War in Ukraine

#19,752
#19,752
OrangeTsar said:
I guess having a fever of “only” 103 is good to someone who did have one of 104 🙄
Click to expand...
You better believe it is. It has to be 103 before it gets to 102. It has to be 102 before it gets to 101.
And it's especially good when the "doctors" warned that your fever might climb as high as 117.
 
#19,756
#19,756
WoodsmanVol said:
If Russia and the USA joined up instead of being rivals, humans would by now have removed hunger, made poverty all but extinct, and likely would have already colonized the moon and Mars. Further, be poised to take the leap to interstellar travel. Just think of all the tech and money that went to the military complexes alone, and what could have been otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't know what of those things might have happened, but agree entirely with the observation. The Russian Scare of 2016-2020 destroyed chances of vectoring with Russia on things that were possible - for example, terrorist warnings we received from them - and only because a corrupt woman wanted the WH more than she cared about damage to the country, and a bureaucratic state greased the wheels. We have cold war currents in the air for a DNC-hack hoax, a troll-farm=Putin hoax, collusion hoax, and two hoax impeachments, Russia and perhaps a China invasion, avoidable inflation, and an autocracy in DC.

Some trade.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#19,758
#19,758
NCFisher said:
I don't know what of those things might have happened, but agree entirely with the observation. The Russian Scare of 2016-2020 destroyed chances of vectoring with Russia on things that were possible - for example, terrorist warnings we received from them - and only because a corrupt woman wanted the WH more than she cared about damage to the country, and a bureaucratic state greased the wheels. We have cold war currents in the air for a DNC-hack hoax, a troll-farm=Putin hoax, collusion hoax, and two hoax impeachments, Russia and perhaps a China invasion, avoidable inflation, and an autocracy in DC.
Click to expand...
Right. This same Russian leader who is today bombing apartment buildings would instead be sowing the seeds of peace along the Dnieper River, were it not for the American Democratic party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and Hunerwadel
#19,759
#19,759
Looks like Ukrainian forces are launching counter offensives around Kyiv and other parts of the country. If they can encircle those forces watch out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#19,761
#19,761
Velo Vol said:
Right. This same Russian leader who is today bombing apartment buildings would instead be sowing the seeds of peace along the Dnieper River, were it not for the American Democratic party.
Click to expand...

NCFisher said:
I don't know what of those things might have happened, but agree entirely with the observation. The Russian Scare of 2016-2020 destroyed chances of vectoring with Russia on things that were possible - for example, terrorist warnings we received from them - and only because a corrupt woman wanted the WH more than she cared about damage to the country, and a bureaucratic state greased the wheels. We have cold war currents in the air for a DNC-hack hoax, a troll-farm=Putin hoax, collusion hoax, and two hoax impeachments, Russia and perhaps a China invasion, avoidable inflation, and an autocracy in DC.
Some trade.
Click to expand...

You do know that happened, right? Perhaps you meant to reply to Woods.
And no to peace on the river, but mostly yes to cold war wafting in the air - thanks!
 
Last edited:
#19,765
#19,765
volgr said:
Should we wait 14 more days? LOL
Click to expand...


Let’s take this as truth, since you’re such a thinker.

What would generate these epic numbers? Crashed economy and currency? Dead sons being shipped home? Withdrawal of major corporations? Being ostracized by the rest of the sane world?

Please educate me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, tvolsfan, Hunerwadel and 2 others
#19,766
#19,766
allvol123 said:
Let’s take this as truth, since you’re such a thinker.

What would generate these epic numbers? Crashed economy and currency? Dead sons being shipped home? Withdrawal of major corporations? Being ostracized by the rest of the sane world?

Please educate me.
Click to expand...
Because he's eliminating nazis. He really really is guys
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, NCFisher and allvol123
#19,772
#19,772
allvol123 said:
Let’s take this as truth, since you’re such a thinker.

What would generate these epic numbers? Crashed economy and currency? Dead sons being shipped home? Withdrawal of major corporations? Being ostracized by the rest of the sane world?

Please educate me.
Click to expand...

If Russia lost their military and China took Moscow, Putin would be the popularest ever!
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64, tvolsfan and 1 other person
#19,773
#19,773
WoodsmanVol said:
If Russia and the USA joined up instead of being rivals, humans would by now have removed hunger, made poverty all but extinct, and likely would have already colonized the moon and Mars. Further, be poised to take the leap to interstellar travel. Just think of all the tech and money that went to the military complexes alone, and what could have been otherwise.
Click to expand...
Totally skipping the geopolitical portion of your post me only focusing on the technological, we are DECADES (if not centuries) away from any possibility of interstellar travel. Baring some miraculous technical advance in propulsion or some even more miraculous astrophysical advance in overcoming relatively, the vast distance to even the nearest star (proxima centuri) would require several millennia even with the most powerful boosters in our inventory. So, Mars, yeah, possible In our lifetime, other star systems? Let’s just say me winning the Heisman in my late 50s is more likely
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and WoodsmanVol
#19,774
#19,774
WoodsmanVol said:
If Russia and the USA joined up instead of being rivals, humans would by now have removed hunger, made poverty all but extinct, and likely would have already colonized the moon and Mars. Further, be poised to take the leap to interstellar travel. Just think of all the tech and money that went to the military complexes alone, and what could have been otherwise.
Click to expand...
Except that's not really how advancement works. Most of our technology stems from conflict or the hardships created by conflict.

Lost too many men in the war to farm develop crops that produce more, equipment that makes it easier, and packaging and storing that allows it to last to the front lines.

Modern medicine is 100% because of militaries needing soldiers back instead of relying on snake oil sales man that didnt produce results. Modern anesthetics, vaccines, medicines, heck even cleaning wounds and medical equipment were all pioneered to keep soldiers fighting.

Space is another industry completely pushed by military spending, famously the Nazis and then the US and Soviets grabbing the Nazis after.

Transportation and vehicles improvements driven by the demands of conflicts. Even the transcontinental railroad was funded with some government backing so that troops could get across the country.

Peace is a terrible teacher, and worthless motivator for innovation. People are comfortable and happy, and not looking for change.

We would have stagnated and allowed someone else to pass us. Or had to find other conflicts to push us forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 825VOL
#19,775
#19,775
NCFisher said:
Wind, solar and tidal - or whatever - have a host of challenges. Chief among them are requiring symmetrical, on-demand power from a plant powered by hydrocarbons, hydropower, or nuclear. The obstacles to nuclear are primarily political and regulatory.

Why is mining for material necessary for alternate energy production acceptable but not hydrocarbons? Don't we have to assess the total energy expended and environmental impact from mining, processing, energy production and end of life disposal and renewal of both to legitimize 'green'?

The U.S. is not a large producer of these materials. Manhattan Institute claims green machine energy needs require 10X more mineral extraction for the same output as hydrocarbon. I don't know if that's legit so let's say it's half; are we prepared for a 500% mining increase in this country? According to the left, as this most 'progressive president ever' promised, that answer is 'no'. What countries are mining these materials? These questions dismantle a host of green arguments, particularly these claims:

1.) We won't have to send U$D abroad - we either will or enormously increase U.S. mining
2.) We'll have energy independence and won't have to rely on wicked countries for it - same as #1. And the wicked countries are the largest producers of what we'd need.
3.) A better environment and stopping climate change - no, this is where green advocates deviate to 'Think Local and Ignore Global', NIMBY just means outsourcing the nastiness you don't want to see; "Yay! - green!". Or that one is so hypocritically cynical to choke other countries but preserve their own. Vast plumes of smoke and metric tons of toxic wastewater don't think local, but rather act global, don't they?

Green farms are damnable blights on the landscape and rapine of environmental habitat. T. Boone Pickens Pampa Wind Farm in TX panhandle would have covered a land mass of 400,000 acres - or 80% of the Great Smoky Mountains N. Park. - to power 1.5 million homes. When the wind blows.

There are around 140 million residences in the country; we'd need 37 million acres of wind farms just to power U.S. residences. Then there's commercial power for business. And you still need symmetrical, full-demand capacity hydrocarbon, hydropower, or nuke stations

I think It indicates climate and environment are not the actual concern, but is an anti-capitalist, quasi-Marxist primitivism bent on chopping the legs out from under the U.S. and the West generally. For decades, we've been seesawed from one climate emergency to another. It was cooling, it was warming - climate change do not occur in such a brief time span; man is impacting it. We know better than that now. People should read on 'abrupt climate change', in which enormous global shifts have occurred in as little as 1-2 years, and have done so multiple times. Climate alarmists still use the argument, though.

I think instead of chasing our green energy tail, we should continue to abundantly deploy the mature hydrocarbon technology we have and and focus on efficiency gains, and deploying nuclear, the greenest energy. While we're doing so, green energy can continue to trundle along entertaining itself on it's own dime.
That is not incompatible with being good stewards of the earth.

Green Energy Reality Check: It's Not as Clean as You Think | Manhattan Institute (A very lengthy article)
Among the material realities of green energy:

  • Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.
  • A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than 5 million smartphones; and a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones.
  • Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current plans—never mind aspirations for far greater expansion—will vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
  • Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.
  • By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.
Click to expand...
We burn petroleum products to turn chemical energy into heat energy to turn water into high pressure steam to turn a turbine to create mechanical energy to turn a generator to produce electrical energy to move it over long distances to convert it back to chemical energy in a battery so we can turn that into mechanical energy to propel a car, when we could just burn the petroleum products inside the internal combustion engine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, InVOLuntary, AM64 and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top