Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree41Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 31st, 2018, 08:34 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
If you can prove that letter was from Nixon it should be worth thousands of dollars. How did you come to possess that letter?
I bought the letter at Heritage Auction and was open bid with no reserve. The letter has proof of authenticity. The letter is written on White House Embossed Stationary. I won the bid for eight hundred dollars.
Thanks from Athena and Hollywood
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 11:38 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 22,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
Patrick Henry speaks of revolution differently.


Now if we look at India and how the British ruled it and other colonies, I am sure we can agree the revolution was begun during the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason and the philosophical debates regarding the nature of man and government. It just took the discovery of new land to express the new hopes for humanity. We were not to be ruled as the countries of Europe ruled their own people, and certainly not as they ruled their colonies!

Also, Calvinism was a huge revolution that turned the values system of Christendom upside down. We went from thinking money was so evil, only the Jews would do banking, to thinking wealth was a blessing of God, and the social/economic order of England prevented individuals from realizing their economic potential. The new land meant unlimited freedom to realize one's economic potential, especially before the land on the east coast was all bought up. The opening up the west reopened that freedom.

I think we need to know about why people migrated to the new land. They came for different reasons and had different goals. From economic freedom to religious freedom, the new land gave people opportunities they could not have in any European country, including England.
Please note that my comments begin with, "ONE of the reasons..." and NOT "THE reason..." Thank you.
Hollywood is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 03:10 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
Yes & no. The US is on track to become a net energy exporter again (not since the 1950s), by 2026 (see United States could be an energy exporter by 2026, EIA suggests - Business Insider)

Our main concern internationally with oil/natgas is to shield Europe & our allies from undue political/economic pressure over fuel supplies (China mostly imports & consumes energy - the CIS gains influence/income from gaming the international fuel market).

I think we (the US, & probably the West) should leapfrog the entire fossil fuel industry, & put our emphasis on fusion power generation, or solar arrays in orbit - so that dependable power supplies are assured. We can also hope that the price of power will drop, but that may take a while.
Think about this:

What a dandy, high-value, soft target, orbiting solar arrays or the companion ground receiving stations would be.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 31st, 2018, 04:25 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hell
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Arguably the world's largest, most expensive military suits an empire far than it does a republic.

As you noted, when the military is this big, ya gotta find stuff for it to do.
Arguably in hardware and costs but not not in manpower. If we count the USAF, USN, US ARMY, and the US Marines all separately, we have the four largest air powers in the world. However, China is building rapidly, and Russia is rebuilding.

Today's modern conventional war requires a huge inventory either to overwhelm or to outlast a capable opponent in a contest of attrition. It's not like in WWII when we can just ramp up production tempo and knock out a plane in a few hours and a ship in a month. The darn war is going to be over before you can even hire and train an extra shift at the factory, let alone alone get new crews trained even if we manage to get the logistic train up to speed.

A huge military is important for deterrence. At the beginning of WWII, the US ranked 19th in the world in standing army size, right behind Portugal! Keep in mind, the air force was still a part of the army back then. We didn't learn our lesson from WWI. It took three years just to build and assemble the invasion force for Normandy and most people forget that we did not do it alone. Our army strength in the WWII European theater did not even surpass Britain's until Germany was practically defeated. If not for the Soviets trading land and blood for time, most of Europe today may be speaking German and be a part of Grossdeutschland.

Last edited by Marcus Livius; March 31st, 2018 at 05:27 PM.
Marcus Livius is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 04:40 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Livius View Post
Arguably in hardware and costs but not not in manpower. If we count the USAF, USN, US ARMY, and the US Marines all separately, we have the four largest air powers in the world. However, China is building rapidly, and Russia is rebuilding.

Today's modern conventional war requires a huge inventory either to overwhelm or to outlast a capable opponent in a contest of attrition. It's not like in WWII when we can just ramp up production tempo and knock out a plane in a few hours and a ship in a month. The darn war is going to be over before you can even hire and train an extra shift at the factory, let alone alone get new crews trained even if we manage to get the logistic train up to speed.

A huge military is important for deterrence. At the beginning of WWII, the US ranked 19th in the world in standing army size, right behind Portugal! Keep in mind, the air force was still a part of the army back then. We didn't learn our lesson from WWI. It took three years just to build and assemble the invasion force for Normandy and most people forget that we did not do it alone. Our army strength in the WWII European theater did not even surpass Britain's until Germany was practically defeated. If not for the Soviets trading land and blood for time, most of Europe today may be speaking German and be a part of Gross Deutschland.
These ideas were heresy to our Founders.
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. --- James Madison
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 31st, 2018, 04:46 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,751
More, on standing armies:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? --- Patrick Henry
Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? Indeed.
Thanks from RNG and Lyzza
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 31st, 2018, 05:46 PM   #27
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
More, on standing armies:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? --- Patrick Henry

Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? Indeed.
That is why it was made unconstitutional for federal government to use the US Military against US Citizens.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 06:13 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hell
Posts: 620
@imaginethat,

Nice quotes. Patrick Henry and James Madison had a thing for flowery speech, but they lived in a different time. A standing army was of little use in those days unless you plan to conquer and occupy land, and remain at constant war such as the British and Napoleonic empires.

The common people such as the patriots that fought for US independence and the Redcoats were more or less on par in technology and firepower. Our War of Independence kicked off when they came for our muskets and cannons - things that were easily manufactured back then as long as you had access to the materials and fire.

That simply is not the case in this modern day and age. We can make black powder and smelt musket balls within minutes to counter Redcoats with muskets, but there are no longer Redcoats with muskets. It won't be Paul Revere riding with one or two lanterns. It simply will not matter if our military do not have the means to stop them decisively and immediately. Our armed citizenry will give them hell, but war cannot be taken to the enemy to achieve victory without a sizable margin of superiority. Going offensive takes a lot of strength in materials, and with personnel and logistics already in place.

The entire offensive capability of NATO and NORAD is basically built on the shoulders of the US.

Last edited by Marcus Livius; March 31st, 2018 at 11:33 PM.
Marcus Livius is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 06:21 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,770
Hail Atlantis!

Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Think about this:

What a dandy, high-value, soft target, orbiting solar arrays or the companion ground receiving stations would be.
It depends on how high the orbit(s), & how the power is being beamed down. If it's by maser, then the array has built-in defenses. Some organic tracking & relatively simple pointing & converging fire programming, & that array could stand off a lot of missiles.

The ground stations are softer targets, as they might be vulnerable to shells & missiles & bombs. But again, if you have an orbiting maser array with a lot of the sun's power/square foot energy delivery behind it, & an agile pointing/tracking system, even arty rounds could be fried mid-flight.
hoosier88 is offline  
Old March 31st, 2018, 06:40 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,770
You are my sunshine

Power to drive an orbital solar power array defense:

"Potential[edit]

"The SBSP concept is attractive because space has several major advantages over the Earth's surface for the collection of solar power:
o It is always solar noon in space and full sun.
o Collecting surfaces could receive much more intense sunlight, owing to the lack of obstructions such as atmospheric gasses, clouds, dust and other weather events. Consequently, the intensity in orbit is approximately 144% of the maximum attainable intensity on Earth's surface.[citation needed]
o A satellite could be illuminated over 99% of the time, and be in Earth's shadow a maximum of only 72 minutes per night at the spring and fall equinoxes at local midnight.[37] Orbiting satellites can be exposed to a consistently high degree of solar radiation, generally for 24 hours per day, whereas earth surface solar panels currently collect power for an average of 29% of the day.[38]
o Power could be relatively quickly redirected directly to areas that need it most. A collecting satellite could possibly direct power on demand to different surface locations based on geographical baseload or peak load power needs. Typical contracts would be for baseload, continuous power, since peaking power is ephemeral.[citation needed]
o Elimination of plant and wildlife interference.
o With very large scale implementations, especially at lower altitudes, it potentially can reduce incoming solar radiation reaching earth's surface. This would be desirable for counteracting the effects of global warming."

(My emphasis - more detail @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)

These ideas have been kicking around since @ least the 1970s. I believe we're currently waiting for the materials science to catch up with requirements. The current estimate I've seen is that orbital solar may be cost-effective in 25 years.
hoosier88 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
discussing, wwi, wwii



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WWII survivor warnings Sabcat Political Ideologies 0 June 21st, 2017 09:43 PM
Return of the WWII warbird era coke Science and Technology 0 April 25th, 2016 05:13 PM
What the race baiting has stopped us from discussing coke Current Events 0 December 5th, 2014 10:43 AM
Feds Use Insane Intimidation Tactics To Keep Soldiers From Seeing, Discussing Wikileaks rumpelstiltskin Warfare 1 December 9th, 2010 04:03 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.