Moving freight, airplanes and battleships requires different solutions (in my opinion) then the problem of getting your kids to the hockey game.

The engines that run minivans are identical to the ones used by freight ships, freight trains, Farm implements, highway tractors, backup generators, battleships and prop planes. The same solution applies to them all. In fact, large enough ships like carriers and subs already run off electricity instead of oil because it is cheaper.


Even if energy storage technology was to rapidly become what we would need it to be, where would the energy come from if the source for more then half of our current use was to vanish?


We have enough sources of uranium and thorium to meet global energy needs for 100's of years. With any luck, we can develop renewable sources like wind,tidal and solar with that kind of time to get them ready. If we're really lucky, maybe we'll even get fusion power before that and then we are good for the lifetime of the solar system. As a bonus, nuclear is cheaper when developed on a large scale, France is making good money running over 80% nuclear power and exporting it's cheaper electricity to the rest of Europe.


A battery won't move an 18 wheeler. The only thing that will move an 18 wheeler is foreign oil, diesel and gasoline, and our domestic natural gas.

That is utter nonesense. Lookup Tesla motors, they've actually managed to use current battery technology to make a Lotus Elise that is FASTER than it's oil driven counter-part. The argument is as silly as when people felt automobiles where worthless because they couldn't go as far as a horse without a fill-up. Batteries don't need to improve too much more to be a viable replacement and then a landslide shift will take place to cheaper more powerfull electric vehicles.


In the mean time, let me know when you've found a battery that can power an ocean liner.


And this is your fundamental and underlying misunderstanding. The navy is currently using compact nuclear generators as giant batteries to power their largest ships more cheaply and without any dependence on oil. The problem for ocean liner's isn't building a battery that is big enough, it's building them SMALL enough. If a battery can be made small enough to replace the gas tank in a car, then you can power ANYTHING bigger than that car as well by using 2,10 or 1000 such batteries. Already with current laptop battery technology we are almost there. We don't need a breakthrough, a few small improvements to weight and cost and the solution is there. Anything to small to be powered by a compact nuclear generator can instead be run off of batteries without a loss in performance or ability.


The social attachment to oil is much deeper the powering the transportation to get to the grocery store or the beach. It is in every piece of food you get at the grocery store or bring to the beach. It is in the road you drive on, the oil that lubricates the engine as well as just the gas tank.


But moving goods is all still part of the transportation network. And ALL of those applications use internal combustion engines that can be replaced with only a moderately improved battery over those available today.


The agricultural attachment to oil is not just that it is used in the production and delivery of the fertilizer that grows the food to feed the citizen or just the fuel in the gas tank of the grain harvester and other farm machinery.


I grew up on a farm. The agricultural attachment to oil is again dominated by the use of internal combustion engines for machinery, which is easily replaced with a better battery.


The political attachment to oil is not just ensuring that a population have access to the cheap energy for their car, but the cheap fuel for the cheap power plant the provides the cheap electricity for to run the fridge for the cheap food brought from all corners of the earth.

Wrong, the cheap power plant runs off of coal, not oil. Coal reserves utterly dwarf oil reserves, that's why not even crazy people talk about 'peak' coal. In fact, many talk about converting coal to oil if necessary.


I'm sorry, but the entirety of the arguments you make NEVER go beyond the assumption that nothing can replace internal combustion engines and so when oil runs out everything using them is doomed. Fortunately that is not the reality we live in. Even with current technology, battery powered electric motors are begining to appear in automobiles. The military has been running their largest ships on electricty and independent of oil for decades. We are not looking at a dire need for a major breakthrough. We only need small, incremental improvements to battey technology to being able to replace internal combustion engines with batteries, and oil with electricity. Then we are free to simply expand the electric grid, which we have been doing for nearly a century already and are getting rather good at.

three letters + two words: U S A + Depleted Uranium

Who's more retarded? The retarded people in the middle east squabbling and fighting for 100 years, or the retarded government in the US who picks a side, sells them F16s, tanks and depleted uranium shells, and hopes for the best?

Would you like me to google it for you?


In reply to this comment by mharvey42:
In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Was this busy market collateral damage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cyk7zH6DeE&fmt=22

What about civilians executed on the street during the last 18 months by Israeli police enforcing illegal blockades?

What about the civilans being given 7 minutes to abandon their homes before blowing them up?

What about the Depleted Uranium being used in Gaza right now?

After another few days of this you will see how very wrong you are.

Yes, the market shelling is collateral damage: a sad but predictable result of Hamas' aggression. The blood is on their heads.

"Illegal Blockades" you give no example.

"Civilians given 7 minutes to leave their homes" Extraordinary efforts by the IDF ti avoid civilan casualties. If Hamas were half so humane, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"Depleted Uranium" You make me laugh!


"Another few days" We'll see. It's going swimingly so far. Hamas will never be an honorable foe, but the more sent to allah, the better.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Was this busy market collateral damage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cyk7zH6DeE&fmt=22

What about civilians executed on the street during the last 18 months by Israeli police enforcing illegal blockades?

What about the civilans being given 7 minutes to abandon their homes before blowing them up?

What about the Depleted Uranium being used in Gaza right now?

After another few days of this you will see how very wrong you are.

Yes, the market shelling is collateral damage: a sad but predictable result of Hamas' aggression. The blood is on their heads.

"Illegal Blockades" you give no example.

"Civilians given 7 minutes to leave their homes" Extraordinary efforts by the IDF ti avoid civilan casualties. If Hamas were half so humane, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"Depleted Uranium" You make me laugh!


"Another few days" We'll see. It's going swimingly so far. Hamas will never be an honorable foe, but the more sent to allah, the better.

Was this busy market collateral damage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cyk7zH6DeE&fmt=22

What about civilians executed on the street during the last 18 months by Israeli police enforcing illegal blockades?

What about the civilans being given 7 minutes to abandon their homes before blowing them up?

What about the Depleted Uranium being used in Gaza right now?

After another few days of this you will see how very wrong you are.

In reply to this comment by mharvey42:
In a battle of this intensity, there will be collateral damage. Israel goes to extraordinary efforts to avoid this, even calling neighbors before they bomb Hamas facilities, warning them to evacuate. Hamas on the other hand routinely targets civilains as their S.O.P.

If "Medics" have been injured, perhaps they shouldn't use ambulances as troop carriers. (See my post at link)

http://www.videosift.com/video/Hamas-using-UN-ambulances-as-troop-carriers

>> ^Arg:
^America dropped one uranium and one plutonium bomb on Japan. They were both fission devices. Yield 13 - 21 kilotons.
This test was of a hydrogen bomb. It is a fusion device and much more powerful. Yield 1800 kilotons. Now that makes you think!


Still very disturbing either way.

^America dropped one uranium and one plutonium bomb on Japan. They were both fission devices. Yield 13 - 21 kilotons.

This test was of a hydrogen bomb. It is a fusion device and much more powerful. Yield 1800 kilotons. Now that makes you think!

>> ^bcglorf:
^"If McCain is elected, any talks with Iran would follow policies that have been proven ineffective."
Isn't 'talking' itself one of the policies that have been proven ineffective in working with Iran?


No.

Condoleeza Rice struck a deal with Iran to halt uranium enrichment, which Cheney and Gates stopped. Cheney, Bush and Patreus have no interest in wide-open diplomatic relations with Iran, as they want their bullshit war-on-terror to go on indefinitely.

And a friendly Iran would stop their war machine dead in its tracks.

Some of the funniest reviews can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Uranium-Ore/dp/B000796XXM/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I4RS5J6QIHLEF&colid=1S0CI9M0DVTPM

We can disagree about Al Jazeera. They've improved in the last year or two, but they lost my trust a while ago and will have to do a lot to regain it.

I certainly agree that big Corporations (international and domestic) need to be hacked up a bit. They have far to much power and influence. I do NOT however buy that they control whether the US goes to war or not. I do NOT believe Iraq was about oil. We haven't seen a drop of it and it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, a tremendous amount of lives, and more popularity and international influence. Anti-war activists and leftists love to say oil oil oil as much as they can to make those that supported the war look like evil corporate sell-outs. It's a very common political partisan warfare technique VERY often utilized by the left. (The right has its own devious techniques, but the left has mastered this particular one.) Anyway, arguing Iraq is a dead stalemate every time, so it's pointless to go on about it. Bottom line, corps have too much power, but not all the power, AND not all corporations are run by demons bent on greed at all costs. You need a certain breed of board members for that sort of heartlessness.

"Ordinary People" don't want war. That is true. But they do want certain things to be and others not to be and they don't want to be the ones responsible for what it takes to make those things be or not be. For example. The west (primarily America at this point) sees the sudden rise and dominance of staunch Islamic culture in western Europe and does not like what it sees. America is all for religious freedom--heck, we were founded on the concept--but America also values secular governing as well as some level of assimilation of immigrants. In other words, come to America, but if you don't want to be an American, if you want to be a somewhere-else-ian living in America trying to impose somewhere-else-ia's laws, please stay in somewhere-else-ia. Makes sense. America has a set of values, laws, and traditions it holds dear. Seeing sections of western European nations suddenly under a pseudo-official Sharia Law makes most Americans cringe and worry about their rights and their culture. Americans say, "we don't want that in our nation" but they don't want to be responsible for preventing it (or other things). People love to protest things while reaping their benefits. Sad state of affairs. (I'm not saying that example was a war-related one, but it fits otherwise.) One of the major functions of governments and leaders is to make unpopular decisions that are necessary. They lose popularity and even become demonized by some, but the job is done and the public can benefit and still feel innocent about it.

As for the US and S Ossentia? 1%. That is the amount of western oil that comes through that pipeline. We don't need it. We wouldn't START a fight over it, but we would defend it against an aggressor as it is in fact of western interest. We didn't need to fight over it as it was in no danger and we were in no way in danger of losing it. America has no vested interest in S Ossentia. A 1% loss in supply is barely a hick-up, especially as oil demand is now decreasing here at a record pace.

As for America moving ships closer to Iran? GOOD!! Iran has repeated threatened to shut down a HUGE tanker route. Since Israel is scared to death (and rightly so) that they might get nuked in the next couple years, which fits with Ahmadinejad's 12th Imam religious views, they might wind up attacking Iran's uranium enrichment plants. It will CERTAINLY happen if Iran tests a nuclear weapon as N.Korea recently did. If that happens, we still need that route open. If Iran shuts it down, that's a major problem for us here, even if we don't drop a single bomb in that country. This is an almost inevitable confrontation. The USA MUST not fire any first shots though. Not this time. Not ever again. However, did we start this devastating war in Georgia to move our ships? No. That idea REQUIRES that you believe that all those with power in the US are truly evil mass-murders, plain and simple, purely literally. It is fine to think that we may have taken advantage of the situation to make a tactical move, but starting it for that end is a little off the charts. Having forces in an allied nation is not surprising. That does NOT by any means mean we started it or encouraged it in any way shape or form. That leap is loaded with fallacies.

I am far too long winded.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Al Jazeera is an excellent source of news, many BBC journalists work with them and two British journos I know speak very highly to their integrity.

I do indeed distrust the US government as much as I distrust the British government, and I have lived through a 30 year conflict with the British that has opened my eyes to the propaganda regarding international affairs in British news, including the BBC.

It's not a case of me buying into any particular news story. The US has a military presence there to protect oil interests - that's a plain fact. That's what rings the alarm bells for me when suddenly there's a conflict.

It's not about assigning blame, I'm not interested in trying to show where blame lies. That's a childish game and a distraction. Bush is not the emperor at all, I do not believe for a second that Bush is in control of anything whatsoever, the idea that the man is a statesman running a country is plainly ridiculous. He is as much a puppet of corporate America as the Shah in Iran was before the people rose up and put him out of power.

It's all about perception - *why* do you think it is that the same people who think that America blew up the towers to start a war are the people who believe America is behind this conflict? What is at the heart of that perception? It's because the official version of events doesn't ring true to people who have lived through propaganda in their own country.

What is happening in Russia is part of the wider global conflict involving the superpowers, and it's all over resources and investments on a scale that ordinary people can barely comprehend. Russia, China and America/UK are slowly hardening their military and strategic positions around the world.

I don't know the reason why, it could be the beginning of the merging of the 4 big monetary unions into a global economy and central bank/government, it could be that each of them wants greater regional control of the planet, it could be that they are all working together toward a single goal, it could be that they are preparing to go up against each other.

Ordinary people do not want war, the only people who benefit are the super rich and the powerful. Russia rolled mini battlefield nukes into S Ossetia last night, and while the masses of the planet including you and me debate about what is really going on and who is at fault, people are getting slaughtered.

Maybe it's time we put our time and efforts into really trying to get people to talk about peace. Enough really is enough.

Thanks for your message




In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

Working with non-EU countries to confront global issues = World Government!

Everybody be scared! Everybody vote libertarian!


... honestly I thought maybe you were mocking the often hilarious posts people try to drive through where they see a 'new world order' in every politicians speech that mentions working with other countries.

(p.s. there already is a World Bank (worldbank.org), which interestingly has only had a string of American leaders, for no reason beyond tradition.)

(p.p.s. Iran has enriched uranium, they say only for nuclear energy, but if a bunch of different countries are worried I think its probably something to be worried about; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25809160/)

It's the may/may not that bothers me about this administration. They have an idea about what they want to do, and it's set in stone. Then, when they're trying to make up some bogus reason for invading a nation, it always ends up being a debatable reason. Saddam may or may hot have weapons that he may or may not use on us. al-Qaeda may or may not be in Iraq. They may or may not have went to Niger to buy uranium. Gays may or may not want to destroy marriage by demanding it for themselves. Democrats may or may not be Satan worshipping sodomites.

It never ends. (Especially with religious twits.)

>> ^NordlichReiter:
my family thinks its the end times.
They plead with me to believe in god. So the conservative religious types think its ok to treat non citizens like crap, just because they may or may not be enemy combatants. Now we are attacking a country that might may or may not have a Nuke that can or cannot damage targets by button fire?
This stuff here makes me cringe.

Don't breathe that stuff. Atomized uranium will make you cough. The sound of that gun, that howl or roar, I don't know how to describe it, really frightened me. I can't imagine what it would be like to oppose that weapon.

>> ^arsenault185:
>> ^dmac:
There are impacts before you hear the GAU firing...
Thats the supersonic muzzle velocity of those Du(spent uranium) rounds. If you can hear the bullets they weren't firing at you.

Ummm.... I've never seen / heard of a "gun" that does not fire supersonic rounds. All cartridge/bullet type rounds fire at super sonic speeds. So yeah.... So if your far enough, you'll see impact before you hear sound.
Although DU rounds are extremely fast and have a LOOOOOONG range, that thunderbolt could have been firing a .223 and you could get the same effect.


Any hunter knows there are plenty of subsonic munitions to be used for hunting with a muzzle velocity less then 300 meters a second, it avoids the loud cracking noise when you fire that scares your target away.

As for the gau-8, its Du only, and this time around they have dumped an order of magnitude more uranium in Iraq then the first run to Baghdad.

As for the .223 -
http://store.tacticaledgeproducts.com/223-127fasp20.html