MineFewer Posted May 8, 2013 Posted May 8, 2013 1911 Birth of Naval Aviation: USN orders its first airplane, a Curtiss A-1 http://www.seaplanehomecoming.org/A1.html
DD_Arthur Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Sixteenth July? Ahhh.....Almagordo. Yeah, you're right BC.
MineFewer Posted May 22, 2013 Author Posted May 22, 2013 Nice to hear from the "Kill 'em all from 30,000 ft and let God sort 'em out" crowd.
DD_Arthur Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Nice to hear from the "Kill 'em all from 30,000 ft and let God sort 'em out" crowd.
MineFewer Posted May 23, 2013 Author Posted May 23, 2013 When you're out of ideas, copy/paste a youtube link!
FlatSpinMan Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 What's troubling you, MineFewer? You seem to be looking to stir something up.
DD_Arthur Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 O.K. Baron . Tell us why the birth of naval aviation is the most significant act of the twentieth century..............yawn.
MineFewer Posted May 23, 2013 Author Posted May 23, 2013 At last count, there is one country in the world in 2013 that is a Global Super Power. What does that one country have to make it a global power that no other country has? hint: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=200&ct=4 This concludes today's lesson, thanks for joining in!
DD_Arthur Posted May 23, 2013 Posted May 23, 2013 So what good has it done this one country by being a global superpower?
MineFewer Posted May 25, 2013 Author Posted May 25, 2013 So what good has it done this one country by being a global superpower? An apparent high standard of living thanks to safe sea routes for shipping goods and raw materials (oil for example). The costs of maintaining such power appear to be ruinous for the fiscal health of said country, and that makes it all the more significant. However, the ability to appropriate resources at will, by force or threat of force, may keep the creditors at bay.
DD_Arthur Posted May 25, 2013 Posted May 25, 2013 An apparent high standard of living thanks to safe sea routes for shipping goods and raw materials (oil for example). The costs of maintaining such power appear to be ruinous for the fiscal health of said country, and that makes it all the more significant. However, the ability to appropriate resources at will, by force or threat of force, may keep the creditors at bay. Yep, ok, lol! However, dosen't this make 1st. October, 1949 the most significant date of the twentieth century?
MineFewer Posted May 25, 2013 Author Posted May 25, 2013 Yep, ok, lol! However, dosen't this make 1st. October, 1949 the most significant date of the twentieth century? Maybe! Is that the day the U.S. govt determined it could issue itself a credit line with an unlimited borrowing limit?
DD_Arthur Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Maybe! Is that the day the U.S. govt determined it could issue itself a credit line with an unlimited borrowing limit? Yeah, kind of.......on October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China which is now bankrolling all this hardware.
MineFewer Posted June 16, 2013 Author Posted June 16, 2013 This was posted yesterday by someone called "Imminent Crucible" in the zerohedge blog comments: "You don't think he can go from 85 billion a month to 83 billion without causing a crash?" I'm afraid people don't understand the nature of a debt-backed system. It's worse than you think. It's even worse than I think. Here's the fundamental issue: In a credit-driven economy that runs on a debt-backed currency, the debt must continue to grow. Not only that, it must continue to grow at an increasing rate or the economy goes stagnant. As it is, we have a stagnant economy because--believe it or not--Bernanke is unwilling or unable to increase system debt fast enough to get the economy to what they call "escape velocity". In this system, all money comes into being as debt, and debt is money. If debt does not increase, deflation ensues. So in a sense, the cretinous Paul Kroooogman is correct: to get the economy going faster, Bernanke must expand the money base much faster. He must create new credit faster than it is destroying itself on bank balance sheets, and get the banks lending again. The banks don't want to lend right now, and no sane person wants to borrow. When the banks begin lending again, the velocity of money will increase, and all the trillions in new credit that are currently constipated in the bowels of the Fed's reserve accounts will go out seeking better yields than the Fed pays. As soon as that happens, people will suddenly change their minds about the scarcity of money and start throwing it out the window like they did in 1978-1979. The difference will be that, instead of the scant $1 trillion in M2 money stock that whirled around in 1978, we have $11 trillion in M2 on hand today plus far more in other credit aggregates PLUS the even larger sums in the shadow banking system, which the BIS estimates at several hundred trillion in US banks alone. But why do we have the boom to begin with? This type of boom can only take place with a central bank expanding credit at a rate well beyond the growth of population and the economy. They boost the money supply through easy credit, new "money" gushes into the economy through the fractional reserve multiplier "machine", and prices rise. The Fedsters point to the ensuing "prosperity" of foolish people buying Hummers on credit and $800,000 condos, and they say, "Look how good things are! The economy's doing great! We're geniuses!" or as former Dallas Fed President Bob McTeer put it, "Go out and buy an SUV!" Malicious idiot. All the while, the boom is nothing more than demand pulled forward from the future by making it artificially cheap to borrow money.
Trooper117 Posted June 30, 2013 Posted June 30, 2013 'Safe sea routes' that's a laugh... Piracy is worse now than it has ever been. For the last two and a half years I have been leading teams of private contractors supplying manpower to make the worlds trade routes safer. I'm just about to lead another team across the Gulf of Aden and up to Sudan in the Red Sea.. we meet up with the bad guys on a regular basis. Even worse is the area around the West African coast, (Nigeria is worst) where pirate attacks on commercial shipping is even topping the Somalia area.. That's just two areas of rampant piracy that we visit, there are many more across the world, and its a known fact that the Naval forces of the world can't control or cope with the situation.
MineFewer Posted June 30, 2013 Author Posted June 30, 2013 For the last 2 years, how many oil tankers have pirates stopped from reaching U.S. or Canadian refineries? Not trying to argue, I'm genuinely interested in learning about the piracy problem, and glad to get some knowledgeable insight.
Trooper117 Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) To give you a little idea of the scale of the problem, here are a few of the statistics that I usually give to the ships crew on my piracy brief... and this is for the Somalia area only, not world wide. PIRACY STATISTICS 2011-FEB 2012 SOMALIA INCIDENTS Incidents; 237 Ships hijacked; 28 Hostages taken; 470 Current vessels held; 11 (as of June 2012) Current hostages held; 218 (as of June 2012, 44 of whom are held ashore in unknown location 8 seafarers have been killed with 41 injured ??? Edited July 1, 2013 by Trooper117
FlatSpinMan Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Interesting and really surprising. Is it their unpredictability that makes them so hard for navies to interdict, the sheer area, or their numbers? With the tech available today I'd just assumed it wouldn't be too hard to stop them if you wanted to. How do you guys fend them off?
Trooper117 Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Modern high velocity rifles usually does the trick... I have a mixture of British army 7.62 SLR's and a couple of Steyr sniper rifles.. These guys travel about in extremely fast boats, about the size of a small whaler, usually with anything up to 8 to 10 heavily armed pirates with modern assault rifles and RPG's. They can do up to 25-30 knots with two large outboard motors. The worlds navies are a shadow of their former selves in terms of numbers, and what is needed is large amounts of vessels to police the areas in question, and they aren't available. Plus the problem can only be solved if their bases for administration and training, local infrastructure and support are removed, and that means putting troops on the ground, and no one is willing to do it... hence people like me are there trying to contain the problem...
FlatSpinMan Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Really? So at what kind of distances do you engage/deter them? Or is the mere presence of string resistance enough to scare therm away? Your presentation suggests that is having an effect.
Trooper117 Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 We are having an effect.. The naval task force in the Gulf of Aden/Red Sea area is usually around 35 vessels, of which perhaps 15 are normally available. If I am approached by a vessel that has been identified as hostile, I deploy my chaps, I then go forward and display my SLR as a visual warning that the ship has armed guards. That quite often will stop them. Sometimes it doesn't, so warning shots are then fired.. if they keep coming after that they are getting it.. A 7.62mm round will go through a wooden or fibre glass Skiff like a knife through butter.. and they know it!
Bearcat Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Nice to hear from the "Kill 'em all from 30,000 ft and let God sort 'em out" crowd. No more like the "Now mankind has the ability to obliterate 95%of all human life on the planet" crowd.. all it will take is a few more decades and either a madman on the button or a technical malfunction..
MineFewer Posted July 2, 2013 Author Posted July 2, 2013 What does it have to do with this topic?? In case you didn't notice, there's an informative discussion about Naval air power, and it's limitations, goin on here.
Bearcat Posted July 2, 2013 Posted July 2, 2013 Hey man I am just replying to your reply to my post..... in case you didn't notice.. and I just disagree... as important asa the birth of Naval aviation was it pales in comparison to 7/16 in the bigger picture.. I mean as far as significant dates of the 20th century go.... but hey .. your thread.. toot that horn.. beat that drum.. Carry on... sheesh..
MineFewer Posted July 2, 2013 Author Posted July 2, 2013 I'm sure you'd agree that the 5% of all human life on the planet that survives will largely be aboard aircraft carriers, therefore my position hasn't been discredited, yet.
choctaw111 Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 One of my ex-girlfriend's had a birthday on May 8th but today, being the 16th of July, as already mentioned, was the successful Trinity test.
Lord_Haw-Haw Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Most significant Anniversary of the 20th Century For what country? This seems to be a very nationalistic thing? Stuff like this on a international Forum.....
MineFewer Posted July 20, 2013 Author Posted July 20, 2013 For what country? Every country that aspires to project power across the oceans. Hint: one of them is the biggest in the world, by population.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now