bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 If Canada blocked oil export to the US you'd see them buckle. Canada is not disempowered to destroy the US if it chooses. Canada could not develop the resource without American investment.....and risk. US power grids would shutter, potentially even causing mass rioting and industrial collapse leading to economic decline as exports dwindled. If Canada so choosed the US would be doomed without firing a single bullet. LOL! Save your bullets for Quebec and other separatists wishing to be the "51st state". You'd be eating up your stragetic reserves. Oh but would the US attack little old Canada just because of economic policies and national security. Wouldn't be the first time. Canada is America's closest and oldest....ENEMY! The US has around 30 days of oil in strategic reserve It gets about 1/3rd of its oil from Canada. Wrong on both counts...the US produces far more oil than Canada...always has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Glad you "winked" or I might have been offended by that... It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What makes you think he/she is American? OK...but Canada needs the USA more!!!!!! btw - I think you're right, after all, isn't the customer always right? Thank for your patronage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Sorry, last time I checked Seattle was in the States, since I'm a "newbie" here no foul intended, you still had a good post, and what I stated applies regardless... Yeah I am just finishing my PhD here in aerospace engineering and advanced space propulsion systems. We don't have much of that in Canada, hence why I'm in Seattle. No worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 btw - I think you're right, after all, isn't the customer always right? Thank for your patronage... Kidding aside, this remains at the root of much Canadian dissonance. "Damn, I hate those (American) bastards" doesn't win the day when 85% of Canadian exports go to the US. No wonder there is such resentment ( as discussed in other threads). For this thread, they can just hate the US for developing the F-35 strike aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Yeah I am just finishing my PhD here in aerospace engineering and advanced space propulsion systems. We don't have much of that in Canada, hence why I'm in Seattle. No worries. ...then you can help build the manned Mars lander....just like the LEM team 45 years ago at NASA....after fleeing Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 ...then you can help build the manned Mars lander....just like the LEM team 45 years ago at NASA....after fleeing Canada! Yeah quite possibly if I can find a related job without a freaking security clearance requirement which limits it to US citizens. There are a few, but they are few and far between. I am already working on a robotic lunar lander though, for the Google lunar X-prize Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Canada could not develop the resource without American investment.....and risk. Well, actually we could, albeit with great expense to our economy to start building new refineries... For our own use though no problem... LOL! Save your bullets for Quebec and other separatists wishing to be the "51st state". Please, please, tell Quebec that and end their "seperation" tendencies once and for all... Wouldn't be the first time. Canada is America's closest and oldest....ENEMY! Yup, not the first time, we Canuks with a little help from the Brits kicked you ass the last time as I remember... Ahhh yes, that old love/hate relationship never ends, eh... Wrong on both counts...the US produces far more oil than Canada...always has. Actually you are both wrong and right... You do produce a little more oil than Canada when you include the supply from Alaska, but that oil happens to get to you through Canada, soooo. taps it is... We also have more reserves of oil AND gas than you do... Canada IS your largest non-domestic oil supplier, and certainly the most stable oil supplier outside the US with Mexico running a close second... It's too bad you guys south of us are such gluttons for oil that the 3 North American "suppliers" of your oil needs aren't enough... It'd sure make things a whole lot simpler in the world if it were... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) ... It's too bad you guys south of us are such gluttons for oil that the 3 North American "suppliers" of your oil needs aren't enough... It'd sure make things a whole lot simpler in the world if it were... Well, some of that oil goes right back to Canada because it lacks refining and west-east pipeline transport. Hell, Canada imports about 900,000 bpd. But to your point, and assuming that Alberta will let you covet its oil when in fact it is a provincial resource, what's gonna happen if the tree huggers and climate change alarmists get their wish? Remember old Canada... before all that foreign investment? Top World Oil Producers, 2008 (thousand barrels per day) Rank Country........ Production Saudi Arabia 10,782 Russia 9,790 United States 8,514 Iran 4,174 China 3,973 Canada 3,350 Mexico 3,186 United Arab Emirates 3,046 Kuwait 2,741 Venezuela 2,643 Edited January 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Well, some of that oil goes right back to Canada because it lacks refining and west-east pipeline transport. Hell, Canada imports about 900,000 bpd. But to your point, and assuming that Alberta will let you covet its oil when in fact it is a provincial resource, what's gonna happen if the tree huggers and climate change alarmists get their wish? Remember old Canada... before all that foreign investment? Top World Oil Producers, 2008 (thousand barrels per day) Rank Country........ Production Saudi Arabia 10,782 Russia 9,790 United States 8,514 Iran 4,174 China 3,973 Canada 3,350 Mexico 3,186 United Arab Emirates 3,046 Kuwait 2,741 Venezuela 2,643 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/10/us-markets-oil-idUSTRE6810XU20100910 This is from the closure of just one pipeline.. a price spike of 3% how many lines does Canada have going to the US? Even american's support this http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2010/10/canada-us_pipeline_on_hold_ami.html It seems there are about 8 pipelines.. would that equate a 24% rise in crude oil prices in the US without Canadian supply? So is that from $85 to about $110 dollars a barrel. Sure this isn't the end of the world for the US, but I'm geussing Canada could find other buyers. Sure the UAE might give the US a discount but this probably would still raise the price of US oil by about 15$/barrel. How would sanctions against the US by Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other major nations stopping oil export to the US and watch them squirm. Maybe that is the stop gap needed to pacify the war criminal USA. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-peak-oil-catastrophe-in-Waiting1/ I can only suggest you get off your highhorse and realize the US is dependent on Canada and mexico - not the other way around. The US is the one with the gun to its head. Canada can sell elsewhere. It doesn't need the US. Meanwhile fractured US industry is dependent, the multi trillion dollar US economy would be shattered by oil sanctions. Prices would sky rocket, and the easy life americans have enjoyed at the cost of the freedoms and profits of other states being dimisinished would be at an end. Get a clue, we give you a good life, and then you spit on us. If you are representative of America hopefully that day is coming. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well, some of that oil goes right back to Canada because it lacks refining and west-east pipeline transport. Hell, Canada imports about 900,000 bpd. But to your point, and assuming that Alberta will let you covet its oil when in fact it is a provincial resource, what's gonna happen if the tree huggers and climate change alarmists get their wish? Remember old Canada... before all that foreign investment? Top World Oil Producers, 2008 (thousand barrels per day) Rank Country........ Production Saudi Arabia 10,782 Russia 9,790 United States 8,514 Iran 4,174 China 3,973 Canada 3,350 Mexico 3,186 United Arab Emirates 3,046 Kuwait 2,741 Venezuela 2,643 No argument, pretty much what I said... Yup, I remember... I miss it... Do you remember America before Japan, and to a lesser extent Canada and a lot of other nations, started buy up the USofA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 The Avro Arrow and "Dief the Chief" scrapping, not just cancelling but scrapping, the Arrow project in favour of the useless Bomarck missiles because, as he was told by his puppet masters the Americans, "this type of aircraft is obsolete and it's missiles that are the future, we'll GIVE you all the missiles and technology surrounding them you'll need" is even today one of the worst decisions ever made by a Canadian Prime minister... We wouldn't be buying Aircraft today, we be selling them, had this fiasco never occured... No Conservative vote ever from me just because of that... No conservative vote? Hey, I felt the same as you but times change and parties do as well. Dief has been dead and in the ground for a long time now! So has Trudeau, for that matter. Parties change over the years. They have no fixed ideology or values. They all just keep jockeying for position in the mythical centre of the road. If you would still vote Liberal after AdScam because of a bad decision half a century ago I think you are cutting off your proverbial nose... Agreed in principle, however the rate of current technology changes is mind blowing... Even 10 years ago an unmanned Predator Drone bombing a target within measurements of a few feet or yards was the stuff of science fiction, now it's proven reality and used without a second thought in both Afghanistan and Pakistan... As I indicated above, yes, I do think we are at that level of technology and capability... The massive canadarm on the ISS can hold a small wrench and tighten a nut while it's also able to gently manipulate a huge and delicate solar array without damaging the most sensitive instruments and materials imaginable... Remember, we're talking 50 years of changes where today a civilian blackberry or I-pad has superior capabailities to a '60s DOD super computer taking up hundreds of feet of floor space... Another thing is that by eliminating human suport systems, as you alude to, you might be talking 3 or more unmanned fighters engaging that F-35 rather than one... That changes the odds considerably in favor of the superior numbers... Operating a wrench is only one kind of task when you have all the time in the world to torque it. Flying a supersonic plane in combat is quite another! Here I have to disagree with you... I think the technology exists today and in all likelihood is well into it's testing stage, so I'm thinking more like 10 years to production and application rather than 40-50 years as you state... That's within the projected life span of the CF-18s perhaps augmented by some new Super Hornets to replace the oldest, first order, of our planes... I even think right now it's the economics and political will to "change over" to unmanned equipment for land, sea AND air, rather than technology issues that's keeping the new available unmanned fighting machines under wraps... Except of course when/if needed, ie - hundreds of ARMED, assault, Predetor Drone aircraft, unheard of at the beginning of the Afghan and Iraq wars, heck, even the unmanned observation drones were a totally NEW concept for in theater use, so you have to admit that the speed of change and developement in this area of operations is more rapid than anything we've seen since the developments in technology during WWII, and even those pale in comparison to todays rate of changes in technology... New technology, like computer systems etc. rolls out in weeks and months now rather than years... China is in the space race, whodda thunk it, eh... As far as I know, CF-18s will never be stealth capable. However, they can do some things that F-35s can't, like land on a carrier. 'Course, Canada has no carriers... Still, I suspect that we are evolving to a point where a modern military is going to need ALL these types of machines! Financial bureaucrats don't like to accept this but invariably any tool that is described as a "universal fits all" does everything all right, only everything is lame-ass compared to a specific tool! Esq had a very good point. What happens to your swarms of unmanned drones when they run smack into a nuclear EMP pulse? For that matter, even with hardened electronics that can take this, how well will radio operate through nuclear explosions? Seems to me your going to have unmanned drones flying with no control all over the place! As Esq said, we may have to wait until we have developed quantum communications that would be immune to interference or hijacking. That field is progressing rapidly but we are not likely to have a working solution by next weekend. I'm still wondering what ever happened to the suggestions of scifi writers like Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, who dreamed up ideas way back in the 80's for new weaponry. Like dropping "crowbars" from orbit having just enough electronics to waggle some ailerons for steering and lock onto a tank for a target. The kinetic energy of a 5kg "crowbar" dropped from orbit would obliterate any tank it hit! A swarm of them could demolish an entire battlefield. Cheap, too! Who needs bombs and bomber airplanes to take out manufacturing or military sites? Just drop a bucket of gravel from that same Earth orbit. Not at all hard to aim - we've been doing that sort of simple ballistics since the days of cannon, maybe even catapults! Want to take out an enemy's observation satellites? Fire a shotgun shell in a retrograde orbit. By the time it has circled around the back way you have a fair size cloud of pellets that will shred any satellite to pieces. Is anyone thinking what would happen if China built a manned base on the moon, along with a mass driver to hurl rocks back at its enemies? How could we defend against it? Form a committee to decide if its a federal or a provincial matter? Those writers came up with a whole pile of such ideas! All quite workable and relatively cheap. They all depended on having hardware in space, to take advantage of the gravity well. It seems very strange that no country has developed that capability, or at least is not talking about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 No argument, pretty much what I said... Yup, I remember... I miss it... Do you remember America before Japan, and to a lesser extent Canada and a lot of other nations, started buy up the USofA? Of course....I am an old fart. Kids today don't believe me when I tell them that the Esso stations would give out free dinnerware for a full tank of gas. It's all good...economic activity is more important than who is the actual owner. Like Canada, America comes from all over the world...times ten! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/10/us-markets-oil-idUSTRE6810XU20100910 This is from the closure of just one pipeline.. a price spike of 3% how many lines does Canada have going to the US? Even american's support this http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2010/10/canada-us_pipeline_on_hold_ami.html It seems there are about 8 pipelines.. would that equate a 24% rise in crude oil prices in the US without Canadian supply? So is that from $85 to about $110 dollars a barrel. Sure this isn't the end of the world for the US, but I'm geussing Canada could find other buyers. Sure the UAE might give the US a discount but this probably would still raise the price of US oil by about 15$/barrel. How would sanctions against the US by Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other major nations stopping oil export to the US and watch them squirm. Maybe that is the stop gap needed to pacify the war criminal USA. Esq, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Canada has such limited refining capacity of its own that any attempt to pressure the US would automatically hike prices of gasoline sky high here in Canada! Are you truly confident that any Canadian ruling party would cheerfully commit electoral suicide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Esq, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Canada has such limited refining capacity of its own that any attempt to pressure the US would automatically hike prices of gasoline sky high here in Canada! Are you truly confident that any Canadian ruling party would cheerfully commit electoral suicide? A major development goal is to build microrefinery capacity across Canada. It needs to, even US capacity is diminished, and refineries are where the money is at. Canada really is loosing a lot of money in not finishing their own product. It is actually a national security requirement for Canada to have its own refinery capacity at a larger level than is currently provided for. Don't the Newfies already have pipes? About 5 billion should be put into developing microrefineries. (it would actually make the government money) And keep more petrol profits in Canada. - and position Canada to lower gasoline prices over the mid term - much like Mexico's PEMEX. In my place of residence - gasoline is currently 130.05 a litre. (the average in ontario is about 110 a litre That is outrageous. By locating a microrefinery within 100km of lesser populated areas of canada remote gas prices could be drastically reduced. Regardless of how ANTI-US this all sounds, the net effect would be positive for both Canada and the US. Even though it would cause the US to internalize its energy needs more and implement more alternative energy usages to free up their own petrol supply to fixed needs. It would also force Canada to become secure and create a national security mechanism for self sufficiency without US support. The End result win win. Fact is Canada has excess electric and oil supply it could turn into finished products, but its not, and it's loosing money to US business as a result. How about a pipeline to Europe instead of the Gulf? That pipeline from the north why not move it up through greenland to ice land to the UK? It may seem like a lot but the differnce between 1220 km and 3000km for access to Europes markets ain't extreme. if canada got it to the UK it could go anywhere in europe asia or africa with connecting pipelines already in place. Canada to Greenland to iceland faroeh/shetland to uk and scandinavia.. it is dooable. It would also bridge arctic oil development that greenland Canada, Iceland and scandinavia all have instore. If each put in a little for it Uk, the nordic countries, iceland?, greenland.. it would be feasable.. and much beter than arguing with the US for an old market. For oil they don't need. check this out http://wilco278.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/icelandic-oil/ http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/greenland_drillers_strike_oil.html And as Bush Cheney says - Canada needs an East West line... why not via the arctic then bring down spurs where the gas pipeline is. You could either go off baffin, or labrador. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 A major development goal is to build microrefinery capacity across Canada. Somehow, I don't think it would happen. You see, the "powers that be" LIKE the status quo! Consider that first of all, our governments have put such onerous "green" restrictions on refineries that no private company wants anything to do with them, because of the increased cost and red tape. Second, having refinery capacity as a bottleneck tends to hold prices up even when the price of crude drops. Also, the slightest excuse of "some pothole in the parking lot" forming in a refinery can always be used as an excuse to hike prices at the pumps. While you may be quite correct that micro-refineries would be great for Canada's people it would mean possible surpluses and price wars among the relatively few oil companies that play in our market. Why should they bother? They don't have to spend a dime of capital, the price stays high and they never have any surplus inventory! The same trick was pulled a few years ago in California with the electrical producers. No one built any new generating capacity, avoiding all the increased costs for new "green" rules. When power got short, the price went sky high! Companies made fortunes by investing nothing! This is what can happen when you don't have open, free markets. As soon as governments start putting in artificial factors it's a lead pipe cinch that some "suits" will find a way to exploit things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Of course....I am an old fart. Kids today don't believe me when I tell them that the Esso stations would give out free dinnerware for a full tank of gas. It's all good...economic activity is more important than who is the actual owner. Like Canada, America comes from all over the world...times ten! There you go... Just a couple of us "old farts" stinking up this forum, eh... Gotta love it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 No conservative vote? Hey, I felt the same as you but times change and parties do as well. Dief has been dead and in the ground for a long time now! So has Trudeau, for that matter. Parties change over the years. They have no fixed ideology or values. They all just keep jockeying for position in the mythical centre of the road. If you would still vote Liberal after AdScam because of a bad decision half a century ago I think you are cutting off your proverbial nose... The thing is a couple of Mil that was misspent to keep our country unified really doesn't bother me a whole lot looking at the "big picture" of government waste... Bottom line on that was that we're still one country, so it worked... As for my nose, although disjointed, was "coming around", but then Moroney happened and sold Canada out to his shamrock buddy Reagan, much like Dief did actually, with a one way trade agreement that lets the US tell us what Canada sells it's gas and oil for, and a whole lot more that strictly favours the US, not to mention the GST, airbus, etc., etc., so you can figure out the rest on my thoughts about those free spending so called "Conservatives"... And now along comes Harper, completing the "Con tri-fecta", the most "free spending" of the 3, with his wasteful spending of 2 years of record surpluses AND the "rainy day fund" Martin and the Liberals had built up, cutting taxes including 2% off the GST (which I hate but Canada came to depend on because it was part of Canada's balanced budgets and surpluses strategy to pay down the national debt and prepare for exactly what happened when the recession hit, which I really liked), then BANG - $64 Billion deficit, Billion Dollar G8/G20 (it cost S. Korea less than 100 Mil. the following year), and the subject of this thread, untendered, another "sell out" that Canada can't afford right now, not to mention the most secretive and corrupt Canadian Gov. of my lifetime... Get the picture of why I feel the way I do about the Cons.? Operating a wrench is only one kind of task when you have all the time in the world to torque it. Flying a supersonic plane in combat is quite another! Not really, what's needed is "touch" and a HUMAN "pilot" to control it and make the decisions... They've got that... My friend, you wouldn't stand a chance, even against some young-uns I know, they'd blow the best manned aircraft out of the sky before the pilot knew what hit him/her... Have you heard about the ELECTRIC car? How about an ELECTRIC hypersonic strikefighter? No noise, no heat signature, no cieling, virtually invisible... Not only very possible, but probably on someones drawing board, I hope it's a "friendly"... As far as I know, CF-18s will never be stealth capable. However, they can do some things that F-35s can't, like land on a carrier. 'Course, Canada has no carriers... Why does Canada need stealth? Who we gonna attack that can compete with an "older" CF-18 with a good pilot, nevermind any of a dozen or so more modern fighters? Iran, Korea, Somalia? Still, I suspect that we are evolving to a point where a modern military is going to need ALL these types of machines! Financial bureaucrats don't like to accept this but invariably any tool that is described as a "universal fits all" does everything all right, only everything is lame-ass compared to a specific tool! I'm not a handy-man, just the guy that sends handy-men out to do the job and do it right, with my vote... They have to supply their own tools, that way I don't have to spend money on tools I'd never use... Esq had a very good point. What happens to your swarms of unmanned drones when they run smack into a nuclear EMP pulse? For that matter, even with hardened electronics that can take this, how well will radio operate through nuclear explosions? Seems to me your going to have unmanned drones flying with no control all over the place! As Esq said, we may have to wait until we have developed quantum communications that would be immune to interference or hijacking. That field is progressing rapidly but we are not likely to have a working solution by next weekend. I'm still wondering what ever happened to the suggestions of scifi writers like Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, who dreamed up ideas way back in the 80's for new weaponry. Like dropping "crowbars" from orbit having just enough electronics to waggle some ailerons for steering and lock onto a tank for a target. The kinetic energy of a 5kg "crowbar" dropped from orbit would obliterate any tank it hit! A swarm of them could demolish an entire battlefield. Cheap, too! Who needs bombs and bomber airplanes to take out manufacturing or military sites? Just drop a bucket of gravel from that same Earth orbit. Not at all hard to aim - we've been doing that sort of simple ballistics since the days of cannon, maybe even catapults! Want to take out an enemy's observation satellites? Fire a shotgun shell in a retrograde orbit. By the time it has circled around the back way you have a fair size cloud of pellets that will shred any satellite to pieces. Is anyone thinking what would happen if China built a manned base on the moon, along with a mass driver to hurl rocks back at its enemies? How could we defend against it? Form a committee to decide if its a federal or a provincial matter? Those writers came up with a whole pile of such ideas! All quite workable and relatively cheap. They all depended on having hardware in space, to take advantage of the gravity well. It seems very strange that no country has developed that capability, or at least is not talking about it! Sorry, Wild Bill, you lost me here... I'm stricly a realist... I won't go into why trying to drop things from space is idiotic and scientifically impossible... EMPs and Nukes? Lets keep it real... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) Somehow, I don't think it would happen. You see, the "powers that be" LIKE the status quo! Consider that first of all, our governments have put such onerous "green" restrictions on refineries that no private company wants anything to do with them, because of the increased cost and red tape. I could care less about your so called powers that be. They havn't got it right yet anyway. Also there are environmental refinery means. Second, having refinery capacity as a bottleneck tends to hold prices up even when the price of crude drops. Also, the slightest excuse of "some pothole in the parking lot" forming in a refinery can always be used as an excuse to hike prices at the pumps. Government run refineries run via a public (with options for minority stock ownership for dividends on capital investment into each refinery) would have no incentive to jack prices, when all that is being done is providing the goods, not working for a profit. It means that overhead profit is reduced. And people still get their investment back and long term returns. People get cheaper gas, win win for Canadians. Companies could do this also but if they are selling out Canadians for conglomerate status shame on them. While you may be quite correct that micro-refineries would be great for Canada's people it would mean possible surpluses and price wars among the relatively few oil companies that play in our market. Why should they bother? They don't have to spend a dime of capital, the price stays high and they never have any surplus inventory! This is not in the public interest. I'm all for strong industry in Canada; however, they could still sell their oil. If they can't produce gas for as much, then it means they arn't as efficent nor as competitive, and best practice wins out. We want competition not monopolization. The same trick was pulled a few years ago in California with the electrical producers. No one built any new generating capacity, avoiding all the increased costs for new "green" rules. When power got short, the price went sky high! Companies made fortunes by investing nothing!This is what can happen when you don't have open, free markets. As soon as governments start putting in artificial factors it's a lead pipe cinch that some "suits" will find a way to exploit things. Its about the public interest, that includes the business environment but it doesn't include price jacking. Canadians don't want higher prices than they could get. -------- So do it, right. It is better as a public service, when private companies get involved the gearing can change. The government has the ability to safegaurd public interest. So yes, perhaps it will end up being the social party going into the microrefinery business if enough time elapses, I don't see it happening tomorrow but it is on the blocks. It really IS an issue of national security for Canada to have secure strategic materials. An integrated national security framework doesn't work when your partner can't be trusted or dependended on, and that is what Canada faces with the US. ---------- You don't get more money for Canadians by giving it to Americans. Take for instance http://www.companylisting.ca/Soquip_nergie_Inc/default.aspx Edited January 29, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Sorry, Wild Bill, you lost me here... I'm stricly a realist... I won't go into why trying to drop things from space is idiotic and scientifically impossible... EMPs and Nukes? Lets keep it real... I'm a realist too, GWiz! NONE of my examples are scientifically impossible! They were ALL thought out by guys who were not just sci-fi writers but actual physicists! Writing was just a sideline. Some of them actually worked for NASA. They were practical ideas using technology we've had for nearly 30 years. EMPs in particular have already been tested and proven. When you have a nuclear explosion you generate an Electromagnetic Pulse that fries pretty well all solid-state electronics. Set your missile to go off about a mile or two above a typical city and virtually anything with a transistor, integrated circuit or computer chip is promptly toast. That's just cold hard fact, man. Just because you haven't gotten out much to hear about it doesn't mean it's not true! All those unmanned aircraft, with fried electronic systems, jetting crazily across the sky in all directions until they crash into the ground, God knows where and hitting God knows what! The military now uses special "hardened" solid state devices that are immune to the effect but that won't help everything in commercial or personal use. The actual nuclear explosion also plays hell with radio waves. It's a crap shoot if your drones could even hear the remote pilot's control signals anyway! I'm a tech by trade, GWiz! If I had a nickel for every blue sky idea someone comes up with that just won't work in the real world I'd be rich as hell. Everything depends on the details and it's always easy to come up with an idea when you know nothing about those details. However, SOMEBODY better look after those details or things just don't work! Not only do you sound like a horse and buggy man who doesn't think cars will catch on, you sound like one who lives in a small town and doesn't realize people have been driving them for 20 years! Meanwhile, you're touting off a "personal jet pack" idea with your unmanned drones replacing manned combat aircraft while cheerfully ignoring all those important details! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I'm a realist too, GWiz! NONE of my examples are scientifically impossible! They were ALL thought out by guys who were not just sci-fi writers but actual physicists! Writing was just a sideline. Some of them actually worked for NASA. They were practical ideas using technology we've had for nearly 30 years. You posted: --- Like dropping "crowbars" from orbit having just enough electronics to waggle some ailerons for steering and lock onto a tank for a target. The kinetic energy of a 5kg "crowbar" dropped from orbit would obliterate any tank it hit! A swarm of them could demolish an entire battlefield. Cheap, too! Who needs bombs and bomber airplanes to take out manufacturing or military sites? Just drop a bucket of gravel from that same Earth orbit. Not at all hard to aim - we've been doing that sort of simple ballistics since the days of cannon, maybe even catapults! Want to take out an enemy's observation satellites? Fire a shotgun shell in a retrograde orbit. By the time it has circled around the back way you have a fair size cloud of pellets that will shred any satellite to pieces. Is anyone thinking what would happen if China built a manned base on the moon, along with a mass driver to hurl rocks back at its enemies? How could we defend against it? Form a committee to decide if its a federal or a provincial matter? Those writers came up with a whole pile of such ideas! All quite workable and relatively cheap. They all depended on having hardware in space, to take advantage of the gravity well. It seems very strange that no country has developed that capability, or at least is not talking about it! --- Sorry Bill, still don't "buy" it... You may want to watch what happened to a Space Shuttle a few years back that was DESIGNED to reenter earths atmosphere because a tile came off... A sad day that was and it makes my point better than anything else regarding your "scifi" scenarios... EMPs in particular have already been tested and proven. When you have a nuclear explosion you generate an Electromagnetic Pulse that fries pretty well all solid-state electronics. Set your missile to go off about a mile or two above a typical city and virtually anything with a transistor, integrated circuit or computer chip is promptly toast. That's just cold hard fact, man. Just because you haven't gotten out much to hear about it doesn't mean it's not true! All those unmanned aircraft, with fried electronic systems, jetting crazily across the sky in all directions until they crash into the ground, God knows where and hitting God knows what! The military now uses special "hardened" solid state devices that are immune to the effect but that won't help everything in commercial or personal use. The actual nuclear explosion also plays hell with radio waves. It's a crap shoot if your drones could even hear the remote pilot's control signals anyway! Come on Bill, you're better than this... Is that a Jack Danials bottle I see you holding? If a NUKE went off who'd care? AND exactly how would manned F-35s with fried fly-by-wire and avionics be better? I'm a tech by trade, GWiz! If I had a nickel for every blue sky idea someone comes up with that just won't work in the real world I'd be rich as hell. Everything depends on the details and it's always easy to come up with an idea when you know nothing about those details. However, SOMEBODY better look after those details or things just don't work! Not only do you sound like a horse and buggy man who doesn't think cars will catch on, you sound like one who lives in a small town and doesn't realize people have been driving them for 20 years! Meanwhile, you're touting off a "personal jet pack" idea with your unmanned drones replacing manned combat aircraft while cheerfully ignoring all those important details! Well, my friend, I'm no "tech", far from it... I never had a "horse and buggy"... My first car was a '57 chevy BelAir two door hard top that I bought with my own money when I was 16... I did however buy my son a Radio Shack TRS 80 COMPUTER to learn "basic" on instead of a Compact 64 gamer like other kids had... He's now the "tech" in my family after graduating from DeVry Institute of Technology with a Computer Engineering degree and earning good money because of that decision I made back in 1980 when he was 10... I'm also a past Menzies member with a tested IQ of 148 and high score of 162 in critical thinking, so I don't think I qualify for the slot you'd like to put me in... Incidently, those "personal jet packs" have been around for quite a while now, just ask Sean Connery (as the original 007) about them... "Not only do you sound like a horse and buggy man who doesn't think cars will catch on, you sound like one who lives in a small town and doesn't realize people have been driving them for 20 years!" What do YOU see in your mirror Bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Sorry Bill, still don't "buy" it... You may want to watch what happened to a Space Shuttle a few years back that was DESIGNED to reenter earths atmosphere because a tile came off... A sad day that was and it makes my point better than anything else regarding your "scifi" scenarios... You're comparing a piece of titanium in the shape of a crowbar, falling 100 miles through the atmosphere POINT FIRST to the space shuttle. Isn't that like equating a tin needle to a granite brick? Come on Bill, you're better than this... Is that a Jack Danials bottle I see you holding? If a NUKE went off who'd care? AND exactly how would manned F-35s with fried fly-by-wire and avionics be better? You don't need a nuke big enough to fry an entire state! A mini-nuke will do nicely. We've had tactical nukes small enough to be used in artillery stationed along the border between the Koreas for decades now. Well, my friend, I'm no "tech", far from it... I never had a "horse and buggy"... My first car was a '57 chevy BelAir two door hard top that I bought with my own money when I was 16... I did however buy my son a Radio Shack TRS 80 COMPUTER to learn "basic" on instead of a Compact 64 gamer like other kids had... He's now the "tech" in my family after graduating from DeVry Institute of Technology with a Computer Engineering degree and earning good money because of that decision I made back in 1980 when he was 10... I'm also a past Menzies member with a tested IQ of 148 and high score of 162 in critical thinking, so I don't think I qualify for the slot you'd like to put me in... Incidently, those "personal jet packs" have been around for quite a while now, just ask Sean Connery (as the original 007) about them... So I'm to believe your rebuttal NOT because you make good points with physics or even evidence OF WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN INVENTED but rather because "you're smart and your son is not only smarter but rich"! What do YOU see in your mirror Bill? Well, rules of debate demand that you answer my question, not ignore it with a Peewee Herman style "I know you are but what am I?" response. However, I'll answer. I see an old guy who has read up on science and technology for a LONG time, considering I was reading before I went to school. I would NEVER claim to know it ALL but I do know better than to try to deny something that has been invented and tested just because my son hadn't explained it to me yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I just want to point that crowbar would reach a terminal velocity and probably would not be falling fast enough to "obliterate any tank it hit". We would have to know the numbers on the crowbar but I do not think you are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I just want to point that crowbar would reach a terminal velocity and probably would not be falling fast enough to "obliterate any tank it hit". We would have to know the numbers on the crowbar but I do not think you are right. This stuff is so old I'm surprised to find people who've never heard of it but here goes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment "Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from Earth orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.[1][2] The most described system is "an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance". The weapon can be down-scaled, an orbiting "crowbar" rather than a pole.[citation needed] The system described in the 2003 United States Air Force (USAF) report was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods, that are satellite controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10, and strike 25-foot accuracy.[3][4][5] The time between deorbiting and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a world-wide range.[citation needed] There is no requirement to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons. The system is not prohibited by either the Outer Space Treaty nor the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[4][6] The idea is that the weapon would inflict damage because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 9 kilometers per second. Smaller weapons can deliver measured amounts of energy as small as a 225 kg conventional bomb.[citation needed] Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb.[5] These designs are envisioned as the ultimate bunker busters.[4][7] The highly elongated shape and high density are to enhance sectional density and therefore minimize kinetic energy loss due to air friction and maximize penetration of hard or buried targets. The larger device is expected to be quite good at penetrating deeply buried bunkers and other command and control targets. The smaller "crowbar" size might be employed for anti-armor, anti-aircraft, anti-satellite and possibly anti-personnel use.[citation needed] The weapon would be very hard to defend against. It has a very high closing velocity and a small radar cross-section. Launch is difficult to detect. Any infra-red launch signature occurs in orbit, at no fixed position. The infra-red launch signature also has a small magnitude compared to a ballistic missile launch. One drawback of the system is that the weapon's sensors would almost certainly be blind during atmospheric reentry due to the plasma sheath that would develop ahead of it, so a mobile target could be difficult to hit if it performed any unexpected maneuvering.[citation needed] The system would also have to cope with atmospheric heating from re-entry, which could melt the weapon.[8] While the larger version might be individually launched, the smaller versions would be launched from "pods" or "carriers" that contained several missiles.[citation needed] The phrase "Rods from God" is also used to describe the same concept.[9] A USAF report called them "hypervelocity rod bundles".[10]" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 You're comparing a piece of titanium in the shape of a crowbar, falling 100 miles through the atmosphere POINT FIRST to the space shuttle. Isn't that like equating a tin needle to a granite brick? What happened to the "dropping"? What happened to the avionics on that crowbar? When did it become Titanium? What happened to the complex targetting system needed on that "crowbar" to hit a tank or building? What happened to a "bunch" of them taking out a battlefield? Go back and read what YOU wrote and get back to me... You don't need a nuke big enough to fry an entire state! A mini-nuke will do nicely. We've had tactical nukes small enough to be used in artillery stationed along the border between the Koreas for decades now. You should report that to the UN, it's against the Geneva Conventions and considered a weapon of mass destruction... Try firing a nuke off sometime, ANY size or method of delivery and see what happens... Don't think you'll like it... Even a depleted uranium artilliary/tank shell, which WAS used in Iraq, is against the Geneva Conventions, for good reason, there are long term affects not only for the target and surroundings but also for the people firing it... That's not too pretty either.. Again, look back at what you wrote and argue THAT, not whatever pops into your head when you see my post... Can you do that for me please? So I'm to believe your rebuttal NOT because you make good points with physics or even evidence OF WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN INVENTED but rather because "you're smart and your son is not only smarter but rich"! Not at all, you should believe it because what I post are simply FACTS and common sense and not some fiction writer's imagination... Then again you may be one of those that BELIEVES the Pentagon buys $1000.00 toilet seats... Seems more plausible with every post you make... Well, rules of debate demand that you answer my question, not ignore it with a Peewee Herman style "I know you are but what am I?" response. Never have, never will... That kind of answer is far beneath me... However, I like to see complete answers from intelligent people and not just picking the parts of a post you feel like answering... Although there are posts and people that don't MERIT an answer, those I'll lay waste to in a not very friendly fashion... However, I'll answer. I see an old guy who has read up on science and technology for a LONG time, considering I was reading before I went to school. I would NEVER claim to know it ALL but I do know better than to try to deny something that has been invented and tested just because my son hadn't explained it to me yet! Actually it's me who explains things to my son... I AM well read, in fact I write, and it matters little what you see me as... I know who I am, you don't... So far you've been considerably off the mark in your analysis of me, as it appears now I was too in my initial analysis of you... BTW, can you link me to those crowbar tests, that'd be worth seeing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.