| Author |
Topic |
Tallaran Kouros
Cryptonym Sleepers |
Posted - 2010.04.19 09:37:00 - [ 121]
 Originally by: dr doooo
I don't think Britain can claim that as a won war when they refused to accept they were fighting one at the time.
Well, the government of the day also claimed that they would not negotiate with terrorists yet it was only through political negotiation that an end to violence came about. I suppose the definition of "won" is somewhat loose, but the IRA is no longer an active terrorist force and the territorial integrity of the UK remains intact. Certain concessions were made on the part of the UK and Irish governments of course, but I'd still be happy to chalk it up as a default "win" for the British establishment. |
Taua Roqa
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:04:00 - [ 122]
northern ireland heh, lots of things lots of people don't like about the 'result', but then it's a pretty damn big victory for all those who wont get killed and their loved ones and ultimately it's those lives that matter. so much **** went on in that conflict, on both sides.
the entire 80+ bloody years of it however makes al qaeda thinking they can terrorise the British pretty ****ing hilarious. |
scunner funk
Minmatar |
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:25:00 - [ 123]
Originally by: AdmiralJohn
...because the US military says there will be major shortages within five years.
What do you guys make of this?
I look at that article and am glad, it is churlish to measure war in victories and defeats when the sharpest of military minds do not appear in any history books for there was no war. I hope there will be an American general who's name I never hear because he thought to look ahead at upcoming oil and water shortages now and so prevented the worst from happening later. I look at the tinfoil hats and am glad that someone is trying to wake the world from it's consumptive slumber, the conservatives make me glad too because we all need a laugh sometime. The vocal celebrities of the left and right are a parody of each other, primate puppets dancing on ideological strings who mock each others ignorance while ignoring their own. I look at the food supply and wonder at the marvels of science. Lab grown meats, GM crops and inner city veg gardens are but a few of the new roots of our civilization and they will continue to feed people the way science always has. The line of people claiming that we are about to run out of food stretches back for hundreds of years when the reasons for famine are ones of policy and war, not production. I think of the car I might drive in the future and have no worries, the Japaneses and Germans look to be on the ball and if we don't have the capacity to roll out the tech when it's needed I'm sure the Indians will step in to buy out Ford or GM and outsource a few jobs to America. Whatever you think of capitalism you should never underestimate it's ability to change the shape of the world. I look in a laboratory and am happy to see the dead body of Charles Darwin. Oil is just an energy source and the success of the human race has been based on the ability to rapidly exploit new energy sources so a switch from oil to hydrogen, nuclear and synthesized hydrocarbons might be a bit bumpy but is nothing new. The kicker is in how it defines our technology because our tech is going to redefine us. I look at the moon and think of mother nature, her tiredness shows shows in the lines round her eyes but her smile is warm as she says "All children must choose between leaving their mother or dieing in an empty house." |
baltec1 |
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:32:00 - [ 124]
Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Originally by: Motaka
Burma,falklands,Sierra Leone----{same land mass were you got your arse kicked AKA Black Hawk Down).
In short....were just better than you.
Burma is in the wrong century, Sierra Leone was basically a genocide (bet you're really proud of that, plus a ~movie~ reference nice job there, except that was across the country no big deal).
Falklands is the only legitimate claim. Good job, you've done one thing in the last 110 years without direct or indirect American involvement.
I think you need to re-take history or at the very least go to a library and look up a 20th century british forces history book and see just how many wars we have fought not only alone, but in allience with America. Lets not forget who has been fighting the bulk of the war in Afghanistan. |
Taua Roqa
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:35:00 - [ 125]
hydrogen and synth HCs are not energy sources (more energy is required to create them than they give back) and nuclear..is bad for all sorts of reasons.
the future will be vast wind and solar arrays at climatic hotspots turning seawater into hydrogen and oxygen, in vast storage arrays, and the hydrogen being burnt/distributed as fuel, to provide a stable energy supply. |
scunner funk
Minmatar |
Posted - 2010.04.19 16:22:00 - [ 126]
Originally by: Taua Roqa
hydrogen and synth HCs are not energy sources (more energy is required to create them than they give back) and nuclear..is bad for all sorts of reasons.
Sorry, I should have been more specific about energy sources/storage/materials but was in danger of rambling on forever. Nuclear is not bad in itself, it is simply a process. The latest generation pebble bed reactors are capable of running on spent fuel from older reactors and drastically reducing the half life of the waste but also produce a lot of weapons grade plutonium so are uncommon due to reasons of nuclear proliferation. (source - new scientist). I believe that nuclear is still in its infancy and will get much safer over time, we could do a lot worse than emulating natures power source. I'm no expert on Einstein but if E=MC2 then there's a lot of energy in one atom, understanding how to get at that energy could do more than provide power here on earth, it could allow us to move beyond the solar system. That may sound a little futuristic but think of it like this, renewable energy is not able to produce electricity on demand so there is a need for some kind of power generation to fill in when the wind's not blowing. Hydrogen storage is one idea but we've got a long way to go before we've got the political will to put it in place. To fill the gap we can either burn fossil fuels and pump out carbon or we can process uranium that can be stored as fuel for the next generation of power plants and learn a bunch of new science in the process. The point about our tech redefining us is that the next step in evolution will be man made, as long as we have enough energy to live our lives and don't blow the planet up then the mechanism is secondary to the important issue of accessing technology and passing it on to our children. Having the UK/USA armies looking in to future energy conflicts won't just be about keeping the wheels of our cars turning, it will play a defining role in who's descendants are the one's that can afford brain implants and body enhancements. Google brain implants, prosthetic limbs, eye implants and other fun stuff to see why I'd put money on biotech being the biggest defining issue of the next hundred years rather than oil. |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance |
Posted - 2010.04.19 17:45:00 - [ 127]
Originally by: dr doooo
Edit: and of course the 'terrorists' were getting most of their funding from the USA 
Some 'allies' eh? |
So Sensational
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 19:41:00 - [ 128]
Originally by: Umega
It's the United States tellin' the rest of the world that within the next five years.. they ain't goin' to have the funding to protect our allies so you best prepare your own selves from any threats. You know like.. Iran, India, China, North K.. really, everyone keep on believing we're in a safe lil bubble devoid of any reason for any major esculating warfare ever again..
Good luck everyone else.
Yes, because Iran, India and China fuel their tanks with rainbows and happiness. I'm not going to mention North Korea, they probably do try to fuel their tanks with rainbows and happiness. Atleast I wouldn't be surprised, lunatic leader and all that. |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.19 20:06:00 - [ 129]
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 19/04/2010 20:07:45
I wasn't aware India or China were even remotely hostile. China has always been a bit scary, but unless I've missed something, they're not about to hurl nukes at us. India? What's wrong with India?
Edit: ah but of course China is communist, and therefore are ready to hurl those nukes at the slightest provokation. How did I not realise? |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance |
Posted - 2010.04.19 20:36:00 - [ 130]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 19/04/2010 20:07:45
I wasn't aware India or China were even remotely hostile. China has always been a bit scary, but unless I've missed something, they're not about to hurl nukes at us. India? What's wrong with India?
Edit: ah but of course China is communist, and therefore are ready to hurl those nukes at the slightest provokation. How did I not realise?
Clearly you are not a patriotic American like Glenn Beck and I. |
Musical Fist
Gallente
NAP Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 20:40:00 - [ 131]
Olive oil isnt running out theres plenty of it as for crude oil, who really needs that anymore, thats like using dial up whats the point :/, most likely this is bad prop for the gullible and lesser parasites |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers |
Posted - 2010.04.19 20:42:00 - [ 132]
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 19/04/2010 20:07:45
I wasn't aware India or China were even remotely hostile. China has always been a bit scary, but unless I've missed something, they're not about to hurl nukes at us. India? What's wrong with India?
Edit: ah but of course China is communist, and therefore are ready to hurl those nukes at the slightest provokation. How did I not realise?
Clearly you are not a patriotic American like Glenn Beck and I.
I'm English. |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance |
Posted - 2010.04.19 20:45:00 - [ 133]
Edited by: Irida Mershkov on 19/04/2010 20:59:43 Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 19/04/2010 20:07:45
I wasn't aware India or China were even remotely hostile. China has always been a bit scary, but unless I've missed something, they're not about to hurl nukes at us. India? What's wrong with India?
Edit: ah but of course China is communist, and therefore are ready to hurl those nukes at the slightest provokation. How did I not realise?
Clearly you are not a patriotic American like Glenn Beck and I.
I'm English.
I wasn't being serious. You missed the joke unfortunately. Edited for clarity. |
AdmiralJohn
Gallente
Origin of Sanshaa |
Posted - 2010.04.19 21:07:00 - [ 134]
ITT:
Country epeenery from the plebs, and enough tinfoil hattery to make Glenn Beck cry. Sometimes both at the same time, even. |
Kephael
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation |
Posted - 2010.04.19 22:05:00 - [ 135]
Originally by: Kerfira
FYI, this website is one of the best I've found for getting a reasonably good view of the energy situation:
TheOilDrum.com
The problem is that we're close to the point where demand exceeds supply. It is quite probable that point was passed when oil hit $147 (the world simply couldn't produce more oil), and that this was a reasonably large part of the reason we got into the recession.
When that point is hit, price goes up hugely. Why? Because we shift from the point where oil is priced at "who is willing to sell at a 'cheap' price" to "who is willing to buy at an 'expensive' price". In effect, you don't get a gradually increasing price, but a price jump.
At some point that point will be hit and we don't fall back under it again. At that time you'll be looking at oil over $200+/barrel and gas at $6+/gallon. As it will take 20+ years to switch from fossil-based energy to something else, we'll remain at high (and increasing) oil/gas prices for a long time!
At that point it MAY be too late, as the energy required to replace the fossil technology may be way to expensive to produce (because of high prices) for things like solar panels and electrical cars to be affordable.
The 20 years is a very optimistic estimate IF we make a determined effort! This is not likely....
TOD is an excellent website for issues related to oil. |
David Grogan
Gallente
The Motley Crew Reborn
Warped Aggression |
Posted - 2010.04.20 12:56:00 - [ 136]
why dont we just switch to ethanol when oil runs out? its easy to produce (hell billions of people gulp down gallons of it every weekend) then oil wealthy countries become worthless and the dry barren not able to grow crops to produce ethanol middle-east can go F;#K itself while WE that can grow it rip them off for a change  |
Mister Gimp |
Posted - 2010.04.20 14:14:00 - [ 137]
Originally by: David Grogan
why dont we just switch to ethanol when oil runs out? its easy to produce (hell billions of people gulp down gallons of it every weekend)
then oil wealthy countries become worthless and the dry barren not able to grow crops to produce ethanol middle-east can go F;#K itself while WE that can grow it rip them off for a change
Why wait for the oil to run out before doing this? Why not just invade an oil rich country to secure it's oil supplies and pat yourselves on the back for removing an evil regime at the same time? Win Win. Except for the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties of course, but you can't stand in the way of progress I guess. |
Kerfira
Kerfira Corp |
Posted - 2010.04.20 17:12:00 - [ 138]
Originally by: David Grogan
why dont we just switch to ethanol when oil runs out? its easy to produce (hell billions of people gulp down gallons of it every weekend)
then oil wealthy countries become worthless and the dry barren not able to grow crops to produce ethanol middle-east can go F;#K itself while WE that can grow it rip them off for a change
There is a TINY problem with your plan....  To grow plants for ethanol, you need fertiliser... Guess what the main ingredient of fertiliser is? NATURAL GAS.... Also keep in mind that when there's no more gas to make fertiliser, the earth can feed around 2 billion people, and that's if we don't destroy more arable land before then (which we will). That resource is really to valuable to spend fueling cars... |
David Grogan
Gallente
The Motley Crew Reborn
Warped Aggression |
Posted - 2010.04.20 22:00:00 - [ 139]
Edited by: David Grogan on 20/04/2010 21:59:58 Originally by: Kerfira
To grow plants for ethanol, you need fertiliser... Guess what the main ingredient of fertiliser is?
NATURAL GAS....
Um doesnt manure work as a fertiliser too ??? |
Sellmewarez |
Posted - 2010.04.20 22:35:00 - [ 140]
Edited by: Sellmewarez on 20/04/2010 22:35:39 Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Falklands is the only legitimate claim. Good job, you've done one thing in the last 110 years without direct or indirect American involvement.
RL naps are destroying world warfare goodfights :-/ Everyone just needs to reset each other then it will be cool |
Kerfira
Kerfira Corp |
Posted - 2010.04.20 23:07:00 - [ 141]
Edited by: Kerfira on 20/04/2010 23:06:58 Originally by: David Grogan
Originally by: Kerfira
To grow plants for ethanol, you need fertiliser... Guess what the main ingredient of fertiliser is?
NATURAL GAS....
Um doesnt manure work as a fertiliser too ???
It does, but it makes up only a very small part of what fertiliser is used in the world. Most of the fertiliser used in modern agriculture is made from natural gas. As said, when natural gas runs out, this rock can feed around 2 billion people (including using manure). |
Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 23:48:00 - [ 142]
ITT people willy waving about the military achievements of their nations to which they contributed nothing. Me? I'm going to take a page from this guy's book. |
Kephael
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation |
Posted - 2010.04.21 00:26:00 - [ 143]
Originally by: David Grogan
Edited by: David Grogan on 20/04/2010 21:59:58
Originally by: Kerfira
To grow plants for ethanol, you need fertiliser... Guess what the main ingredient of fertiliser is?
NATURAL GAS....
Um doesnt manure work as a fertiliser too ???
Where do you think the nitrogen in that manure comes from? It is from the Haber-Bosch process. |
lost marble
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.04.21 00:57:00 - [ 144]
Edited by: lost marble on 21/04/2010 00:58:17
alt post fail >..< |
scunner funk
Minmatar |
Posted - 2010.04.21 00:59:00 - [ 145]
Originally by: Kerfira
As said, when natural gas runs out, this rock can feed around 2 billion people (including using manure).
Source please. I suspect you'll find some dodgy assumptions in there, intensive agriculture is not wholly reliant on oil based fertilizers and there's a lot of varied ways to increase supply while reducing the acres used per person by cutting out waste and altering your diet. |
VanNostrum |
Posted - 2010.04.21 12:25:00 - [ 146]
|
baltec1 |
Posted - 2010.04.21 19:34:00 - [ 147]
|
All Channels
Out of Pod Experience
