
Now? No. Their only hope would be a nuke. Same with China.
I'd love to see where all these wimpy kids live. Most kids I seen lately have kids of their own and a rap sheet.
Maybe you are all just blessed to live in nice areas.
If you are upset that your kid doesnt like sports, how often have you taken them out and played catch?
If you think your kid plays too much nintendo or has too much phone time then what did you do to facilitate that?
All I know is that I did it all as a youth. If I really wanted something, I mowed lawns to save up for a stereo or a video game cartridge. Went on zany adventures, played the sports I enjoed, skateboarded, etc, etc.
But a lot of what my generation did would be a nuisance today and the cops would be called on us for playing ball or hanging out and skating.
But....And I hate to go here.....But, a lot of teens and early 20s are starting fires and rioting and doing shit with the police that would have gotten me shot in the day.
Harness that and redirect and sheeyit.....
ChiComs dont bother me. They can give a good lecture on Mao's Red Book but uf you think they are all 2 million of them out there pounding steel and learning range estimation then......newp.
They have to indoctrinate a godless, irreligious, disindividuative dialectic to get them to function.
We are mean just for fun, only we don't think we are mean.
Ever read the book I Am Legend?
That's the twist. If there IS a global boogieman on a world altering scale it is us.
And I, for one, am okay with it. Everyone calls us fat, lazy, and dumb. But they also are scared shitless of us because they likewise find us insensitive, cruel, violent and mean.
So.....Ain't skeered. I mean.....look at Chicago and Detroit. That's a normal day for us.
Dist. Expert 26
04-11-17, 22:45
Maybe I read too much into what I see online and on TV. Maybe we really haven't gone soft. But it seems that with every new generation we worry more about feelings and emotions while getting ever further from reality.
Case in point would be the "safe spaces" popping up at what used to be prestigious colleges. These kids are smart enough to get into Ivy League schools, but yet so emotionally fragile they can't handle the slightest disagreement to their ideas?
Maybe the next few years will be a reality check for them. One can hope anyway.
MountainRaven
04-11-17, 22:55
Just remember that in July 1914, everybody thought they were going to be home before Christmas and the war would be over.
RetroRevolver77
04-11-17, 23:49
God bless the fortunate souls that get to see this next shitstorm.
7n6
I wish I was ten years younger and I would re-enlist right now. The beautiful things you would see in such conflicts. I can only pray for a draft where they would take anyone under 45 and send them to glorious combat. I would kill till my heart is pure. God bless the fortunate souls that get to see this next shitstorm.
7n6
I hope that is sarcasm. If not, Then I feel bad for you.
I dont care for these other countries, but dont necessarily see a need for bloodthirst. China kills more Chinese than anyone else.
Russian Govt will always be extraordinarily corrupt. Tsarism, Leninism, Stalinism, and whatever the hell the 50s to 1992 was messed them up really, really bad.
Honestly.....aa much of a Sartrarian as I am.....
They aren't going to do anything. It's the usual "One of these days, Alice.....One of these days" rhetoric to guilt-shame the USA into not sitting with its legs spread.
North Korea can't pay the light bill nor feed its people. If they tried to nuke anyone...the Japanese would trip over their dicks to nuke their asses. The Japanese have nukes and may yet have an actual formal Army again in our lifetime.
The Chinese talk about Taiwan. Aint gonna happen. SEATO can start right up again if need be.
And Russia.....well....a lot of former Satellite nations haven't gotten over the Cold War.
Honestly, I dont think Putin is that great. He represents how the Russians think they want to be seen but if it ever got too bad his little ass would be on the first plane outta there. Putin is for Putin.
I doubt, especially after the tank massacre in Kuwait 26 years ago, that any Russian tanker or infantryman youtubes up footage of M1 Tanks, A-10s, Apaches, MLRS, and so forth and says "Yep.....I could totally kick their ass"
No....it's just the usual retired warhawks wanting to be on CNN.
Look, no disrespect, but if you are a retired Col. or Gen......Go start a Stratego or Warhammer guild. Or DL the original Red Alert.
I say this in a morbid way but sadly I do not think I will ever live to see the nuclear apocalypse I was "promised" as a kid.
I think it will be more low level, low stakes, BS wars in BS countries over dumb shit and no matter what some American kid will lose a limb or his life and I see no glory in that.
SSDD
what's with all the "I hope they start the draft again" talk. The last thing you want is people in our military that really don't want to be there.
I already believe that one day the US will get in to big trouble with our NATO allies and United Nations. Its inevitable: one day we are going to fly a stealth drone into a countries airspace without there consent and kill a high value target and end up killing a Sheik, Prince or daughter of a head of state and it will be a world outrage. You start putting men into our military that don't want to be there, your going to see rebellion, defiance and insubordination levels not seen before. Last thing this country wants is a huge percentage of young men with rebellious attitudes in a country we are at war with and at the same time, trying to win over the people. The war crimes committed during Vietnam were the highest ever ranging from mostly rape, burglary, theft, vandalism, murder and drugs. The US cant afford that nor do we want that kind of image associated with our military. You can force anyone of age into the military, but cant force them to be patriots.
what's with all the "I hope they start the draft again" talk. The last thing you want is people in our military that really don't want to be there.
That is exactly what we don't need.
1. Do we really want some of these young people we see at universities in our armed forces--the ones who need safe space and cancel classes and have crisis counselors visit because Trump was elected?
2. A draft would be a sure way of galvanizing people who may not be politically involved into people who would become politically active and vote anti-military and antigun.
Maybe I read too much into what I see online and on TV. Maybe we really haven't gone soft. But it seems that with every new generation we worry more about feelings and emotions while getting ever further from reality.
Case in point would be the "safe spaces" popping up at what used to be prestigious colleges. These kids are smart enough to get into Ivy League schools, but yet so emotionally fragile they can't handle the slightest disagreement to their ideas?
Maybe the next few years will be a reality check for them. One can hope anyway.
Part of this is the Baby Boomer generation which enabled entitlement, feelings, and emotions to rule some of their kids. The other is the incredible reliance on technology, and not being able to interact, face to face, person to person.
That is exactly what we don't need.
1. Do we really want some of these young people we see at universities in our armed forces--the ones who need safe space and cancel classes and have crisis counselors visit because Trump was elected?
2. A draft would be a sure way of galvanizing people who may not be politically involved into people who would become politically active and vote anti-military and antigun.
they could be in the new you do not need a gun draft never have to be in battle just clean up EVERYTHING from it maybe forced latrine duty would do them good for 4 years
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-17, 05:14
I agree with you 100%. America with their "Pearl Harbor must come first, before Hiroshima or Nagasaki" mentality. I think that attitude will get us into trouble one day.
There use to be a NEOCON think tank called PNAC (The Project For The New American Century). One of their most influential publications was a 90-page report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. Citing the PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles, Rebuilding America's Defenses asserted that the United States should "seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership" by "maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
From page 51, Section V Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
No draft unless we are in an all out shooting war and we need bodies. No deferment either, you go or you are deported-no chance for return, ever.
Being a trainer, it's easy to see who wants to be in a class and who doesn't and people who pay their way are definitely motivated. The bulk of todays armed forces want to be where they are and it shows.
Am I concerned with a war, you betcha and not just because I have a son in theatre, it simply isn't good.
However, we have been led down a path by poor leadership and have allowed the neighborhood punks and loudmouths to prosper. Now we are at a point to either they back down saying I'm sorry or have their ever loving ass whipped to conform to a degree of respect and normalcy.
I would venture to say that most young people today, regardless of their political philosophy, do not want war.
Why? Because there hasn't been a good reason for one in quite some time.
The incessant corruption and lies of the government has lead to a general distrust and resentment.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Outlander Systems
04-12-17, 07:25
Define, "quite some time".
In the year of our Lord, 2001, approximately in the month of September, I know for a fact there were some rough-necked bulletproof mother****ers ready to get their Deus Vult on and drink beer from skulls.
I would venture to say that most young people today, regardless of their political philosophy, do not want war.
Why? Because there hasn't been a good reason for one in quite some time.
Define, "quite some time".
In the year of our Lord, 2001, approximately in the month of September, I know for a fact there were some rough-necked bulletproof mother****ers ready to get their Deus Vult on and drink beer from skulls.
Because the government lied to them.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Outlander Systems
04-12-17, 07:39
:rolleyes:
Riiiiiiight.
I keep forgetting that Steel Fuel Can't Melt Jet Beams, and that George Bush himself planted the thermite in the TT.
:rolleyes:
Riiiiiiight.
I keep forgetting that Steel Fuel Can't Melt Jet Beams, and that George Bush himself planted the thermite in the TT.
I'm talking about Saddam Hussein and WMDs.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Outlander Systems
04-12-17, 07:54
Roger that.
what's with all the "I hope they start the draft again" talk. The last thing you want is people in our military that really don't want to be there.
The feeling I get when I read statements like the one above is that in reality they are saying 'hey I'm too important to defend the nation, I got better things to do, I'm ruler class not warrior class.'
I think that a lot of the guys who fought WWII didn't want to be in the military. They did okay.
Look how many guys they broke during the initial stages of the GWOT by hammering deployment after deployment on them. We shouldn't expect that of our military.
Home many of the boots on the ground in the middle east really 'want to be there?'
It is easy to start fights if you know you won't be fighting.
There ain't gonna be no draft, not unless there is a for-real invasion of the US or a massive world war, for all the reasons mentioned.
With proper funding our military will do alright.*
*Meaning, keeping your aircraft airborne, pilots in the seats, everything maintained, etc.
Actually, it went underreported but folks deserted and dodged WWII as well.
It took a lot of propaganda to try and sell another World War.
Defend the nation? I can almost guarantee that you would not be at a loss for volunteers or those acting of their own accord.
Joining up to go to someone else's shithole and play World Police? EEEHHHhhhhhh.......
There are a lot of reasons conscription is a bad idea. Too numerous to name. It was a dinosaur of an idea and Nixon was one of the more intelligent Presidents for tossing it.
Do the men and women of the Armed Forces like the crapholes they are stationed at? No. But they did want to be in the military.
The Govt sends people off to war. You know, the same people who will put you in jail over health insurance and taxes.
And call me whatever, but if I had a son.....I want him as far away from guns, knives, needles, and everything else as possible.
The feeling I get when I read statements like the one above is that in reality they are saying 'hey I'm too important to defend the nation, I got better things to do, I'm ruler class not warrior class.' someone has to pay the bill and other has to keep our economy afloat
I think that a lot of the guys who fought WWII didn't want to be in the military. They did okay.
95% of our resources and energy went to the war effort, most people joined for the money considering we were in a depression.
Look how many guys they broke during the initial stages of the GWOT by hammering deployment after deployment on them. We shouldn't expect that of our military.
now image that times 100, we will have to have a whole federal agency dedicated to PTSD treatment and we will spend the rest of our lives repaying these people for what...2-4 years of service
Home many of the boots on the ground in the middle east really 'want to be there?'
its the nature of the business, I wouldn't mind going to war in the Caribbean or Bahamas but unfortunately, we don't chose the location of our enemy
It is easy to start fights if you know you won't be fighting.
that would be our politicians, and you cant be diplomatic during times of war. maybe if we started killing women and children, nobody would want a war with us.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-12-17, 13:34
There ain't gonna be no draft, not unless there is a for-real invasion of the US or a massive world war, for all the reasons mentioned.
With proper funding our military will do alright.*
*Meaning, keeping your aircraft airborne, pilots in the seats, everything maintained, etc.
If we have a draft, its so that there are more targets for their robots to shoot.
Dist. Expert 26
04-12-17, 14:29
I'm talking about Saddam Hussein and WMDs.
Official Kremlin Transmission
I literally don't now a single person that enlisted so they could go to war over WMD's. Most everyone I served with joined because of 9/11.
Outlander Systems
04-12-17, 17:24
Yuuuuup.
Also, contrary to popular opinion, the technology known as modern civilization, for better or for worse, requires, nay, mandates a little something called ****ing oil.
So, there's that.
If conspiracy theorists don't like that inconvenient truth, they can put their money where their mouths are and head to the nearest grass-hut in a third world hellhole.
I literally don't now a single person that enlisted so they could go to war over WMD's. Most everyone I served with joined because of 9/11.
Okay, first of all you started the thread, which is entitled 'Fear Over War With Russia or Iran.' That being said, Iran would not, IMO, be World WarIII, Russia on the other hand..... That is the assumption my response is based upon.
[QUOTE=elephant;2479359]The feeling I get when I read statements like the one above is that in reality they are saying 'hey I'm too important to defend the nation, I got better things to do, I'm ruler class not warrior class.' someone has to pay the bill and other has to keep our economy afloat
And I assume that would be you and your dad, correct? The government took care of that during WWII, I'm sure they could manage it for WWIII (see below). Attitudes during, and leading up to WWII were as follows:
By the summer of 1940, as Germany conquered France, Americans supported the return of conscription. One national survey found that 67% of respondents believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, and that 71% supported "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men". https://books.google.com/books?id=xz8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA20&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false
A November 1942 survey of American high-school students found that 69% favored compulsory postwar military training. https://books.google.com/books?id=RkEEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA2&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=true
I think that a lot of the guys who fought WWII didn't want to be in the military. They did okay.
95% of our resources and energy went to the war effort, most people joined for the money considering we were in a depression.
Did you know that we suspended enlistments in late 1942? You couldn't join the Armed forces, you had to be drafted. On December 5, 1942, presidential Executive Order 9279 made it so that men from the ages of 18 to 37 could not voluntarily enlist even if they had not been drafted, providing protection for the nation's home front manpower pool.
So the government thought ahead and realized they couldn't let all of those 'out of work men' join because thery needed people to work. I would hope that would be the case if we got in a dust up with Russia.
I agree with you. I didn't know that about the suspension of enlistments in 1942. My argument was suggested at earlier comments about the pussification of young males in our current time. I know there are a lot of patriots and the alpha types who are more than willing to join and fight, but through out the last election, I have been introduced a new type of male I didn't know exist, one who identifies as a feminist but does so in a manly way, not quite straight, but not totally gay either and thinks Bruce Jenner is a hero and Hillary Clinton was the second coming of our Lord and Savior- Jesus Christ. Those are the men I am talking about not wanting to be in our military. I doubt those men would last 2 weeks in basic training, let alone a war with barbarian savages. But I do think those kind of men could -and I use that word generously, have a purpose for helping the US in a conflict, but not the military and defiantly not a warfighter.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-12-17, 21:53
I agree with you. I didn't know that about the suspension of enlistments in 1942. My argument was suggested at earlier comments about the pussification of young males in our current time. I know there are a lot of patriots and the alpha types who are more than willing to join and fight, but through out the last election, I have been introduced a new type of male I didn't know exist, one who identifies as a feminist but does so in a manly way, not quite straight, but not totally gay either and thinks Bruce Jenner is a hero and Hillary Clinton was the second coming of our Lord and Savior- Jesus Christ. Those are the men I am talking about not wanting to be in our military. I doubt those men would last 2 weeks in basic training, let alone a war with barbarian savages. But I do think those kind of men could -and I use that word generously, have a purpose for helping the US in a conflict, but not the military and defiantly not a warfighter.
Metrosexual.
wildcard600
04-12-17, 23:27
I agree with you. I didn't know that about the suspension of enlistments in 1942. My argument was suggested at earlier comments about the pussification of young males in our current time. I know there are a lot of patriots and the alpha types who are more than willing to join and fight, but through out the last election, I have been introduced a new type of male I didn't know exist, one who identifies as a feminist but does so in a manly way, not quite straight, but not totally gay either and thinks Bruce Jenner is a hero and Hillary Clinton was the second coming of our Lord and Savior- Jesus Christ. Those are the men I am talking about not wanting to be in our military. I doubt those men would last 2 weeks in basic training, let alone a war with barbarian savages. But I do think those kind of men could -and I use that word generously, have a purpose for helping the US in a conflict, but not the military and defiantly not a warfighter.
There are also plenty of people who don't want to be in the military as they don't believe in many of the ridiculous "wars" our government has been waging for the last 40 years.
If ISIS is storming the beaches of North Carolina with amphibious landing craft and the fighting was actually going on in this country, sign me up. But if we are talking about conflict zones half a world away in an era where we can drop precision guided ordnance on every square inch of this earth from hundreds/thousands of miles away you're going to have to find someone else.
I literally don't now a single person that enlisted so they could go to war over WMD's. Most everyone I served with joined because of 9/11.
Yeah, to invade Iraq...
Official Kremlin Transmission
Yuuuuup.
Also, contrary to popular opinion, the technology known as modern civilization, for better or for worse, requires, nay, mandates a little something called ****ing oil.
So, there's that.
If conspiracy theorists don't like that inconvenient truth, they can put their money where their mouths are and head to the nearest grass-hut in a third world hellhole.
Are you suggesting that we should invade countries for oil?
Official Kremlin Transmission
If ISIS is storming the beaches of North Carolina with amphibious landing craft and the fighting was actually going on in this country, sign me up......
Well, if they invade the northern third, they will be taken care of by the hunters and fishermen. Camp Lejeune owns a great deal of the middle third, so they got that covered; but the southern third is all transplants, millennials, and retired people, so they would need your help.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 08:55
I'm suggesting that if one is too immature, too myopic, or too idealistic to accept the fact that oil is literally the lifeblood of western civilization as of 13APR17, there's nothing I can do to help with the understanding thereof.
When we're all driving Teslas with 400mi crusing ranges, all long-haul freight delivery is via rail and/or locally-sourced natty gas, and our roofs are literally made of photo-voltaic materials, the discussion of the fundamental necessity of oil to keep the technology also known as civilization humming along can be revisited.
Ghawar: Recoverable reserves in decline
Burgan Field: Recoverable reserves in decline
Cantarell Field: Recoverable reserves in decline
General rate of decline is ~6.7% per anum for post-field peaks.
The equation is caveman/basic-bitch simple: Deal with reality, or reality will deal with you.
Are you suggesting that we should invade countries for oil?
Official Kremlin Transmission
Dist. Expert 26
04-13-17, 09:51
Yeah, to invade Iraq...
Official Kremlin Transmission
Well no. We joined to kill terrorists. Nobody gave a rats ass about Iraq or Afghanistan. Your argument that everyone who joined after 9/11 was somehow brainwashed is retarded.
Well, if they invade the northern third, they will be taken care of by the hunters and fishermen. Camp Lejeune owns a great deal of the middle third, so they got that covered; but the southern third is all transplants, millennials, and retired people, so they would need your help.
Disagree on the South. They've got Firefly, Eurodriver and now the Will-man... And of course, Chuck Norris. They're good.
Disagree on the South. They've got Firefly, Eurodriver and now the Will-man... And of course, Chuck Norris. They're good.
Lol...I meant the southern third of North Carolina. Yeah, we have so many M4C dudes in Florida, ISIS would not stand a chance. The only questions would be, how many before you hit the limit, and would you need a tag or license?
Lol...I meant the southern third of North Carolina. Yeah, we have so many M4C dudes in Florida, ISIS would not stand a chance. The only questions would be, how many before you hit the limit, and would you need a tag or license?
I would be willing to bet a case of beer that they would be willing to go up there just for the sport of it. No tags or licenses necessary. Much like coyotes, there's a small bounty.
I'm suggesting that if one is too immature, too myopic, or too idealistic to accept the fact that oil is literally the lifeblood of western civilization as of 13APR17, there's nothing I can do to help with the understanding thereof.
When we're all driving Teslas with 400mi crusing ranges, all long-haul freight delivery is via rail and/or locally-sourced natty gas, and our roofs are literally made of photo-voltaic materials, the discussion of the fundamental necessity of oil to keep the technology also known as civilization humming along can be revisited.
Ghawar: Recoverable reserves in decline
Burgan Field: Recoverable reserves in decline
Cantarell Field: Recoverable reserves in decline
General rate of decline is ~6.7% per anum for post-field peaks.
The equation is caveman/basic-bitch simple: Deal with reality, or reality will deal with you.
So, if I understand correctly you are saying we should abandon the principles of the free market and rather than purchase oil we should take it? If that's good to go I'm gonna start robbing banks.
DISCLAIMER POSTED ENTIRELY TONGUE-IN-CHEEK
Metrosexual.
so...basically, the typical average European male
There are also plenty of people who don't want to be in the military as they don't believe in many of the ridiculous "wars" our government has been waging for the last 40 years.
If ISIS is storming the beaches of North Carolina with amphibious landing craft and the fighting was actually going on in this country, sign me up. But if we are talking about conflict zones half a world away in an era where we can drop precision guided ordnance on every square inch of this earth from hundreds/thousands of miles away you're going to have to find someone else.
im with you, im willing to kill for this country, but I would never lay down my life for it. unless an actual enemy that I personally recognize as an enemy is standing at my front door.
I'm suggesting that if one is too immature, too myopic, or too idealistic to accept the fact that oil is literally the lifeblood of western civilization as of 13APR17, there's nothing I can do to help with the understanding thereof.
When we're all driving Teslas with 400mi crusing ranges, all long-haul freight delivery is via rail and/or locally-sourced natty gas, and our roofs are literally made of photo-voltaic materials, the discussion of the fundamental necessity of oil to keep the technology also known as civilization humming along can be revisited.
Ghawar: Recoverable reserves in decline
Burgan Field: Recoverable reserves in decline
Cantarell Field: Recoverable reserves in decline
General rate of decline is ~6.7% per anum for post-field peaks.
The equation is caveman/basic-bitch simple: Deal with reality, or reality will deal with you.
Sending young men overseas to die for oil is f*cking retarded.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 11:18
Cool.
Sending young men overseas to die for oil is f*cking retarded.
Official Kremlin Transmission
I dont disagree with spoils of war like oil but we have oodles of it here that for whatever reason nobody wants to drill. Because weird reasons.
I'm all for renewable, magic energy but I doubt it will be in my lifetime so, yeah....We need .97 gas again.
.97 cent gas, $1.50 smokes, and 99 cent soft drinks. $20 would last one a whole week with change left.
But thats just me
I dont disagree with spoils of war like oil but we have oodles of it here that for whatever reason nobody wants to drill. Because weird reasons.
I'm all for renewable, magic energy but I doubt it will be in my lifetime so, yeah....We need .97 gas again.
.97 cent gas, $1.50 smokes, and 99 cent soft drinks. $20 would last one a whole week with change left.
But thats just me
nobody wants to drill over hear because OPEC dump there price years ago, which drove down the cost of oil- and our overall heath of our economy as well. Unfortunately, oil drives our economy and at .97 cents a gallon, I wouldn't expect a thriving and robust economy. We seriously need to raise the price of oil to $100 a barrel, oil companies will start spending billions again, steel prices go up, coal goes up, home prices go up, unemployment goes down, money starts falling from the sky, and suddenly, we are all happy people. But yes, we need to take the oil in Iraq- its technically ours since before WW1. The US (Exxon, Chevron, Ensco etc) pay the Saudi Royal Family $54 million total a day.. every day, to drill for oil and we profit share with The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. South America, where Shell, BP and Total are big players have to pay out lucrative amounts of money on top of what they pay for the day rate to drill. Just to give you an idea, a jackup rig in 100 feet of water cost $70k and hour, a semi submersible cost $3 million a day, a drill ship can cost $5 million a day and all those do is drill for oil, once you find oil, you have to remove rig and replace with a production rig (spar) or platform and those cost upwards of $10 million a day plus a 50k a day environmental insurance policy.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 12:12
EROI, my brotha.
Engergy-Return-On-Investment.
If it costs me $1.00 to get $0.99 worth of oil out of the ground...I...Ain't...Drillin'...Baby...Drillin.
I'll sit my ass on the sidelines until the PPB goes back up to make the juice worth the squeeze.
One thing I think a lot of people aren't fully aware of is the fact that the days of LSC, up-from-the-ground, Jed Clampett-style drilling are over. Donion rings. The oil companies haven't resorted to fracking, corn-ethanol, and off-shore rigs, for the sport of it. It's an indicator of the increasing difficulty, and lengths needed to go to, in order to obtain the triceratops-sauce.
As existing fields become depleted, the amount of effort required for extraction also increases, which starts to negatively impact EROI as well.
But, hey man. Like homie said. No blood for oil and all that.
Disclaimer: I am not a Geologist, and this post provides information only. It is not meant to be a recommendation to buy or to sell commodities nor an offer to buy or sell commodities. Outlander Systems is not a broker, dealer or registered investment advisor and does not attempt or intend to influence the purchase or sale of any commodity.
...for whatever reason nobody wants to drill. Because weird reasons.
Cogent points.
I sit here in an airconditioned building on a magical device that can do things unheard of 30 years ago.......
.....and we still rely on dead dinosaurs.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 12:35
You just hit the nail on the head, Brosef Stalin.
Until you can say sentence two, without saying sentence three...
Civilization needs that Tyrannosaurus Rex Grease.
If you really want to get spooky, ask yourself:
What is the ratio of petrochemical input (fertilizer, machinery operation, etc.) in calories to obtain one calorie of food output...
Cogent points.
I sit here in an airconditioned building on a magical device that can do things unheard of 30 years ago.......
.....and we still rely on dead dinosaurs.
When it comes to oil, the reason we haven't come up with alternative fuels is simple.
Governments or rather the key people have all been bought and paid for by oil sheiks. We had a general retire from the IDF and a week later he was "working" at a think tank in D.C. that was 100% paid for by oil money. He got paid so much money as to make you sick. Then he entered Israeli politics and wants to give away everything.
Sending young men overseas to die for oil is f*cking retarded.
Official Kremlin Transmission
That is fine - send the old men. Or, better yet - send the women. Because unless you are prepared to get around Fred Flintstone style, there is a price to pay for the amenities that you enjoy.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 12:49
No way man. It's a conspiracy by "Big Oil", bro. :rolleyes:
That is fine - send the old men. Or, better yet - send the women. Because unless you are prepared to get around Fred Flintstone style, there is a price to pay for the amenities that you enjoy.
Eurodriver
04-13-17, 12:53
Well no. We joined to kill terrorists. Nobody gave a rats ass about Iraq or Afghanistan. Your argument that everyone who joined after 9/11 was somehow brainwashed is retarded.
Iraq had been going on for a hot little minute after I joined. We pretty much all knew it was bs. We just wanted to kill something. Anything. It didn't matter who. Or what.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 12:55
That post was Semper Fi AF.
ETA:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgIoyuDXIAAs35i.jpg
Iraq had been going on for a hot little minute after I joined. We pretty much all knew it was bs. We just wanted to kill something. Anything. It didn't matter who. Or what.
Iraq had been going on for a hot little minute after I joined. We pretty much all knew it was bs. We just wanted to kill something. Anything. It didn't matter who. Or what.
You don't think there's something wrong with that?
When it comes to oil, the reason we haven't come up with alternative fuels is simple.
Governments or rather the key people have all been bought and paid for by oil sheiks. We had a general retire from the IDF and a week later he was "working" at a think tank in D.C. that was 100% paid for by oil money. He got paid so much money as to make you sick. Then he entered Israeli politics and wants to give away everything.
No, the reason why we haven't come up with alternative fuels is because the energy contained in the chemical bonds of alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons is greater and more efficient than anything else on this planet.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 13:04
Do you even Warrior, bro?
You don't think there's something wrong with that?
No, the reason why we haven't come up with alternative fuels is because the energy contained in the chemical bonds of alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons is greater and more efficient than anything else on this planet.
This, oil is still the cheapest option. Only reason we have $hitloads of windmills and solar is due to government pouring your tax money into those industries. I heard that every windmill received a million dollar subsidy. Never investigated that 'cause I was sure that the truth would infuriate me.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
You don't think there's something wrong with that?
Nope.
Iraq had been going on for a hot little minute after I joined. We pretty much all knew it was bs. We just wanted to kill something. Anything. It didn't matter who. Or what.
Even by Marine INF standards, this is one of the more gangster posts on M4C I've seen in a while. It was refreshing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU3CSmUan0Y
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 13:20
Europanties nothing.
He needs to change his name to Eurogangster.
Iraq had been going on for a hot little minute after I joined. We pretty much all knew it was bs. We just wanted to kill something. Anything. It didn't matter who. Or what.
Word.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 13:29
For Euro.
http://memeshappen.com/media/created/What-makes-the-grass-grow-BLOOD-BLOOD-BLOOD-What-do-Marines-do-KILL-KILL-KILL-MariNES-Environmentally-friendly-since-1775-meme-36524.jpg
Word.
Do you even Warrior, bro?
If that's your definition of warrior, then no.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Before 9/11, we performed complex and highly dangerous military training, like going to lectures on human trafficking (I was bummed when I found out it wasn't a lesson on how to do it but rather how to recognize it), HIV prevention, safety stand-downs, and the like.
After 9/11 everyone was panicking because they thought the war would be over before we could participate. We had an enemy. You plant an IED? You die. You on the deck of cards? You might be captured, but you might die. You shoot at me? You die.
No more lectures, no more "let's count the rounds and MREs again to make sure the numbers are right," no more "sign the form in triplicate to receive the daily allotment of head cleaner." It was time to kill people and break shit.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 14:05
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c5/f1/8d/c5f18d472f00024e8c29b2c95bc581cc.jpg
Before 9/11, we performed complex and highly dangerous military training, like going to lectures on human trafficking (I was bummed when I found out it wasn't a lesson on how to do it but rather how to recognize it), HIV prevention, safety stand-downs, and the like.
After 9/11 everyone was panicking because they thought the war would be over before we could participate. We had an enemy. You plant an IED? You die. You on the deck of cards? You might be captured, but you might die. You shoot at me? You die.
No more lectures, no more "let's count the rounds and MREs again to make sure the numbers are right," no more "sign the form in triplicate to receive the daily allotment of head cleaner." It was time to kill people and break shit.
I can honestly say, the Sheiks don't pay any politician, we pay them, that's why they are driving around in chrome plated McLaren's with a $100k domesticated leopard in the passenger seat and living in a palace with 10 smoking hot teenage girlfriends. They only way to have control on the gulf states is to buy oil from them. They want our money and we are happy to give it to them in exchange for oil, however, they must behave and they must at least act like they side with us on foreign policy issues.
Before 9/11, we performed complex and highly dangerous military training, like going to lectures on human trafficking (I was bummed when I found out it wasn't a lesson on how to do it but rather how to recognize it), HIV prevention, safety stand-downs, and the like.
After 9/11 everyone was panicking because they thought the war would be over before we could participate. We had an enemy. You plant an IED? You die. You on the deck of cards? You might be captured, but you might die. You shoot at me? You die.
No more lectures, no more "let's count the rounds and MREs again to make sure the numbers are right," no more "sign the form in triplicate to receive the daily allotment of head cleaner." It was time to kill people and break shit.
I still have my deck of cards. Wonder if it is worth anything?
If that's your definition of warrior, then no.
Official Kremlin Transmission
That's human nature - what eurodriver said. Young men have always wanted to fight and kill each other, because they like dangerous things.
Only when they're older do they realize women are the most dangerous things.
Even by Marine INF standards, this is one of the more gangster posts on M4C I've seen in a while. It was refreshing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU3CSmUan0Y
I don't know...seems a prevailing attitude of many Marines.
A friend of mine who was in Desert Shield/Storm told me he wanted to go back in when OIF was kicking off because, and I quote, "there is nothing on earth like a little desert combat".
He was in 2nd LAR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that's your definition of warrior, then no.
Official Kremlin Transmission
That's OK, not everyone is worthy of a combat MOS.
That's human nature - what eurodriver said. Young men have always wanted to fight and kill each other, because they like dangerous things.
Only when they're older do they realize women are the most dangerous things.
So, that explains why I sometimes want to strangle my wife.
I agree with you. I didn't know that about the suspension of enlistments in 1942. My argument was suggested at earlier comments about the pussification of young males in our current time. I know there are a lot of patriots and the alpha types who are more than willing to join and fight, but through out the last election, I have been introduced a new type of male I didn't know exist, one who identifies as a feminist but does so in a manly way, not quite straight, but not totally gay either and thinks Bruce Jenner is a hero and Hillary Clinton was the second coming of our Lord and Savior- Jesus Christ. Those are the men I am talking about not wanting to be in our military. I doubt those men would last 2 weeks in basic training, let alone a war with barbarian savages. But I do think those kind of men could -and I use that word generously, have a purpose for helping the US in a conflict, but not the military and defiantly not a warfighter.
No BS I was working the other night and strolling by was a new breed of hipster male. Dude was a dude with the typical hipster beard, skinny jeans, etc. However, he was wearing no less than 4" heels.
Dead serious.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Attack me, and I'll defend myself.
Aside from that, I'm good.
Rationalizing sociopathic tendencies doesn't align with my moral compass.
Maybe I'm being naive, but that's just like my opinion, man.
Official Kremlin Transmission
No BS I was working the other night and strolling by was a new breed of hipster male. Dude was a dude with the typical hipster beard, skinny jeans, etc. However, he was wearing no less than 4" heels.
Dead serious.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
What did he do when you laughed out loud at him?
That is fine - send the old men. Or, better yet - send the women. Because unless you are prepared to get around Fred Flintstone style, there is a price to pay for the amenities that you enjoy.
I'd rather go than send one of my sons or daughters, but I wanna combat jump.
You don't think there's something wrong with that?
Reason why I early deferred enlisted in 1971 and shipped right after high school graduation in '72, to kill a commie for mommy, unfortunately the Marines were out. It is called adventure or testing yourself. Ultimately same reason I joined the Marines versus the Army.
As I grew older I realized that it wouldn't have been all that, but I still think that my earlier desires were pretty normal in the circumstances.
No BS I was working the other night and strolling by was a new breed of hipster male. Dude was a dude with the typical hipster beard, skinny jeans, etc. However, he was wearing no less than 4" heels.
Dead serious.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Remember that scene in Beverly Hills Cop when Eddie Murphy is walking down the block and sees a fairy black dude sashaying down the street in a Thriller jacket? And he busts out laughing?
That.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luedctXeYu1qcdal3o1_500.jpg
I'd rather go than send one of my sons or daughters, but I wanna combat jump.
Bullshit. Send my mother-in-law.
Just 5 minutes with her and the enemy will kill themselves.
but I wanna combat jump.
Now we're talkin'
What I wouldn't give to be a SAW gunner on a combat jump. It'd have to be a tailgate jump...I don't think my war boner would clear the Paratrooper door.
Attack me, and I'll defend myself.
Aside from that, I'm good.
Rationalizing sociopathic tendencies doesn't align with my moral compass.
Maybe I'm being naive, but that's just like my opinion, man.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Fighting to a death is a biological imperative, not sociopathic tendency.
Bullshit. Send my mother-in-law.
I'd send everybody in Juvie and the last thing they would hear as they were kicked out the helo would be "G-G-G-G UNIIIIT!" over a loudspeaker
Bullshit. Send my mother-in-law.
Just 5 minutes with her and the enemy will kill themselves.
I'll volunteer mine as well, they'll have no idea what hit them!
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Now we're talkin'
See the earth below,
Soon to make a crater.
Blue sky, black death,
I'm off to meet my maker!
I'll volunteer mine as well, they'll have no idea what hit them!
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Better yet, I'll buddy jump her in so I can watch [emoji3]
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
See the earth below,
Soon to make a crater.
Blue sky, black death,
I'm off to meet my maker!
Taste the high speed dirt!!!
The Metal God bless thee
When I was a kid I heard some men older than I (they were early so 20s at the time) talk about how they joined the marine corps so they could kill people. This being shortly after 911.
I was shocked, and silently mocked them. I rationalized that they were irresponsible, Immoral, misguided.
It wasn't until I was a man myself that I realized they were just that - men. Our families, careers and God notwithstanding we love to fight, destroy and kill eachother.
One of the greater purposes of the Christian faith is subduing that.
No, the reason why we haven't come up with alternative fuels is because the energy contained in the chemical bonds of alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons is greater and more efficient than anything else on this planet.
Don't agree with that unless you are limiting it to transportation. The efficiency pales when you calculate the energy costs of growing the plants and feeding the animals that created the fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy is far more efficient, but we hamstring ourselves with regulations regarding disposal in particular. Solar and wind energy are also greater, more efficient, more plentiful and also perpetual, unfortunately we were married to the burning of wood, coal and oil, before folks began to think about wind and solar technology, so storage systems have lagged.
wildcard600
04-13-17, 17:32
If there are so many folks here chompin at the bit to do some violence why haven't you all met up somewhere, loaded up a couple of buses and headed down to Mexico to clean up the cartel problems ? Could be handled in a matter of weeks from the sound of it.
Don't agree with that unless you are limiting it to transportation. The efficiency pales when you calculate the energy costs of growing the plants and feeding the animals that created the fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy is far more efficient, but we hamstring ourselves with regulations regarding disposal in particular. Solar and wind energy are also greater, more efficient, more plentiful and also perpetual, unfortunately we were married to the burning of wood, coal and oil, before folks began to think about wind and solar technology, so storage systems have lagged.
Well just how far are we going to take this? It takes more energy to form a planet and heavy metals than raising plants and animals. Correct me if I'm wrong but the volume of fossil fuels which exist in the earth is incalculable and entirely unknown.
I know CNN and UC-where-logic-and-reason-go-to-die-Berkeley have fried to pretend it'll run out in a few years, but I've never seen verifiable absolution.
If there are so many folks here chompin at the bit to do some violence why haven't you all met up somewhere, loaded up a couple of buses and headed down to Mexico to clean up the cartel problems ? Could be handled in a matter of weeks from the sound of it.
If I grant the premise, and say these persons did band up and slaughter some cartels and free Mexico successfully, what do you think would happen when they tried to come home to the United states? This is all hypothetical and I understand the sentiment of your post but I think it is there where you'll find your answer.
Neighborhood sized nuclear power plants like the US Navy uses! I'm on a community well. Why can't I have neighborhood electricity too?
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 17:55
https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
I've never seen verifiable absolution.
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 17:55
Tried as terrorists.
If I grant the premise, and say these persons did band up and slaughter some cartels and free Mexico successfully, what do you think would happen when they tried to come home to the United states? This is all hypothetical and I understand the sentiment of your post but I think it is there where you'll find your answer.
wildcard600
04-13-17, 18:00
If I grant the premise, and say these persons did band up and slaughter some cartels and free Mexico successfully, what do you think would happen when they tried to come home to the United states? This is all hypothetical and I understand the sentiment of your post but I think it is there where you'll find your answer.
Who would know ? Would you be planning on live streaming your exploits via facebook ? If millions of uneducated illegals can walk across the border it shouldn't be hard for a band of gringos to do the same.
wildcard600
04-13-17, 18:01
Tried as terrorists.
Do you even black ops brah ?
Dist. Expert 26
04-13-17, 18:04
Sending young men overseas to die for oil is f*cking retarded.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Said oil is literally the life blood of our entire way of life. If there's a better reason for war I can't think of it.
Now we're talkin'
What I wouldn't give to be a SAW gunner on a combat jump. It'd have to be a tailgate jump...I don't think my war boner would clear the Paratrooper door.
Buddy of mine is a retired CWO who flew with the 160th SOAR. Was deployed to both Afghanistan and Iraq, flew Little Birds then MH47's, so you know there were some hairy moments. His "customers" were the tip-of-the-spear types.
He was in 1st Ranger Batt when he first went in. I asked him what the highest pucker factor he had experienced was, thinking it had to be one of those HSLD 160th ops. Nope, it was when he got his mustard stain jumping into Torrijos Airport in '89. He said that by far was the scariest.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
I'm not a petroleum engineer or a geologist, but I was under the impression that peak oil is "not a thing".
Official Kremlin Transmission
Said oil is literally the life blood of our entire way of life. If there's a better reason for war I can't think of it.
Agree to disagree
Official Kremlin Transmission
Dist. Expert 26
04-13-17, 18:32
Iraq had been going on for a hot little minute after I joined. We pretty much all knew it was bs. We just wanted to kill something. Anything. It didn't matter who. Or what.
To quote Generation Kill-
Word to the muthafu**in street, yo
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 18:41
Only on CoD, Black Ops II to be precise.
Raúl Menéndez es un pendejo masivo. Los drones son muy malos y peligroso a la Estados Unidos.
Pero, mi Español no es bueno, ante todo conductible operaciones negroes sin soporte OCONUS por mi mismo.
Do you even black ops brah ?
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 18:45
Correct.
Oil is produced in a never-ending fountain of abiotic material that is replenished by the underground oil faeries, every 100 years or so.
No big D.
The United States Army laid it out pretty clearly here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA440265&ved=0ahUKEwjCpJPU1qLTAhUB1CYKHTUUDw8QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH8x1CmRdWwm6L7Hw2qwmHiZw6oVQ&sig2=9eZFR-SKH8MlUMEXgaohFA
Cliff's Notes are in the EXSUM.
I'm not a petroleum engineer or a geologist, but I was under the impression that peak oil is "not a thing".
Official Kremlin Transmission
Only on CoD, Black Ops II to be precise.
Raúl Menéndez es un pendejo masivo. Los drones son muy malos y peligroso a la Estados Unidos.
Pero, mi Español no es bueno, ante todo conductible operaciones negroes sin soporte OCONUS por mi mismo.
Su Espanol es muy doloroso a leer. Lo siento, 'Mano. La Palaba Tu esta buscando esto "Operacciones Clandestino" o "Operacciones Negra". Pero, Yo comprendo a todos Tu escribar
Outlander Systems
04-13-17, 19:00
Riso ruidoso.
Comes mis juevos en barbacoa, guey.
Su Espanol es muy doloroso a leer. Lo siento, 'Mano. La Palaba Tu esta buscando esto "Operacciones Clandestino" o "Operacciones Negra". Pero, Yo comprendo a todos Tu escribar
Hey mother****ers. Speak Ang'lish.
Hey mother****ers. Speak Ang'lish.
My first platoon sergeant, SFC Tavenner, used to tell the Puerto Rican guys in my platoon "Knock off that mumbo-jumbo shit on duty" when they would speak Spanish to each other.
What did he do when you laughed out loud at him?
Remember that scene in Beverly Hills Cop when Eddie Murphy is walking down the block and sees a fairy black dude sashaying down the street in a Thriller jacket? And he busts out laughing?
That.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luedctXeYu1qcdal3o1_500.jpg
There were no LOLs to be had until a few minutes after. I was to be busy trying to keep my saber of justice in it's holder. It kept screaming something about morally assaulting a police officer. It's still very traumatized.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
04-14-17, 06:52
I don't get the whole "Why send our young men to die for..." argument at all.
Homie, our young men want to go kill.
You can argue it's horrific for their families. You can say it's bad foreign policy, expensive, causes too much collateral damage, etc. There are literally a hundred reasons why I can tell you I don't want the US in a war.
Because I don't want to send our young men off to war is not on that list.
With the standard caveats for big army "I only joined for college money / to meet a husband" douches - they want to go.
I don't get the whole "Why send our young men to die for..." argument at all.
Homie, our young men want to go kill.
You can argue it's horrific for their families. You can say it's bad foreign policy, expensive, causes too much collateral damage, etc. There are literally a hundred reasons why I can tell you I don't want the US in a war.
Because I don't want to send our young men off to war is not on that list.
With the standard caveats for big army "I only joined for college money / to meet a husband" douches - they want to go.
Yeah 'cause everyone in the Army is there for those reasons and not to kill bad guys........:rolleyes:
Eurodriver
04-14-17, 10:17
Yeah 'cause everyone in the Army is there for those reasons and not to kill bad guys........:rolleyes:
When is the last time you walked around a big army support battalion barracks?
When is the last time you walked around a big army support battalion barracks?
LOL if I had been in a support area it would have been 30 years ago! My view, while dated I'll agree, was with combat arms folks (namely infantry). Different era to be sure, but most of the guys I was around joined the Army to "break away and DO something", not sit back on the block with their loser friends or live with their parents. The only reason I ever contributed to VEAP (the GI Bill equivalent back then) was my parents bugging me to do so "just in case" I decided to go to college later. It was kind of an afterthought, and in my eyes at the time a waste of my paycheck but I did it anyway. Good thing I did as it came in handy a few years later when I actually did go to college!
See the earth below,
Soon to make a crater.
Blue sky, black death,
I'm off to meet my maker!
High Speed Dirt🤘
to as why we have not found a suitable replacement for fossil fuels is simple.
1. There is a lot of oil to be drilled. Right now and since the 1950s, we have drilled in the "easy to get to" areas and we nor anyone else is drilling in deep-deep water yet, just a few miles off the coast lines.
2. Finding oil (drilling) is one thing- cheapest, getting it up to the surface is another (expensive), refining it into gasoline, kerosene, oil and diesel however is by far the most expensive part- but that is where we get by product ingredients to make thinks like paint, plastic, polymers, grease, industrial adhesives and tar.
3. currently 137 refineries in the US- the newest one was built in the 70s, the largest of them are in Houston. Literally tens of thousands of miles of pipeline in the US and Canada- some are just for oil and some are for natural gas
4. The "oil" industry is the largest industry in the world and one of the very few industries that can bring countries and nations together. The US relies heavily on Exxon an Chevron as mediators in a lot of situations
5. Because people know that fossil fuels are not really decayed dinosaurs and "climate change" is just as real as Manbearpig.
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 13:50
Illustrative: https://www.research.hsbc.com/R/24/vzchQwb
There are massive financial, which in turn mean social, ramifications on the horizon.
1. There is a lot of oil to be drilled. Right now and since the 1950s, we have drilled in the "easy to get to" areas and we nor anyone else is drilling in deep-deep water yet, just a few miles off the coast lines.
Illustrative: https://www.research.hsbc.com/R/24/vzchQwb
There are massive financial, which in turn mean social, ramifications on the horizon.
After reading the 3 .pdfs you've provided so far and noticing a lot of economic speculation and presumption in them. I wonder if you have a relevant background that I do not.
I'm bothered when I see scientific data such as geological observations used to draw complex market conclusions. Also by the use of economic speculation in the presentation of data, where the speculation consistently summarizes as, "I'm relavent! Im relevant!" on the part of the conducting organization. That's not a proper methodology neither is it really methodical at all - unless an ironic method.
Not a criticism of you but the sources.
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 16:25
Supply and demand, dude.
Contrary to what someone presented earlier, abiotic oil is a myth. There is absolutely speculation involved, because the intent is trend forecasting.
The market anylses aside, the fundamental take away is the consensus that all major sources of LSC are in decline.
wilson1911
04-14-17, 17:53
There is more than enough oil in the ground still to be drilled. But it will cost a bit more to get it out of the ground. The current fields have a tremendous amount of holes drilled in them. Some pads have around 15 holes punched in them pending where your at. These are all horizontal wells. Think of a nerve center that is like a spiderweb. The amount of oil might be 400 barrels a day per well when they first come in, but they fall off in 3-6 months to half or less. This is the reason we have to continue to drill. Oil decreases and water increases over time as in barrels per day.
Drilling cost is about 7-10 million per well, with the north being higher i.e. shale regions
Frac stages cost 80k-200k per stage. A single well can have up to 40 stages. That's a huge amount of explosives/sand pumped
Most current fields are played heavily, but there is still enough to drill on for more oil. While we do need a new field or two, given the cost it takes to pull it out of the ground. The "profit" must be there. When the price of oil is low, it can very quickly become "unprofitable" to extract it.
Drilling in the ocean is much more expensive. One problem is some states control their coastline(where the oil is), not the fed govt. Cali is a good example of having large deposits off the coast, but your never going to be able to drill it up.
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 18:24
Wilson1911's on the money.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of the domestic sources are labor/cost-intensive. Low oil prices mean that stuff stays subsurface until, as mentioned earlier, the juice is worth the squeeze.
Using simple numbers, if it costs me $100 to set up, and my operating cost is $1.00 per gallon of oil, until oil is higher than $1.00 per gallon, my well/operation isn't viable.
People forget that oil companies aren't charities, and exploration, drilling, refining and transportation are extremely capital-intense endeavors.
There's also market volatility that can bite one in the rear end.
If I take out a line of credit for new drill rigs, when the product is $1.00 a gallon, and the price falls to $0.70 a gallon, I am still on the hook for the loan taken out under the expectation, and projected earnings of $1.00 per gallon crude.
Now, I am rat****ed.
The above is just the basic stuff regarding extraction.
Again, the elephant in the room is that the loe-hanging fruit has been harvested. The fact that the low-hanging fruit has been harvested has ramifications for US National Security.
Anyone infantile enough to spin the circa-2004 college-student mantra of, "Like, no blood for oil, man" needs to step away from the adults table, and retreat to his or her pot-smoke filled dorm room to resume a game of Hacky Sack.
Anyone infantile enough to spin the circa-2004 college-student mantra of, "Like, no blood for oil, man" needs to step away from the adults table, and retreat to his or her pot-smoke filled dorm room to resume a game of Hacky Sack.
Whoa.....
That took me back in time. I had a flashblack of Green Day, Pink, Flip Phones, neo-hippies, and how lame people were.
I finally GET that show thirtysomething.
And.......I am emo now.
#GettingOldSuck
#GetOffMyLawn
#PeakOil
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 18:49
LOL.
John Mayer. That 70's Show. John Stewart. Darth Cheney. Blood for Oil. Cindy Sheehan. Fuel steel can't melt jet beams. Shock and Awe. The Surge. Four Loko. Jack3d.
Whoa.....
That took me back in time. I had a flashblack of Green Day, Pink, Flip Phones, neo-hippies, and how lame people were.
I finally GET that show thirtysomething.
And.......I am emo now.
#GettingOldSuck
#GetOffMyLawn
#PeakOil
That lame song by The Byrds just started playing. I forget if it was you or GTF that I was talking about Surge being a helluva soda. Rip Its are a helluva drink. I was like Jessie Spano I was highballing Rip Its.
And Cindy Sheehan....gaaaawd, I hated that bitch.
Remember Family Guy when Jesus is on the phone with Bush saying not to name drop him all the time....then says Cheney is calling and he answers the phone with an adroit "Yes, Sir!?" It was just like that. He is a real life Sith Lord.
I also remember girls would do these weird white girl dreads that looked like Pippi Longstocking in a Tennessee whorehouse.
Oooh man. What a shrill decade.
I don't get the whole "Why send our young men to die for..." argument at all.
Homie, our young men want to go kill.
You can argue it's horrific for their families. You can say it's bad foreign policy, expensive, causes too much collateral damage, etc. There are literally a hundred reasons why I can tell you I don't want the US in a war.
Because I don't want to send our young men off to war is not on that list.
With the standard caveats for big army "I only joined for college money / to meet a husband" douches - they want to go.
Most people don't desire to kill another human in vain.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Wilson1911's on the money.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of the domestic sources are labor/cost-intensive. Low oil prices mean that stuff stays subsurface until, as mentioned earlier, the juice is worth the squeeze.
Using simple numbers, if it costs me $100 to set up, and my operating cost is $1.00 per gallon of oil, until oil is higher than $1.00 per gallon, my well/operation isn't viable.
People forget that oil companies aren't charities, and exploration, drilling, refining and transportation are extremely capital-intense endeavors.
There's also market volatility that can bite one in the rear end.
If I take out a line of credit for new drill rigs, when the product is $1.00 a gallon, and the price falls to $0.70 a gallon, I am still on the hook for the loan taken out under the expectation, and projected earnings of $1.00 per gallon crude.
Now, I am rat****ed.
The above is just the basic stuff regarding extraction.
Again, the elephant in the room is that the loe-hanging fruit has been harvested. The fact that the low-hanging fruit has been harvested has ramifications for US National Security.
Anyone infantile enough to spin the circa-2004 college-student mantra of, "Like, no blood for oil, man" needs to step away from the adults table, and retreat to his or her pot-smoke filled dorm room to resume a game of Hacky Sack.
If one is stupid enough to die for oil and corporate interests, go for it.
Don't we get most of our oil from South America and Canada anyway?
Official Kremlin Transmission
Most people don't desire to kill another human in vain.
According to who?
War's ****ing sweet.
Most people don't desire to kill another human in vain.
Official Kremlin Transmission
Actually, a lot of people do.
I've seen people murdered over the wrong clothes, wrong street address, and over 20 dollars.
Lots of aggressive males out there.
You realize we are only a few thousand years from eating our young in winter and human sacrifice; dont you?
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 19:27
What is best in life?
According to who?
War's ****ing sweet.
wilson1911
04-14-17, 19:59
If one is stupid enough to die for oil and corporate interests, go for it.
Don't we get most of our oil from South America and Canada anyway?
Official Kremlin Transmission
It's not about where we get our oil from. It's about who controls the price.....and its not us. If we stop buying oil from saudi, they would have no reason to use US dollars.
We throw american lives away for a saudi pipeline. The real question is why doesn't saudi do their own killing.
Actually, a lot of people do.
I've seen people murdered over the wrong clothes, wrong street address, and over 20 dollars.
Lots of aggressive males out there.
You realize we are only a few thousand years from eating our young in winter and human sacrifice; dont you?
Meh, I disagree. You're talking about people in the ghetto who have fallen victim to the culture that they created.
Take the incarceration rates for murder and assault nationwide (~300k), and multiply that by 10 for fun (because God only knows how many others are roaming the streets).
3,000,000/350,000,000 = ~0.9% of people in the US
It's not about where we get our oil from. It's about who controls the price.....and its not us. If we stop buying oil from saudi, they would have no reason to use US dollars.
We throw american lives away for a saudi pipeline. The real question is why doesn't saudi do their own killing.
So, the Saudis control the price. They're making us wage war in the ME?
Sincere question.
Dist. Expert 26
04-14-17, 20:40
Meh, I disagree.
Take the incarceration rates for murder and assault nationwide (~300k), and multiply that by 10 for fun (because God only knows how many others are roaming the streets).
3,000,000/350,000,000 = ~0.9% of people in the US
Dude your argument sucks. Everyone, literally everyone, I served with wanted to kill terrorists/Taliban/whoever. That's not in vain, despite your opinion, and doesn't make them sociopaths.
Dude your argument sucks. Everyone, literally everyone, I served with wanted to kill terrorists/Taliban/whoever. That's not in vain, despite your opinion, and doesn't make them sociopaths.
Don't get mad because you don't have a real counter argument.
I get it. The small percentage of people that are in the military want to kill people. Cool.
That doesn't mean that everyone does. Get over it.
Don't get mad because you don't have a real counter argument.
I get it. The small percentage of people that are in the military want to kill people. Cool.
That doesn't mean that everyone does. Get over it.
No, your argument is actually pretty worthless. You are taking the approach the those incarcerated for murder represent the desires of the population. It really doesn't. One desiring to do something, be it kill, or be it steal, or something else, is likely going to be vastly outnumbered to those who actually do. Take away repercussions, make the cost benefit out weigh the expected punishment, and chances are you get a lot more candy bars stolen from the convenience store and lots more dead bodies on the ground.
The point presented is that a lot(granted vague amount there) want to kill others. Operative phrase here is going to be want. Not, have, not will, not convicted, ect. And, if you took a random sample size, and asked people if they have ever wanted to "kill" someone, chances are you are going to get a rather large, if not majority of people answering yes, a hell of a lot more than 1%. Whether they do or not, actually kill someone, is kind of irrelevant, it is have they wanted to. Now, poll your average fighting man, and I can pretty much promise the answer is going to be yes exclamation point.
Dist. Expert 26
04-14-17, 21:01
Don't get mad because you don't have a real counter argument.
I get it. The small percentage of people that are in the military want to kill people. Cool.
That doesn't mean that everyone does. Get over it.
Your argument is that 10% of people who have ever had the desire to kill another human being have acted on that in some regard and are incarcerated as a result. Talk about alternative facts.
If you really truly believe that most human beings are good at heart, well good for you, but reality says otherwise. We're cruel, brutal creatures. Get over it.
Allow me to be a Devil's Advocate here....
I don't think most people want to unprovokedly kill someone. I will give you your 1% stat.
But, most young men DO want to test themselves and as is hardwired in us; we tend to associate that rite of passage with risky behavior be it a dangerous hunt, a very risky feat, or combat of some kind.
It demonstrates a willingness to overcome the innate survival instinct.
Primitive man when encountered by a wild beast would be intelligent to flee.
However he would not attract mates.
A male willing to engage in combative and risky behavior would attract mates but would not live as long, yet his perpetuity of genes would be all but assured.
I can see where you have a moral and conscientious perspective on this, Scooter. And it is one to be respected.
But at day's end we are still another form of animal and predatory animals do indeed hunt and kill for sport.
Do I agree with it? Not really. But it is reality.
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 21:11
Don't waste your breath, dude.
He should simply rest his little head in his nice warm bed, and praise whatever God he believes in for the Meateating, Plane-Jumping, Face-Shooting, Hard-dicked, Chest-crushing, Corpse-grinding, Warfighters that do what the **** needs doing.
Dude your argument sucks. Everyone, literally everyone, I served with wanted to kill terrorists/Taliban/whoever. That's not in vain, despite your opinion, and doesn't make them sociopaths.
Dist. Expert 26
04-14-17, 21:13
Don't waste your breath, dude.
He should simply rest his little head in his nice warm bed, and praise whatever God he believes in for the Meateating, Plane-Jumping, Face-Shooting, Hard-dicked, Chest-crushing, Corpse-grinding, Warfighters that do what the **** needs doing.
True dat bro
Outlander Systems
04-14-17, 21:15
It's okay to admit one is not a warrior; its not okay to besmirch said warriors.
And with that, I'm gonna go wage war on a bowl of Cereal, and praise whatever God I believe in for America's Warfighters.
No, your argument is actually pretty worthless. You are taking the approach the those incarcerated for murder represent the desires of the population. It really doesn't. According to the arguments presented by others here, it does. So...???One desiring to do something, be it kill, or be it steal, or something else, is likely going to be vastly outnumbered to those who actually do. Take away repercussions, make the cost benefit out weigh the expected punishment, and chances are you get a lot more candy bars stolen from the convenience store and lots more dead bodies on the ground. Ok, so multiply it by 100 rather than 10. Still isn't sh*t.
The point presented is that a lot(granted vague amount there) want to kill others. Operative phrase here is going to be want. Not, have, not will, not convicted, ect. And, if you took a random sample size, and asked people if they have ever wanted to "kill" someone, chances are you are going to get a rather large, if not majority of people answering yes, a hell of a lot more than 1%. Really? Everyone's just out to murder for revenge?Whether they do or not, actually kill someone, is kind of irrelevant, it is have they wanted to. Now, poll your average fighting man, and I can pretty much promise the answer is going to be yes exclamation point. 1.5M active military. Let's say all of them get off on killing. that's 0.5% of US population.
Your argument is that 10% of people who have ever had the desire to kill another human being have acted on that in some regard and are incarcerated as a result. Talk about alternative facts.
If you really truly believe that most human beings are good at heart, well good for you, but reality says otherwise. We're cruel, brutal creatures. Get over it.
It's just simple math. And it's 1%
Allow me to be a Devil's Advocate here....
I don't think most people want to unprovokedly kill someone. I will give you your 1% stat.
But, most young men DO want to test themselves and as is hardwired in us; we tend to associate that rite of passage with risky behavior be it a dangerous hunt, a very risky feat, or combat of some kind.
It demonstrates a willingness to overcome the innate survival instinct.
Primitive man when encountered by a wild beast would be intelligent to flee.
However he would not attract mates.
A male willing to engage in combative and risky behavior would attract mates but would not live as long, yet his perpetuity of genes would be all but assured.
I can see where you have a moral and conscientious perspective on this, Scooter. And it is one to be respected.
But at day's end we are still another form of animal and predatory animals do indeed hunt and kill for sport.
Do I agree with it? Not really. But it is reality.
I can't disagree with that.
Anyway, done arguing over stupid sh*t.
I respect and appreciate all members of the military, even if they do like to have a lil circle jerk on internet forums :D
According to who?
War's ****ing sweet.
Take PayPal? I owe you a round of your favorite dark colored liquor.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
04-14-17, 21:43
Allow me to be a Devil's Advocate here....
I don't think most people want to unprovokedly kill someone. I will give you your 1% stat.
But, most young men DO want to test themselves and as is hardwired in us; we tend to associate that rite of passage with risky behavior be it a dangerous hunt, a very risky feat, or combat of some kind.
It demonstrates a willingness to overcome the innate survival instinct.
Primitive man when encountered by a wild beast would be intelligent to flee.
However he would not attract mates.
A male willing to engage in combative and risky behavior would attract mates but would not live as long, yet his perpetuity of genes would be all but assured.
I can see where you have a moral and conscientious perspective on this, Scooter. And it is one to be respected.
But at day's end we are still another form of animal and predatory animals do indeed hunt and kill for sport.
Do I agree with it? Not really. But it is reality.
It wasn't about killing, it was about appearing to be brave.
Look at places on the planet where the scientific method hasn't been applied to making war, tribal areas of Africa for instance, and even aboriginal American tribes, and you'll see that it isn't about fighting effectively. It isn't about killing other warriors. It's about being brave and being seen to be brave. Hell, even the Gauls, Britons, and Germanic tribes that the Romans fought operated much the same way.
That's why aboriginal Americans counted coup - it's why they were strongly respected for sneaking into enemy camps and stealing their horses without being caught, without harming a soul.
It's why you'll see guys in Africa blindly dump a magazine of 7.62x39 around the corner of a building to no effect: To us, where we think of military action as being about locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel enemy assault by fire and close combat, it doesn't make sense. But when the act of war in your society is about demonstrating bravery? Different story. (Yes, wars are also made for natural resources. And in those instances the results are more than about just demonstrating bravery for the community, but the demonstration of bravery is still a primary motivator for the individual.)
Same reason for downhill skiing, racing (especially horses and cars), skateboarding, sending young men out to hunt lions with just a spear, &c. Yeah, it's fun. Lots of stuff that demonstrates bravery is fun - and it should be, because we're programmed to want to do it, makes sense that we'd enjoy it. Even killing, to an extent. But it's not about the killing. The killing is not the evolutionary motive. The demonstration of bravery to the tribe/clan/community is.
(The problem with the killing is that if you kill somebody from Clan Bob, they could easily decided to carry out a vendetta against you. And they kill you and your DNA dies with you. Shit seriously changed, at least for Europeans, once the scientific method came into vogue, along with the nation-state, and killing people a continent or half a world away, instead of killing the people in the next valley over.)
It's just simple math. And it's 1% :D
You seem to be lacking reading comprehension, or ignoring what I am pointing out here. This isn't what people have done, it is what people may desire to do, may want to do, may think about before pushing the thought away and chiding themselves for just uncivilized thoughts. You seem to missing the point on that. The desire to kill is not complicated, murder us basic as the saying goes, but having that desire does not mean one acts on it. Had a socio class back in the day, one of the questions that the class was asked at the beginning and told to write down on a sheet of paper, was what was the worst thing You ever wanted to do to another person, better then 70% it was kill someone, more than a few for trivial things. Of the other 30%, 90% of them it was torture, rape, and murder, some in rather disturbing graphic detail. About 2% claimed to be upstanding citizens who never had a criminal thought in their lives and never would, who were the ones who you probably really wanted to look out for. The rest it was arson, theft, bank robberies, and misc. If I really wish to start twisting things, everyone living, or at least 99% have killed. End of discussion. Step on a bug, shoot a deer, run over a squirrel. You killed, something. And with the exception of some animal rights lovers, who would probably blow you away to save that squirrel you swerved to hit mind you, most people didn't feel a damn thing. Sure we can argue life is precious, but is human life more precious than an animal, after all we aren't that far from them, genetically, I mean, we are like 1% from monkeys, and look at how we treat even the best of them, and what about that hamburger you ate? Better, yet, look at how quickly morals erode during civil unrest. Look at the backwaters of world, were might makes right, and see the numbers of actual killings, forget the ones who would kill if they could. But, if you wish to live in your fairytale, by all means, go ahead.
Short point, people are vicious sons of bitches when the chips are down. At least ones who who haven't had the fight bred out of them and who think cowering under a desk will save them when others are already dead.
Don't get mad because you don't have a real counter argument.
I get it. The small percentage of people that are in the military want to kill people. Cool.
That doesn't mean that everyone does. Get over it.
I think you are oversimplifying and others, perhaps myself included, are somewhat overstating. Folks want to protect the nation by serving. The purpose of the combat arms branches are for the most part to 'close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.'
Most don't want to go through the training and then not use it, even though, that is exactly the destiny of many soldiers and the vast majority of police officers. Take a para-medic, or an er doctor. When they go to work someone has had a bad day. They don't sit and pray 'oh Lord, bless me with a shooting tonight, so that my boredom is reduced.' But, damn by the same token you don't want to sit around your whole career.
Make sense?
Men throughout history have tested their mettle in various ways, combat is one way to see if you have what it takes.
I think you are oversimplifying and others, perhaps myself included, are somewhat overstating. Folks want to protect the nation by serving. The purpose of the combat arms branches are for the most part to 'close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.'
Most don't want to go through the training and then not use it, even though, that is exactly the destiny of many soldiers and the vast majority of police officers. Take a para-medic, or an er doctor. When they go to work someone has had a bad day. They don't sit and pray 'oh Lord, bless me with a shooting tonight, so that my boredom is reduced.' But, damn by the same token you don't want to sit around your whole career.
Make sense?
Men throughout history have tested their mettle in various ways, combat is one way to see if you have what it takes.
ETA: What Fjallhrafn said.
You seem to be lacking reading comprehension, or ignoring what I am pointing out here. This isn't what people have done, it is what people may desire to do, may want to do, may think about before pushing the thought away and chiding themselves for just uncivilized thoughts. You seem to missing the point on that. The desire to kill is not complicated, murder us basic as the saying goes, but having that desire does not mean one acts on it. Had a socio class back in the day, one of the questions that the class was asked at the beginning and told to write down on a sheet of paper, was what was the worst thing You ever wanted to do to another person, better then 70% it was kill someone, more than a few for trivial things. Of the other 30%, 90% of them it was torture, rape, and murder, some in rather disturbing graphic detail. About 2% claimed to be upstanding citizens who never had a criminal thought in their lives and never would, who were the ones who you probably really wanted to look out for. The rest it was arson, theft, bank robberies, and misc. If I really wish to start twisting things, everyone living, or at least 99% have killed. End of discussion. Step on a bug, shoot a deer, run over a squirrel. You killed, something. And with the exception of some animal rights lovers, who would probably blow you away to save that squirrel you swerved to hit mind you, most people didn't feel a damn thing. Sure we can argue life is precious, but is human life more precious than an animal, after all we aren't that far from them, genetically, I mean, we are like 1% from monkeys, and look at how we treat even the best of them, and what about that hamburger you ate? Better, yet, look at how quickly morals erode during civil unrest. Look at the backwaters of world, were might makes right, and see the numbers of actual killings, forget the ones who would kill if they could. But, if you wish to live in your fairytale, by all means, go ahead.
Short point, people are vicious sons of bitches when the chips are down. At least ones who who haven't had the fight bred out of them and who think cowering under a desk will save them when others are already dead.
ETA:
here is probably a gross oversimplifcation for where I am coming from, fair warning, it Carlin, it not safe for virgin ears or work. Only really need the first minute, the rest is still good though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEd1z07OAe4
FYI, after reading wilson1911's post (which is accurate and basically old news) and seeing Outlander paraphrase in agreement it's clear we weren't even opposed in our points. Comm error.
I was taking down the assertion that there is some monolithic tragedy to be had once the planet is vacant of accessible oil in two decades (USGS), as if it had to been stopped.
As I see it the subject is as predictable and workaday as any great market shift resulting from scarcity or innovation, harmful government intervention notwithstanding. But I have a bias - I'm as hardcore as it gets with regard to free markets.
just a little information: A barrel of oil- as in the barrel of oil when referring to crude prices is 42 gallons. Once that is refined, we can either get 12 gallons of diesel oil or 19 gallons of gasoline. So, if a well produces 500 barrels a day, in reality, that said well is only producing 230 gallons a day of usable gasoline. It would take you 104 days of drilling to have enough fuel to sell to just one gas station. Most refineries wont buy standard crude in quantities less than 50,000 barrels, which is 2.1 million gallons. You pump your oil into a pipeline with other people crude and you have a meter on your well head and you get a fraction of barrel price. If the barrel of oil is at $50/barrel, you might get $9 if your only producing 500 barrels a day. This is why fortune 500 companies do this and not little people like me and you.
Suppose you have 100 acres of land somewhere and access to electricity and just out of some Godly prophecy, foretold of oil located on that land. Suppose the oil is straight down at a depth of lets say....20,000 feet. You would need to purchase or rent a drilling rig, something around 1000 HP. You can a used Chinese rig for about $1.8 million or a US rig for around $3.4 million- The US made rigs actually come with a nice size rotary table, 750+hp draw works, 150 ton blocks, 2- 1000HP mud pumps. So, so far you have arleade spent a hypothetical $3.4 million dollars on a rig. Now you just need a BOP (stack) $75k for a annular (you need 2), $150k for pipe ram and $150k for blind shear and a hydraulic power unit and accumulator rack (this is what I make for a living) $180k. You need a substructure and a mast- (typically 100-110') rated for 350,000 pounds, Kelly and swivel rated for 180 tons - $1 million. Hydraulic cathead-$50k, slips and elevators for a 4", 4 1/2", 7" and possible a 9" casing $250k. 500 barrel water tank, light plant, steel mud mixing pits, and a few other things $100k. Instal....$120k
To get a certified rig put up on your that 100 acres will cost roughly...$5.5 million- this is used equipment by the way. Now you just need a drill bit, 20,000 ft of drill pipe, 20,000 ft of casing, roughly 6000 gallons of mud, a rig superintendent, drill man, rig operator, down hole supervisor, rough neck (2), pipe fitters (2), draw works operator (2), crane operator, elevator operator, casing engineer, hydraulic mechanic, BOP superintendent, mud engineer, well head supervisor, recorder, geologist, maintenance personnel, electrician a risk assessment manager. I figure the cheapest person in that list is the pipe fitter and they can get paid upwards of $40/hour plus health insurance and 401k. 500 feet a 12 hour day to drill is typical and expected in most circumstances. So for the next 40 days, you will be drilling down to 20,000 ft and having a payroll of about $18k a day and operational cost of about $22k a day (mud, water, electricity, fuel and occasionally drill bits that cost $ 12-30k each). SO $40k a day over the next 40 days is going to cost you $1.6 million. Which brings our total to $7.2 million just to drill down to 20,000 ft. 40 days of drilling with just one rig, on just one well, cost approximately $7.2 million. To make that cost effective, that well should produce 6,997 barrels a day for 1,029 days just to break even on the initial $7.2 million, but keep in mind the $40k/day cost, which would bring the barrels a day up to 9,801 for the life time of the well.
just a little information: A barrel of oil- as in the barrel of oil when referring to crude prices is 42 gallons. Once that is refined, we can either get 12 gallons of diesel oil or 19 gallons of gasoline.
Hmm, your math may be off a bit.
Avg barrel of crude fractions into 19 gallons of gasoline PLUS 10-14 of diesel/jet fuel PLUS various amounts of kerosene, methane, propane, asphalt (bitumin), naptha, paraffin wax, etc. The entire 42 gallons results in saleable product, albeit at different prices. And in the US the long chain stuff is often cracked into gas. (Originally to satisfy the higher gas demand relative to diesel. That is changing some now). The ratios vary slightly depending on which crude, but they all produce generally the same mix of refined products.
http://www.getfilings.com/sec-filings/130117/VALERO-ENERGY-CORP-TX_8-K/g467558467558z0007.jpg
Yep, it's expensive to drill, but that barrel yields almost double the $$ you indicated when it's all said and done.
perhaps the illustration shows a perfect scenario. Just about 100% of crude has usage once processed but, gasoline is what is in high demand and what makes oil worth drilling. Nobody is drilling for oil to make asphalt. If the yields were double, the oil companies wouldn't be laying people off by the tens of thousands and cease all further spending on projects.
Eurodriver
04-17-17, 07:21
Dude your argument sucks. Everyone, literally everyone, I served with wanted to kill terrorists/Taliban/whoever. That's not in vain, despite your opinion, and doesn't make them sociopaths.
I met a CPA and we were discussing Fed LEO work. This is a red blooded MAGA voting mid-20s guy from Charleston, SC.
He said the hours kinda sucked (FBI is 50hr minimum) but he couldn't do it because he'd be "forced to carry a gun and maybe have to use it one day"
Mind = Blown
Maybe I'm experienced enough to know any SA being utilized as a CPA isnt gonna be dropping BGs anyway, but damnit I want to be.
Maybe I'm experienced enough to know any SA being utilized as a CPA isnt gonna be dropping BGs anyway, but damnit I want to be.
The struggle is real my friend.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
But, most young men DO want to test themselves and as is hardwired in us; we tend to associate that rite of passage with risky behavior be it a dangerous hunt, a very risky feat, or combat of some kind.
It's kinda like playing on a varsity sports team, but never getting the chance to play a game. I don't mean a second-stringer, I mean the game never gets scheduled. When it does, you want to play.
I would venture to guess that a lot of people in the non-combat arms did not join with any goal or intent to kill anyone. Learn a skill, get money for college, travel the world, escape home...people have their reasons. When you join the combat arms, however, there is only one raison d'etre, and that is to maneuver, close with, and destroy the enemy.
perhaps the illustration shows a perfect scenario. Just about 100% of crude has usage once processed but, gasoline is what is in high demand and what makes oil worth drilling. Nobody is drilling for oil to make asphalt. If the yields were double, the oil companies wouldn't be laying people off by the tens of thousands and cease all further spending on projects.
No perfect scenario needed, it's how fractioning distillation works. Market demand does impact the price of the various distillates, just like it does gas. But a barrel of crude produces those distillates like clockwork. And over half is not gasoline.
So it is a fact, they make far more on a barrel of oil than just the gas. And that's how the oil companies measure, "netback". How much they net back on a barrel of oil when all the products are sold. $25/ barrel has historically been a figure of merit.
Right now the US is a bit screwed up because we focused in the 80 & 90s on meeting gas demand at the expense of diesel/jet fuel. Set up expensive cracking refineries to crack diesel into gasoline that have 30+ year service lives. So we are now a net gasoline exporter and diesel importer as gasoline demand went down and diesel went up.
Ever wonder why the US gov has been hostile to diesels unlike the rest of the world? Gas over supply relative to diesels.
We have also been an overall petroleum products net exporter for some time. There is much to the petroleum business that people are unaware of.
Dist. Expert 26
04-17-17, 09:40
I met a CPA and we were discussing Fed LEO work. This is a red blooded MAGA voting mid-20s guy from Charleston, SC.
He said the hours kinda sucked (FBI is 50hr minimum) but he couldn't do it because he'd be "forced to carry a gun and maybe have to use it one day"
Mind = Blown
Maybe I'm experienced enough to know any SA being utilized as a CPA isnt gonna be dropping BGs anyway, but damnit I want to be.
To paraphrase another post, a lot of people just don't have any fight left in them. They just assume that "someone" will do the fighting for them.
Ever wonder why the US gov has been hostile to diesels unlike the rest of the world? Gas over supply relative to diesels.
I thought it was mainly California, with CARB particulate emissions standards?
I thought it was mainly California, with CARB particulate emissions standards?
The US is the only country in the work which requires passenger diesels to meet gas emissions standards. Which they happily beat other than nox.
And now, the particulate stuff that started with CARB, but modern diesels are all pretty clean in that regard if unmolested.
The EPA went unchallenged on this. Both big oil and US auto mfgs had a large vested interest in keeping the public buying gas engines.
Was not until MB cracked the code with bluetec that they started making some inroads in the US. But travel much in Europe and you'll see how far behind we are in small diesels. I've driven for a day in a small diesel rental and did not realize it was not a gasser until I went to tank up.
Gasoline started as an unwanted (and toxic) byproduct of the refining process. Net exporters (middle East and S america) encourage usage and it's priced low due to oversupply relative to diesel.
It's still taxed far higher in the US relative to gas (pump retail vs refinery cost), which is also the opposite than most countries.
I met a CPA and we were discussing Fed LEO work. This is a red blooded MAGA voting mid-20s guy from Charleston, SC.
He said the hours kinda sucked (FBI is 50hr minimum) but he couldn't do it because he'd be "forced to carry a gun and maybe have to use it one day"
Mind = Blown
Maybe I'm experienced enough to know any SA being utilized as a CPA isnt gonna be dropping BGs anyway, but damnit I want to be.
.........all these castrated dudes. Sad.
Guns are kinda pedestrian. He would likely shudder at my thoughts on blackjacks, switchblades, and 4 D Cell maglites.
.........all these castrated dudes. Sad.
Rest assured there are still plenty of solid and capable 20-30yos that if not blood thirsty, will get the job done.
If we had to double the size of the Army you might see an issue, but even at the new rate of growth pipeline quality is apparently still pretty good.
There is also quite a bit of self selection even once in.
.........all these castrated dudes. Sad.
Guns are kinda pedestrian. He would likely shudder at my thoughts on blackjacks, switchblades, and 4 D Cell maglites.
I don't there there are any more nutless metrosexuals today than there were in days past. The difference is they now think that's something to be celebrated rather than hidden, and that those of us who know and understand our cro-magnon roots should suppress and hide our identity. They don't understand that unless and until their branch of the evolutionary tree becomes ascendant and predominant, those of us who will do violence to protect and preserve ourselves are all that prevents them from being turned into plant fertilizer. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kr24G8jQpM
MountainRaven
04-17-17, 11:33
The US is the only country in the work which requires passenger diesels to meet gas emissions standards. Which they happily beat other than nox.
And now, the particulate stuff that started with CARB, but modern diesels are all pretty clean in that regard if unmolested.
The EPA went unchallenged on this. Both big oil and US auto mfgs had a large vested interest in keeping the public buying gas engines.
Was not until MB cracked the code with bluetec that they started making some inroads in the US. But travel much in Europe and you'll see how far behind we are in small diesels. I've driven for a day in a small diesel rental and did not realize it was not a gasser until I went to tank up.
Gasoline started as an unwanted (and toxic) byproduct of the refining process. Net exporters (middle East and S america) encourage usage and it's priced low due to oversupply relative to diesel.
It's still taxed far higher in the US relative to gas (pump retail vs refinery cost), which is also the opposite than most countries.
This won't last much longer: Following VW's emissions cheating, a study was released linking deaths in London to the use of diesel-powered vehicles. Comparisons are being made to the Great Smog of 1952 (which resulted from burning coal and the British government estimates directly led to the deaths of 4,000 Londoners - with later studies estimating as many as 12,000 - and sickened another 100,000). Except you could see the Great Smog, you can't see diesel gas emissions. And now the British government, at least, is talking about imposing emissions standards on diesel to combat this.
This won't last much longer: Following VW's emissions cheating, a study was released linking deaths in London to the use of diesel-powered vehicles. Comparisons are being made to the Great Smog of 1952 (which resulted from burning coal and the British government estimates directly led to the deaths of 4,000 Londoners - with later studies estimating as many as 12,000 - and sickened another 100,000). Except you could see the Great Smog, you can't see diesel gas emissions. And now the British government, at least, is talking about imposing emissions standards on diesel to combat this.
Yep, the UK can do hysteria better than just about anyone.
I'd ask you to tell me about the deadly diesel emissions, but I don't want to derail the thread. I know exactly what I they are and are not. And how they compare to gas emissions, especially if you factor in how much work is being done, or net pollution.
Just a hint, the bad air days "smog violations" in US cities have zero to do with diesel emissions and are pretty much totally unburned gas issues. Add to it runoff issues with gas and ethanol and it's very clear, gassers are the biggest (and self inflicted) problem we have.
hahahahaha not about you the study :)
same scientist that cried global freeze then 30+ years later global warming ! when caught cooking the info they declare climate change since the facts are going against them again !!
when any gov does a study so it can create legislation and then charge and make billions off people and companies I often am skeptical
just like global warming one of the biggest money makers in recent history based on false numbers and cooked up info etc.
This won't last much longer: Following VW's emissions cheating, a study was released linking deaths in London to the use of diesel-powered vehicles. Comparisons are being made to the Great Smog of 1952 (which resulted from burning coal and the British government estimates directly led to the deaths of 4,000 Londoners - with later studies estimating as many as 12,000 - and sickened another 100,000). Except you could see the Great Smog, you can't see diesel gas emissions. And now the British government, at least, is talking about imposing emissions standards on diesel to combat this.
I really wish we could get good diesels here !!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.