So the US has five different air forces, which different aircraft, procedures, and protocols.
This didn't sound right because I recall reading somewhere that the USCG does not train any of its own pilots, they recruit them from other services. So I did some research and I found that not only does the USCG not train any pilots themselves all helicopter pilots for USCG, USMC, US Navy, and USAF all train at the same Navy base. My guess is that the US Army has a large enough group of their own helicopter pilots that they train them on their own base somewhere but the training is similar enough to the other branches that the USCG will take US Army pilots.
For another example I took a look at the C-130, an airplane I remember an Army buddy saying he took a ride in before. Sure enough it is used by USAF, USCG, US Navy, and USMC. Turns out all pilots that fly a C-130 will train at the same base regardless of which branch they serve.
Each branch certainly does in fact own their own helicopters and cargo planes. Given the size of each branch it makes sense that, as an example, the USCG flies their own HC-130 variant air frames to refuel its helicopters. Just as the USMC flies the KC-130 variant to refuel its helicopters. Given that they all trained at the same school as the Navy pilots it's no surprise that once in a while a US Navy KC-130 will refuel USMC and USCG helicopters and US Navy helicopters will refuel from USMC and USCG planes.
As for the US Army helicopters? Fuck them, they can't refuel from anyone... Oh, wait, that's not right. US Army helicopters routinely refuel from tankers flown by the USAF and other branches.
Perhaps you need to review your assumptions.
We are using helicopters in missions where they are inappropriate for purely bureaucratic and political reasons, and the Army's need for CAS is still not being met.
I can agree that perhaps the Army's need for close air support is not being met this is not because of some kind of miscommunications between the branches. This is because the A-10 air frames that have served this role are getting very old and the DoD dropped the ball on finding an adequate replacement. There's certainly some politics involved here. The USAF wants to be rid of the A-10 because it's a money pit from maintenance issues. There's people in the USMC that are willing to take the A-10 air frames as they see value in the role they serve in spite of the cost. The US Navy is objecting because they are not equipped to provide the logistics for an air frame that cannot be launched from a carrier. The powers that be in the US Army are split on taking the A-10 but that gets to what you point out on the Army being typically barred from flying fixed wing combat aircraft.
When the different branches are forced to work together, such as on the F-35 project, the politics and in-fighting resulted in the worst and most expensive military boondoggle in the history of the world.
The F-35 is a boondoggle. I'm not so sure that the different branches were "forced" to work together on this project. There was certainly promises of sharing resources and therefore reduced costs in the long term. It's not looking well for the F-35 so far, especially as I look at the F-35C carrier based variant.
The F-35 was supposed to fill the role of the A-10 but there's some concern that the current weapons that can be fitted to the F-35 will match the firepower of the 30mm cannon that the A-10 carries.
It comes down to the F-35 being too fast, Army helicopters being too slow, and the just right A-10 getting too old. Perhaps the Army's new V-280 can replace the A-10 if fitted with a cannon.
Since it starts out going roughly orbital speed, it won't drop straight down - not even close. If fired straight down, at 10,000 km/h, the orbital vector would mean it would circle the earth approximately once on its way down (air resistance makes this calculation difficult). You can fire from any location in orbit and have it hit anywhere you want on the plane, by adjusting the speed or angle at which you fire the de-orbit thrust.
That sounds feasible. I'll consider myself corrected. When curiosity strikes me I'll investigate this further.
If Russia or China knew that the geo-stationary communication satellites above the US also contain tungsten rods aimed at them, they'd be pretty pissed. They don't know that those rods are on the satellites. I don't know that those rods AREN'T on the satellites.
Having been corrected already I'm going to comment knowing I may very well be corrected again. Russia and China have enough technology and resources that I'm quite certain they are aware of any orbital object larger than a softball, just like the USA. With this capability, and certainly the motivation, I'd think that they've got at least a general idea of everything that flies over their heads. If they thought that the USA launched some kind of kinetic weapon then I'd expect them to at least try to shoot it down. As we've seen from past behavior the Chinese don't have the same concerns of spoiling valuable orbits with debris like other nations.target they
The USA has access to 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Each carrier is capable of carrying 90 F-18 jets. Each jet can carry 8 tons of things that go "boom". There's no need to invest in experimental weaponry like kinetic weapons dropped from orbit. Not yet anyway. If Russia, China, or anyone else wants to start a fight then they will get one. The fight won't be from orbit, more like about 3000 feet.
Oh, and as I recall the US Navy has their own "toys" for knocking down orbiting targets. If China or Russia tries something like putting tungsten kinetic penetrators into orbit then its likely we will see it and make it "go away".
I'll repeat my earlier point. Orbital weapons platforms only seem feasible to me against nations that lack anti-sat weapons. A nation that lacks anti-sat technology is not likely to pose a threat sufficient to require orbiting weapon platforms to counter. Unless there's some kind of technology that changes this dynamic then I don't see orbiting weapons as all that valuable. They might offer a quick strike capability but they'd be hanging in orbit where they can be seen by people with just time, binoculars, and a lawn chair. Once they are seen then they don't offer the same kind of surprise. I guess an orbital platform in geosynchronous orbit on the opposing side of the planet as the target (or sufficiently close to such as to be "invisible" to a low tech or low resource adversary) does not seem to be any better tactically than a ground launched weapon. I'm open to be corrected again.
It still strikes me as plain stupidity to assign assets to defence forces on the basis of whether those assets walk, fly or sail. Surely it is better to assign assets to forces appropriate to their tasking?
I'm not so sure that's exactly how things work. As someone that served in the Army I see it this way, the forces are divided to manage people, not weapons. People that operate mostly at sea will need training different than those that operate mostly on land, or in the air.
Two big issues in the Navy for survival is staying afloat and fighting fires. This means every Navy person has to know how keep from drowning if they go overboard, and put out fires so they don't have to jump in the water. The Marines are predominately a forward operating force so they have the belief that every Marine is a rifleman, their standards for marksmanship is the highest of all the branches. In the Army I certainly learned to shoot, I had some water survival training, but I believe some skills like reading maps and a compass was emphasized above that of other branches. I'm not as familiar with Air Force training, learning only that they don't practice camping out in the woods like Army and Marine recruits do.
I believe I share some of your confusion. I'd think that all branches should have a consolidated basic training where everyone learns the basics of how to fight a war. After basic training every recruit still must go on to the training specific to their primary occupation, whether that be infantry, helicopter pilot, truck driver, or musician. That's how smaller nations, and some large ones, run their armed forces.
I can't even get my mind around the Navy driving little boats, far inland, in little muddy rivers "because it's water".
That's probably because the Navy has the people best trained to fight on water. The Army does have a "navy" of their own for moving on muddy little rivers, but that's so they can get tanks and trucks across. If it's more complicated than that then call in the Navy.
Assets and personnel are, as best I can tell, divided up by task. The Army is given the training and tools for fighting across land. This means big tanks, and slow moving aircraft to cover them. The Air Force is trained and equipped for air dominance and dropping warheads on foreheads. This means planes that are big, fast, or both. As you noticed the Navy is equipped to own the water. The Marines cover those transitions in terrain, like taking beaches.
In the end every branch works together as part of the much larger DoD unit. I believe all military police for every service train at the same Army base. I'm quite certain most or all truck drivers, regardless of service, train at the same base. Military intelligence for all services train at the same Air Force base. When it comes to actually fighting the different services all pitch in where their training and assets are needed. I was never deployed overseas but I heard of bases far inland being operated by the Navy, guarded by the Air Force, where patrols were operated by all services. The heavy metal was purely operated by the Army but trucks were driven by all services. The people doing the patrols were infantry, combat engineers, military police, and I think there were some EOD guys too.
Why have the Navy run a base far inland? Because at that point not a lot was happening at sea and they wanted the best cooks serving the food and the best medics patching people up, and you find both in the Navy. I was in the Army but I still like the Navy, those sailors are nice enough to give us soldiers a ride to where we need to be when we need it.
I am wondering exactly what is going to be divided out from the Air Force into this new branch.
My guess would be Navstar GPS, ICBMs, land and orbit based anti-satellite and ICBM assets, most DOD owned communications and weather satellites. What would NOT be transferred would be many spy satellites, my guess is that the USAF and other entities want to keep direct control of those. The Navy would most definitely keep it's sea launched missiles.
Is this just going to become the military equivalent of the 60's era NASA?
You mean like running manned missions to space? Unless the missions have some military utility I kind of doubt it. Would the space force operate a manned battle station in orbit?
Does this also signal a move toward placing conventional weapons in orbit?
I'm pretty sure the placement of weapons in orbit don't gain much in utility over land based weapons and take up a lot of energy for initial launch and station keeping. It's just far easier to launch a big rocket from the surface and let it go ballistic to the target. As I recall dropping something from orbit only shortens the time to target if it's already above the target when needed.
A nation like Russia or China would not only consider a geo-stationary weapons platform over their heads as provocative they might just find a way to arrange an "accidental" collision with one of their satellites to kill it. A nation that lacks anti-sat capability would also find it provocative but won't be able to do much about it than perhaps keep blowing up train stations and pizza parlors with bombs strapped to schoolkids, or keep exploding rockets on launchpads claiming they'll get one off the ground any day now. These kinds of people don't need any more provocation and they also don't pose the kind of threat that would require weapons fired from orbit.
The F-35 program was pretty messed up. It is truly a jack of all trades and master of none. There's nothing really wrong with the F-18 except that the electronics are getting very dated (in spite of repeated up dates) and the air frames have so much flight time that maintaining them is getting expensive enough to consider just building a new series of jets to replace them. The Air Force was having similar problems with the F-15 getting old.
Here's what I expect to happen. The F-35 will be bought up in large numbers but never really replace the airplanes it was meant to replace because of the high cost and poor performance. The USAF will go back to seek yet another air frame that will be cheaper than the F-35 and F-22 but unique to them. Given the lessons learned from the F-22 and F-35 this new plane will be far better than both but cheap enough and capable enough to replace nearly every single seat air frame that they currently fly. At the same time the Navy will seek a replacement for the F-35C and keep flying the F-18 until this new air frame comes along and the F-35 will be retired at the same time as the F-18.
This would leave the F-35 as a second or even third tier air frame for USAF and USMC, the Navy will just give up on it as quickly as it can and give the F-35 air frames they have to the other services for parts. The USAF will tolerate the F-35A as it's a sunk cost for them and they have other planes like the F-22 for high stakes missions. The USMC is likely to tolerate the F-35B because it's a fast mover that can be launched from a helicopter carrier. The F-35C is just a total loser.
The United States Air Force was in fact previously the Army Air Corps. Since the Navy operated a lot of aircraft too at the time some assets from the Navy moved to the Air Force. Also at that time the US Army was in a separate War Department and the Navy in the Navy Department. This created some confusion and logistics issues in World War 2 as each branch had separate standards on things like gas masks and even boots and blankets. The Air Force was created at the same time the Army and Navy were consolidated under the Department of Defense. This created standards that would be shared among all military branches to remove much of the logistics issues that they experienced previously.
One issue of debate was if the Navy would be able to keep it's aircraft or if the new Air Force would be flying planes from aircraft carriers. The issue was resolved in that land based aircraft would be flown by the Air Force. The Navy and Marines could only fly aircraft launched from ships. The Army would not have any fixed wing combat aircraft but could keep some fixed wing non-combat aircraft (cargo and VIP planes mostly) and could have rotary wing aircraft.
I could see a similar issue arising. The US Navy already operates some satellites, only communication relay satellites as I recall. Then there are satellites operated for military support by civilian government agencies. Obviously the Air Force operates most military orbital assets now. How would these assets be distributed? I'm guessing the Navy might be reluctant to give up control of their satellites.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
There is already a "space force" within the USAF. There is also small number of satellites operated by other military branches, as well as civil agencies that have a direct support role to the military. This USAF space force is getting large enough that it's become in effect a separate branch on its own. Not quite the size of the US Navy but if broken out from the Air Force it could easily be on par in size with the US Coast Guard. The USCG is not a military service but it can be called upon to serve in war. There are other services with a military structure that perform support services to the military, and so share a rank structure and uniforms with the military. These services are called "uniformed services" and uniformed services include the military services.
The USCG was already mentioned as one uniformed service that could be called upon to serve under the DOD in war. There is also the US Public Health Services Commissioned Corps and NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. As I understand it the USPHS has officers that they "loan out" to the various military branches to serve as medical specialists on military bases and ships at sea. The NOAA don't necessarily get "loaned out" like USPHS officers but they operate at sea in parallel with the Navy and USCG for watching the weather. I believe the NOAA has aircraft they fly from Navy and Air Force bases.
Anyway, the point is that even a non-combat capable force may be needed to manage space assets in support of the other military branches. Just like we already consolidate weather forecasting and medical care in uniformed services. The Navstar GPS satellites would be one asset that would be most definitely transferred to the "space force". Then there would be spy satellites and communications satellites, and perhaps even weather satellites even though the NOAA already manages some already. Separating the space force off from the USAF would mean the USAF can get back to flying airplanes and leave the managing of satellites for the benefit of all military branches to the new space force.
Perhaps one combat role the space force could command would be the fleet of ballistic missiles. The space force could be in command of anti-ICBM and anti-satellite systems. As I recall the US Navy has some anti-satellite capability and if this capability is shared or transferred to the space force then maybe we could see the space force with it's own fleet of blue water ships.
It sounds like the USAF wants to wash its hands of the space based military assets, they want to be in the business of dropping warheads on foreheads. Things like GPS and spy satellites are a general military need, not something unique to the USAF. When it comes to things like creating budgets we might see the Army wanting more satellites for something but the USAF not wanting to give up manpower and funds to do it. I guess the Army can get, and likely already has, a small "space force" of its own.
Seems to me this is more of a directive to answer the questions on how this space force would work, what assets it would manage, how large it should be, where it would have bases, what kind of training it would have, and so forth. POTUS can want a new space force but without knowing exactly how it would work he can't bring a proposal to Congress to create it as an entity separate from the USAF.
Besides, what do we refer to the personnel as?
In the early days of the USAF they were called "soldiers" until they agreed on "airmen". Is it correct to use "guardsman" refer to those in the Coast Guard? Those in the National Guard? Both? Neither?
There's a reason that non-combat services wear uniforms identical, or at least highly similar, to those of combat services. In a time of war these uniformed services will be called upon to support the military, in that capacity they must have a hierarchy and such that is compatible with the military to make communication easier. As an example consider a surgeon, or some other medical provider from USPHS, comes in to a room full of injured soldiers in various levels of need of treatment as well as military corpsman. This person is going to have to get everyone's attention, give orders, and the people receiving the orders will need to recognize this person's authority. Failure for this medical professional to command properly can mean soldiers die. One way to display this authority is to have such people wear a uniform consistent with the officers these soldiers deal with every day.
There is another reason to have these people wear military style uniforms. These people will travel in international waters and do things like take weather measurements, board ships that may carry the flag of another nation to provide care or perform an inspection of some sort, and so on. There are international laws, norms, and regulations that provide legal protections for people in uniform. Those not in uniform, and therefore not displaying the nation they represent in an obvious manner, may be considered a spy. Espionage is a big deal even in peacetime. No government likes employees of another government sneaking around in their business. A person with a flag of their nation on their shoulder, and insignia of some sort declaring their function (such as medical corps, climatologist, surveyor, border patrol, etc.) will be instantly recognized and treated appropriately. Even if these foreign nations do not share a language the symbols used to denote rank, occupation, nation, and so forth are generally universal enough to get much of the needed information across at a glance.
Wait - youâ(TM)re claiming that the religious zealots from Europe who said they have an eternal homeland after 2000 years are reasonable but the second and third generation of the people displaced are not, even though they are still stateless and occupied by said European religious zealots?
I'm saying that after 70 years of the borders of Israel being where they are there is no one alive today on either side with any claims for land except that under their feet. For the most part all of the people were born on the land they live on. We can rehash all the history of who possessed this land all the way back to before Judaism existed if we want but that changes nothing on who owns it now. Israel owns this land and they can keep it as long as they can defend it. These 20 year old punks that toss fire bombs at Israeli border guards can claim that the land on the other side of the fence is there's but it's not. They never set foot there and therefore can claim no ownership. These "European religious zealots" have never been to Europe, and have no citizenship in any European country.
Here's an idea, send the Palestinians to Europe. They have just as much right to be in Europe as the Israeli Jews. Oh, that's right, these Arabs are going to Europe. Seems that they are as poorly behaved in Europe as they are at home, being as they have a tendency to rape the women, drive trucks over children, and hack the men to pieces with machetes. Has Europe been "mean" to the Arabs too and somehow deserve this treatment? Was this land also "stolen" from the Arabs and they just want the land back? Is this all just a political dispute? I say not. This is religious zealotry from the Muslims and they are willing to "convert or kill" everyone or die trying. I'm willing to grant their wish, they can die trying and get their 72 virgins.
You seem to not know a heck of a lot about this, so itâ(TM)s unsurprising you are parroting propaganda, but the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank face starvation rations and no clean water in one case and dispossession in the other, and both face near-daily violence from Israelis. You should open a newspaper or two, or maybe read a book.
They could have better conditions if they wanted it more than to kill Jews. I have no sympathy for the living conditions of those that threaten the lives of Jews for being Jews. I have read a book or two, and I see the news. The Israeli authorities give those in Gaza pipes to fix their water supply, fertilizer to grow crops, and sugar to can their food. What they do is weld the pipes into makeshift rocket casings, use the sugar and fertilizer to make rocket propellant, then send the unguided rockets to kill random innocent people. Had they instead used this material to improve their own living conditions they'd have food and clean water. I'm impressed by their ability to improvise these weapons but saddened by their inability to use those resources for improving their living conditions.
I think youâ(TM)ll find itâ(TM)s about occupation and Israeli brutality. Seriously, the level of ignorance youâ(TM)re showing here is embarrassing. Even the Israelis admit that they have a brutal occupation with the intent of starving the Palestinians into acquiescence. They just canâ(TM)t mass murder the Palestinians because then theyâ(TM)d be subjected to sanctions, and they rely on massive aid handouts from the EU and US just to survive.
Israel has nuclear weapons. As I recall VP Biden let this slip as before it was merely speculated. Iran has stated openly that if they get a nuclear weapon they fully intend to drop it on Israel. If Israel was equally brutal then they'd drop nukes on Iran, Gaza, and wherever else they thought it necessary. Iran faces sanctions now, precisely because they have more hate than intelligence. Israel is smart enough to hold back their brutality on their neighbors to avoid these san
The argument (as I understand it) is that due to bias in raising children, society etc. there are not enough woman to staff a (hypothetical) all-woman company (and no one wants such a company!). So to give an over simplified example: due to systematic bias, there are too few women who know how to lead a company. Thus your hypothetical all-woman company could not happen.
You misunderstood my argument.
All women companies do in fact happen, I've seen them and they've become successful. This tends to happen with small companies within certain fields, such as medicine. When a company reaches a certain size then people will specialize more. A veterinary clinic that had all women employees at first will at some point in their growth look for someone to do things like take out the trash, sweep the floors, change the light bulbs, and clean the toilets. Given that strength is beneficial for carrying trash, and height beneficial for changing light bulbs, then people hired for this will likely be taller and stronger. Men tend to be taller and stronger than women and so this person is likely to be male.
Over time this formerly all female company might need someone to manage the books. If we look at averages on how men and women perform with numbers we see that men tend to do better. Therefore this position will likely be filled by a man.
It's not that it's impossible to find sufficiently talented women to fill all positions, only that a company over a certain size is unlikely to be entirely women due to the needs common to any given company.
The all-male company is, however, very possible because you can (more easily) find men for all positions.
Just like it is possible for a small company to be run entirely by women it is possible for a small company to be run entirely by men. An automotive repair shop might be run entirely by men because men tend to like to do such things. An automotive repair shop is unlikely, though it's not impossible, to be run entirely by women. All male companies are more common because there are more men in the workforce and men tend to take on the risks of starting their own company.
Also the argument of "naturally gravitate" is hotly contested. I personally see no reason why this it is more natural for a women to be a nurse than a bricklayer. (And just to preempt the physical strength argument: if women had to lay bricks, maybe we as a society would have developed ways to lay bricks more efficient (requiring less strength) or found ways to get by without brick laying altogether. )
You can't just preempt the physical strength argument because laying bricks is an occupation that will inherently require physical strength. If for some reason we as a society had to have women lay bricks then we'd find the tallest and strongest women, with the best manual dexterity, to do it. It's "more natural" for men to lay bricks because the nature of the job means men are better at it, on the average.
Let's take the nursing example though. Women tend to gravitate to pediatric medicine. 30% of all physicians are women but 60% of pediatric physicians are women. Why is that? Is it because women prefer to be around children? Maybe. It can also be because of the strength and height differences with men. Moving a child around is easier than an adult. An uncooperative patient that weighs 200 pounds will overpower a 100 pound nurse, regardless of the sex of either. In a large hospital, with nurses of an equal distribution of men and women, will naturally develop more nurses in pediatrics because the high school football player with a concussion thinks he's being attacked by aliens needs to be wrestled to the ground and restrained before he hurts himself. Who are you going to send to do that? The 100 pound female nurse? Three 100 pound female nurses? Or the 250 pound male nurse that was once a high school football player? Enforcing a rule of 50/50 male/female nurse
As a rule I tend to not reply to ACs but this one amused me.
While medical engineers should mostly consist of people with undefined sexuality?
My guess is that those with undefined sexuality would tend to become medical engineers so they can figure out what's wrong with them and develop means to correct that condition.
Fairness is not the reason these diversity programs exists. Long term profit is.
If profit was the motivator then no one would hire based on diversity, they'd hire the best people that they could find for the job.
I recall an anecdote of a person that claimed in some forum or another that sports teams were racist because football linemen tended to be black while the more prestigious roles of captain and quarterback tended to be white. A football coach stood up and exclaimed that he did not care what color the teammates were, he picked the best person for the position. Failing to do so meant losing games and his job being at risk. Just because the skin color happened to generally fall upon different positions did not mean racism, only that genetics and athletic abilities happened to coincide with skin color.
Forcing a football team to have more white linemen and consider who is captain based not on skill but on skin color means losing football games. For high school coaches all the way up to professional team owners this means losing games and therefore losing profits, if not immediately then in long term career success.
That may be true or it may not be. But you're potentially discounting a fantastic candidate because "most women wouldn't be good at that..." But what about the one who is?
If that's what you believe I wrote then you need to go back and read it again.
I'm merely recognizing that men tend to do better than women in software engineering and other STEM occupations. That means that if Google hires the best people for software engineering they won't get a 50/50 men/women ratio. The distribution will be more like 85/15 men/women. I get this ratio based on the ratio of men and women that graduate in computer science and related fields.
The question is whether or not a company is not hiring a woman for a position she could do because she's a woman.
What we see Google doing is passing over superior applicants for software engineering positions because that applicant is a man. We know this is happening because of documents leaked out from the company. Given that discriminating for jobs based on sex is illegal in the USA, and has been for years, Google should be sued into oblivion for this.
Merely because the people whose land was stolen are pissed and are fighting to get it back?
Israel, as it exists today, was created in 1947. That's over 70 years go. The people that had this land "stolen" are quite likely all dead. The few that remain, if any, are not likely in fighting form. The people fighting today are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of that generation. How many generations removed can they still call this their land?
I grew up in the USA, as did my parents and grandparents. If I go back far enough I can find ancestors from Germany and other European nations. Does this mean I can go back and claim land there? I don't think so. What point was that right lost? Give me a number of generations. It's not "their land" any more than some piece of Germany is my land.
Also, while 75% (give or take) of people in Israel are Jewish the rest are not. They weren't killed off or relocated out of the country. Those that can behave themselves and not be pissed about a 70 year old gripe will live in peace and prosperity within the borders of Israel. Those that can't will be imprisoned, not killed or forced out.
And you think that shows Religion in a good light?
I think this shows Jews in a good light. Muslims? Not so much.
If Israel really was the bloodthirsty culture you believe it to be then they'd bomb the Gaza Strip until it glowed in the dark. The Gaza Strip is 99.9% Muslim, why is that? Could it be because the Jews and Christians were largely killed or forcefully relocated? All the rockets that go over that border originate from Gaza and land in Israel. Sure, the Israeli Army will defend it's border with lethal force so bullets and grenades do cross from Israel into Gaza. They do this because they know if the border is breached that those that cross will do so with the intent to kill as many Jews as they can. This isn't about land any more, no one fighting this war has ever set foot in Israel before.
Israel is showing considerable restraint and diplomacy. This has not been reciprocated by its neighbors. I read my history and know of the Six Day War. Israel has a far superior military than any of its neighbors. If they wanted to take the Sinai Peninsula again, and keep it, then they could do so at any time. But they gave it back as an offering to hopefully reach peace. All they got in return was more rockets fired at them.
This is not a political war. Maybe in 1947, or perhaps 1967, it was but no more. All those warriors from then are dead or senile. This is a one sided religious war, Muslims wanting to kill Jews or die trying.
I get it from two things. First, it is that people with the general "Protestant work ethic" tend to be successful. That's not saying this work ethic is unique to Christians, only that this has had an effect on society where it shows up in the demographics. Hard working people can be found in all cultures but those living in a society that is predominately Christian in social norms place greater value in hard work than others. That does not mean the successful person is a "believer" and goes to worship every Sunday, only that they've lived in a society of people that was built upon Christian values like that of the West.
Second, I make this distinction to separate ethnicity of most Europeans from those with Jewish ancestry. Again, this does not require the person be a practicing Jew, only that they've descended from ethnic Jews. I make this distinction because even though ethnic Jews are highly intelligent on the average they do not have the same "spacial intelligence" (for lack of a better term) that those of a Christian ancestry would have.
Over generations Jews have lived in a culture where they were second class citizens, so they were rarely land owners or tradesmen. They tended to be in occupations that allowed them to travel, work out of small offices, and so on. This combined with the norms within Jewish tradition lead them to be lawyers, actors, bankers, and other occupations that valued verbal skill. This had an effect on the genes.
Contrast that with Christian culture for much of time. Christians were predominately farmers, tradesmen, sailors, soldiers, and such. There were a few priests, monks, and nuns but they didn't contribute to the gene pool the same way for obvious reasons. Spacial skills were very important to excel in these professions. Certainly there were plenty of Christian lawyers and bankers but that was not a dominant occupation like for ethnic Jews.
White as an ethnic group contains largely those of Christian ancestry and Jewish ancestry. If we take a large enough and random enough populations of both and give them tests similar to that of a college entrance exam then we will see the Christians dominate in mathematics skill, and therefore in fields like computer science, and Jews dominate in verbal skill, and therefore in fields like law.
I'm sure I've "triggered" many social justice warriors with this explanation. Go fuck yourself if you find it "triggering". If you find my logic flawed then I'm open to discussion.
The story is that white employment at google fell over 8 percent in only 4 years!
I agree, that is amazing. To do that they'd have to do some serious "diversity" hiring. I assume that Google will be reluctant to fire productive workers, that is unless they expose their racism in a document that was leaked outside the company. Therefore the shift in demographics must come from natural attrition (people die, take different jobs, retire, etc.) and new hires. Unless a company is growing rapidly, and there's a pool of untapped "diversity" to draw from, they can shift only so fast.
I suspect that this pool of diverse employees must be very thin because graduates in fields like computer science is still dominated by white Christian males. There's a 2 to 1, or perhaps as high as 4 to 1, ratio of men to women graduating in these majors, depending on who you ask. I found out that women owned small businesses can get preferential treatment in Illinois. Unless your business is located where this kind of preferential treatment exists then your pool of hires will be less diverse.
That brings a saying I heard to mind, diversity is such a great idea that it takes the force of government to create.
Good job, Google! You are now well on the way to "diversify" yourself into oblivion. Keep this up and in maybe 4 or 8 more years you'll be begging for your "diversity" to move to Illinois where the government can pay for their reduced output at increased wages.
Right, because Christianity and Judaism have been so toxic that cultures that live consistent with Judaeo-Christian norms have failed miserably.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Look at Israel and compare it to it's neighbors. The nation that exists, and was created, as a sanctuary for Jews in the world has the ability to produce all the water and food it needs for itself and then some. They produce some of the best technology and are able to fend off attackers which consistently have more numbers and resources but also a religion that leads them to a path of suicide. This suicide is quite literal, they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them to "win" a war. While Europe was looking at the stars and plotting the motion of the planets there were cultures in the Americas and Africa that were sacrificing themselves and their children to their gods.
That's not saying that Europeans were entirely peaceful and intellectual, they had plenty of wars based on national borders and their interpretation of how to best worship a god. I will also admit that cultures in Asia prospered without a Judaeo-Christian culture. They still had their own religion and also had incredible advancements in science and technology.
Religion is not cancer. You could argue that people can be peaceful, intellectual, and also without religion. I'd like to see an example of such a culture. Best we see of that is a culture that replaces worship of a god or gods with worship of a leader or of government. Such cultures tend to devolve into shit holes like North Korea. Islam is cancer and we see this play out every day in the news. Many of these Muslim nations exist only because of trade with nations that do not practice Islam. Had they been left to their own devices they'd slowly revert to goat herders as the infrastructure they imported decayed into dust.
Perhaps someday Islam will evolve into a religion that is not bent on suicide. I see hints of this in Saudi Arabia, where they have begun to allow women to get an education and drive a car. A culture that keeps half their population ignorant and sheltered will continually be outdone by cultures that do not. It might also help if they don't strap bombs to their children and blow them up.
Scott Adams, the same guy that writes Dilbert, has a similar story. Scott Adams was driven to writing comics because he saw his career hit a dead end from diversity hiring policies where he worked. Ignoring the inherent unequal distributions of qualities among different genetic populations is dangerous. Reality always wins out.
Consider this... If women did the same work as men but for 75% of the wages then a company consisting completely of women would beat all the rest. I have seen small companies run entirely by women but they've been veterinary clinics, medical clinics, and schools, but that's because women naturally gravitate to occupations where a strong nurturing personality is beneficial.
Here's another thing, women don't really want equal distribution in all occupations. Women make up a small portion of prisoners. Should we lock up women to make up for that? Women make up a small portion of the people that die in war, should we send more women out to fight and die? There's a small ratio of women that dig ditches, clean out sewers, climb power transmission towers, hang siding and shingles, pour concrete, pick up trash, stack bricks, and on and on. We shouldn't have women doing these occupations just to keep things "fair". Just as we shouldn't demand more women engineers to keep things "fair". What's "fair" is allowing people to get the jobs they are suited to by personality and merit. When we do that we have many males in engineering and many females in medicine.
We can have a meritocracy and prosperity or we can artificially enforce "diversity" and see civilization fall apart. Google will have to learn this one way or the other.
Your pdf link is produced by the nuclear industry, which has been shilling for decades. Got any independent sources?
At least the post had a citation, all you have is an unsubstantiated criticism. I suggest you go look for a source yourself. Seems to me that you have access to a computer with internet, make the best of it.
Also, if you'd actually read the paper you'd see that wind power is less expensive than nuclear. For an organization that is supposed to be a shill for nuclear power you'd think that maybe they'd fudge the numbers a bit for nuclear power. The paper seems pretty evenhanded, IMHO, as it shows that if we are to have inexpensive and low CO2 energy in the future then we must have a combination of wind and nuclear. We'd probably need some natural gas in there as well, at least until we built enough windmills and nuclear reactors.
Your Wikipedia link says that nuclear is the most expensive in many other countries too, including poster child France that is supposed to be a model for others to follow.
The Wikipedia article also shows solar power to be extremely expensive for much of the world. If we want to "save the planet" then solar should stay in the realm of communication satellites and off grid remote areas. Even in sunny places like California and Australia solar is still more expensive than wind, coal, and natural gas.
Right, let's do what Germany did and tax fossil fuels. That means people with low incomes get saddled with higher costs while the government makes gobs of money on the taxes. Of course the government wants to tax carbon emissions, it's something that people will have to buy to fuel their cars, cook their food, and heat their homes. There's no escaping a carbon tax.
Maybe people could just buy an electric car, a heat pump, or whatever, to replace the fossil fuel equivalents they have now. To do so they'd have to save up some money for these big purchases. It's kind of hard to do that if the government is taking a bigger chunk of their income in taxes.
If you want more people to "save the planet" then they need resources to do it. I suppose instead of "resources" I could use the word "capital" but capitalism is bad. Can't have capitalists get capital, they might build an electric car factory with it.
Sorry, the government isn't going to save us. We're going to have to save ourselves.
Oh, and Germany did in fact lower their CO2 output with a carbon tax. That's because people have less money to spend on things like heating their homes, or cooking their food. We don't need to "save the planet", the planet will be just fine. We need to save ourselves, because the government isn't going to do it.
Chernobyl had government owned and operated nuclear reactors. Fukushima was a privately owned and operated nuclear power plant. Which one resulted in more death and destruction?
Governments do not care about you. A private entity might not care about you either, that is until you stop paying your electric bill. Dead people don't pay their bills. Dead people don't vote either but then the survivors just get substandard services and get to bury their dead family and friends.
I'll take a greedy capitalist over any government bureaucracy. A capitalist offers services to get my money. A government takes my money first and then offers services as the excuse to keep taking it. If my government doesn't meet my needs then maybe I can vote in a better government in 2 years. If a private company doesn't meet my needs then I can drop them at the end of the monthly billing cycle and go somewhere else.
Much of the problems of the nuclear power industry in the USA is that the government has not allowed sufficient freedom for the nuclear power industry to develop. I find it very hard to believe that no one in 40 years has figured out how to make a profitable nuclear power plant. I quite certain that they have, only the government has buried them in enough paperwork, and therefore costs, to prevent any profitability.
I'll hear the tree huggers scream about how nuclear power is not safe, produces all this waste, etc. Go do a Google search on deaths per terawatt, then explain to me on how nuclear power is not safe. Go search on how much CO2 is produced from nuclear power. So search on the waste produced, the costs, and so much more. There is no reason we can't have cheap, safe, and "green" nuclear power except the idiots that would rather see the world burn from global warming than have their claims of the threats nuclear power poses proves false.
You say we should remove the profit motive from nuclear power for the sake of safety? Go fuck yourself. It's because of the profit motive that the USA has enjoyed as safe of nuclear power as the world has ever seen.
It isn't flawed if your genome is accustomed to seafood.
Europeans ate plenty of seafood for a very long time throughout history. This was put on hold for about 1000 years when the Moors invaded and tended to kill or enslave those fishing in the Mediterranean Sea.
I'm sure many would think that on an evolutionary scale this 1000 years is not likely to affect the genetic makeup of Europeans. Access to protein is important for one's health and losing access to fishing will mean needing to seek it elsewhere. This means hunting for furry and feathered creatures, and/or domesticating goats, sheep, and cattle while often consuming their milk.
Lactose tolerance in adults is for the most part highly centered on Europe. Those that couldn't fish would need protein from milk. If they couldn't tolerate drinking milk for protein then they might kill their cow to eat the meat, but then they risk running out of protein pretty quick.
There was a trade of salted fish from northern waters but that meant a potential for rotten fish, high salt intake, and so on for moving fish so far in a time where things moved at the speed of a laden ox. Oh, and since I know someone is going to ask... I'm talking about European laden oxen, not African.
BTW, Africans did have domesticated cattle but they didn't always drink the milk. To get protein from the cattle and not kill it they'd draw blood and drink that, perhaps mixed with the milk.
Getting all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet is possible, but tricky. And as Zontar the Mindless mentions on this thread, we are omnivores. Look at the teeth in our mouths and our digestive tracts. We evolved to eat food from a variety of sources. And we are predators, built for the hunt, with eyes in the front of our heads, the better to spot prey with stereo vision.
We have evolved to eat cooked food as well. This is unique to humans. Comparisons of the human digestive system to other omnivores expose this difference.
What is a bit amazing to me is that there is a difference between what men and women have evolved to eat. Meat is a dangerous food. Not only does meat fight back until it's dead but even then it can kill you from being under cooked, or as mentioned above over salted. A man getting sick from meat means he's miserable for a while, assuming it doesn't kill him. A woman getting sick runs the risk of a miscarriage if pregnant, including same the risk of death as men. Miscarriages from eating meat over long evolutionary time spans will lead to differences in the genetics. This is why pregnant women are discouraged from eating certain foods and often feel ill when eating things they would otherwise tolerate when not pregnant. Women can better tolerate a vegetarian diet than men. That's not saying it's impossible for men to go on a vegan diet, only that men run greater health risks for doing so.
There are many animals in this world in that if you give them an unlimited supply of food, they will keep on eating until they die; often in very short order.
I grew up on a dairy farm and I'd see this happen. I personally didn't see a cow eat itself to death but I have seen cows eat until they got sick and had heard stories of people having to dispose of cows that had eaten until they died. This seems to only be true of corn feed though, a cow will know enough to stop eating grass/alfalfa/haylage eventually. I do remember a calf that didn't know enough to not eat the straw. That calf got bloated and sick constantly until it learned that straw is not good food.
Your posts implied that natural gas would be the main fuel in the US, as in cars all ship with natural gas standard like they ship with gasoline standard now. And I don't see that happening over EVs.
My claim is that those the desire transportation that is "greener" and/or cheaper than gasoline will gravitate towards CNG over EV. CNG is not likely to replace gasoline and diesel fuels completely but as I see it CNG will be more popular than electric. I don't know if anyone is following this thread any more but I'm typing this to defend my arguments now and gather my thoughts to defend it in the future. I'll do this in a claim/counterclaim format.
Claim: Electricity will become so cheap that no one would buy anything other than an electric car. This price drop will be from a combination of green energy sources like wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal becoming much cheaper than anything producing CO2.
Counterclaim: Assuming that electricity becomes cheaper because of competition then that prices natural gas out of the electricity producing market. Given that 30% of the electricity in the USA comes from natural gas now the displacement of natural gas from the electricity would free up a lot of natural gas for use elsewhere. Given that natural gas and petroleum oil comes from the same place then as long as we need oil we will produce natural gas as a byproduct. Given that fuel for aviation, marine shipping, and heating, will continue to be used for a long time regardless of what people use to fuel their cars there will continue to be cheap natural gas for a long time, likely decades. To compete with EVs and to take advantage of this cheap fuel CNG vehicles will likely move from niche markets to passenger cars fairly quickly.
Claim: People enjoy the convenience of recharging their EV at home, and plug-in hybrids offer the convenience of recharge at home while offering range extension and improved cold weather performance for those that find the need for such. This leaves nothing, or little, for the CNG market to grip to as CNG is a high cost alternative.
Counterclaim: CNG does in fact have a high initial cost, I do not dispute that. We do see current car makers offer CNG vehicles for those that desire them, and so they have the tooling to make these vehicles, as well as experience in designing and supporting them with parts. Should CNG gather a following like EVs have now then it can reach a tipping point, again like EVs, which brings filling stations and local dealers carrying them as standard offerings. The convenience of refueling at home would no longer be unique to EVs, CNG cars would also have this available for those willing to install the equipment in their homes. CNG also offers 5 minute fill-ups at filling stations equipped with high pressure CNG filling points. Given that natural gas enjoys an existing infrastructure in distribution in many metro areas the cost to add CNG filling should be as low, or lower, than offering EV charging points. Also, given that a CNG fill-up takes no longer than that for gasoline the filling stations are not likely to be as reluctant to offer this as people won't tie up the space for 30 minutes at a time. This tipping point would not only create filling points fairly quickly but also traditional ICE makers would have an easier time meeting demand for vehicles as there is a high part count commonality with gasoline engines. Prices should come down very quickly.
Claim: With more people demanding "green" cars the incumbent ICE makers will find competition with EVs an incredible threat to their future profitability. EV cars will have convenience and low fuel costs that ICE cars cannot provide.
Counterclaim: As mentioned above the ICE makers already have experience with CNG vehicles. The cost conscious will see the low fuel cost, convenience of at home refueling, but without the range anxiety of EVs. Those seeking a "green" alternative will see that CNG produces half the CO2 of gasoline, has
If I upgrade every 4 to 6 years instead of every 2 to 3 years, then Apple is selling half as many computers. Why would they want to do that?
Isn't upgrading less often a trend generally across electronics now? It seems to me that it is.
Years ago I remember being able to pick up perfectly functional computers from friends and family because they bought something newer and faster. I'd be invited over to help them set up their new computer and in exchange I'd get their old hardware. Given the pace of improvement of electronics at the time I'd mostly just use the computers I got for parts or as "toys" to play with while I experimented with different Linux distributions and such. At some point I no longer got perfectly functional computers in exchange for my services. Instead I'd get laptops with dead screens and/or batteries (still useful for me as desktop computers), a desktop that had critical parts broken (I'd part them out to upgrade my gear), or other half functional gear. Now I get nothing, well I'd still take their hardware in hopes of getting something but mostly it's just so that I can help them in recycling the gear properly. People don't upgrade any more unless what they have is completely beyond repair.
I suspect several factors in this. One big factor, and the major topic here, is that technology is not improving like it once did. We've pretty much hit a plateau on clock rates so we get instead smaller, but no faster. We get cheaper computers I guess, but so long as the $1000 computer someone bought keeps doing what they bought it to do they aren't likely to buy a $500 computer to replace it.
Another factor I see is that the economy hasn't been that great. People that have trouble paying their phone bill are not likely to get a new phone.
Then there is the matter of hardware being more durable. I know people that bought new phones because the old one fell into the toilet, got it's screen cracked from falling off a table, or buttons and switches wore out. Waterproofing and near bulletproof glass is common on phones now. With desktops losing their optical drives, spinning platter drives, and even cooling fans, the parts that can wear out are minimal. Keyboards and mice don't even wear out like they used to.
There's also the matter of there not being a "must have" application that requires a faster computer. People use their computers to chat on web forums, consume the ample audio and visual content on the internet, or whatever. Just about any computer can do that. Most any cell phone sold in the last 5 years can do that. The people that drove computing in the past, gamers and content creators, are often satisfied with pretty run of the mill stuff. Those that want "more" don't dominate the market like they used to. This might also be because those that want "more" can just buy another cheap computer to help them in their work, dividing the work among many computers, than have to invest in one big computer to do their work.
I don't see this as unique to Apple, this is an industry wide phenomenon. Seems to me that every manufacturer of electronics has slowed down in producing new offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
So the US has five different air forces, which different aircraft, procedures, and protocols.
This didn't sound right because I recall reading somewhere that the USCG does not train any of its own pilots, they recruit them from other services. So I did some research and I found that not only does the USCG not train any pilots themselves all helicopter pilots for USCG, USMC, US Navy, and USAF all train at the same Navy base. My guess is that the US Army has a large enough group of their own helicopter pilots that they train them on their own base somewhere but the training is similar enough to the other branches that the USCG will take US Army pilots.
For another example I took a look at the C-130, an airplane I remember an Army buddy saying he took a ride in before. Sure enough it is used by USAF, USCG, US Navy, and USMC. Turns out all pilots that fly a C-130 will train at the same base regardless of which branch they serve.
Each branch certainly does in fact own their own helicopters and cargo planes. Given the size of each branch it makes sense that, as an example, the USCG flies their own HC-130 variant air frames to refuel its helicopters. Just as the USMC flies the KC-130 variant to refuel its helicopters. Given that they all trained at the same school as the Navy pilots it's no surprise that once in a while a US Navy KC-130 will refuel USMC and USCG helicopters and US Navy helicopters will refuel from USMC and USCG planes.
As for the US Army helicopters? Fuck them, they can't refuel from anyone... Oh, wait, that's not right. US Army helicopters routinely refuel from tankers flown by the USAF and other branches.
Perhaps you need to review your assumptions.
We are using helicopters in missions where they are inappropriate for purely bureaucratic and political reasons, and the Army's need for CAS is still not being met.
I can agree that perhaps the Army's need for close air support is not being met this is not because of some kind of miscommunications between the branches. This is because the A-10 air frames that have served this role are getting very old and the DoD dropped the ball on finding an adequate replacement. There's certainly some politics involved here. The USAF wants to be rid of the A-10 because it's a money pit from maintenance issues. There's people in the USMC that are willing to take the A-10 air frames as they see value in the role they serve in spite of the cost. The US Navy is objecting because they are not equipped to provide the logistics for an air frame that cannot be launched from a carrier. The powers that be in the US Army are split on taking the A-10 but that gets to what you point out on the Army being typically barred from flying fixed wing combat aircraft.
When the different branches are forced to work together, such as on the F-35 project, the politics and in-fighting resulted in the worst and most expensive military boondoggle in the history of the world.
The F-35 is a boondoggle. I'm not so sure that the different branches were "forced" to work together on this project. There was certainly promises of sharing resources and therefore reduced costs in the long term. It's not looking well for the F-35 so far, especially as I look at the F-35C carrier based variant.
The F-35 was supposed to fill the role of the A-10 but there's some concern that the current weapons that can be fitted to the F-35 will match the firepower of the 30mm cannon that the A-10 carries.
It comes down to the F-35 being too fast, Army helicopters being too slow, and the just right A-10 getting too old. Perhaps the Army's new V-280 can replace the A-10 if fitted with a cannon.
Since it starts out going roughly orbital speed, it won't drop straight down - not even close. If fired straight down, at 10,000 km/h, the orbital vector would mean it would circle the earth approximately once on its way down (air resistance makes this calculation difficult). You can fire from any location in orbit and have it hit anywhere you want on the plane, by adjusting the speed or angle at which you fire the de-orbit thrust.
That sounds feasible. I'll consider myself corrected. When curiosity strikes me I'll investigate this further.
If Russia or China knew that the geo-stationary communication satellites above the US also contain tungsten rods aimed at them, they'd be pretty pissed. They don't know that those rods are on the satellites. I don't know that those rods AREN'T on the satellites.
Having been corrected already I'm going to comment knowing I may very well be corrected again. Russia and China have enough technology and resources that I'm quite certain they are aware of any orbital object larger than a softball, just like the USA. With this capability, and certainly the motivation, I'd think that they've got at least a general idea of everything that flies over their heads. If they thought that the USA launched some kind of kinetic weapon then I'd expect them to at least try to shoot it down. As we've seen from past behavior the Chinese don't have the same concerns of spoiling valuable orbits with debris like other nations.target they
The USA has access to 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Each carrier is capable of carrying 90 F-18 jets. Each jet can carry 8 tons of things that go "boom". There's no need to invest in experimental weaponry like kinetic weapons dropped from orbit. Not yet anyway. If Russia, China, or anyone else wants to start a fight then they will get one. The fight won't be from orbit, more like about 3000 feet.
Oh, and as I recall the US Navy has their own "toys" for knocking down orbiting targets. If China or Russia tries something like putting tungsten kinetic penetrators into orbit then its likely we will see it and make it "go away".
I'll repeat my earlier point. Orbital weapons platforms only seem feasible to me against nations that lack anti-sat weapons. A nation that lacks anti-sat technology is not likely to pose a threat sufficient to require orbiting weapon platforms to counter. Unless there's some kind of technology that changes this dynamic then I don't see orbiting weapons as all that valuable. They might offer a quick strike capability but they'd be hanging in orbit where they can be seen by people with just time, binoculars, and a lawn chair. Once they are seen then they don't offer the same kind of surprise. I guess an orbital platform in geosynchronous orbit on the opposing side of the planet as the target (or sufficiently close to such as to be "invisible" to a low tech or low resource adversary) does not seem to be any better tactically than a ground launched weapon. I'm open to be corrected again.
It still strikes me as plain stupidity to assign assets to defence forces on the basis of whether those assets walk, fly or sail. Surely it is better to assign assets to forces appropriate to their tasking?
I'm not so sure that's exactly how things work. As someone that served in the Army I see it this way, the forces are divided to manage people, not weapons. People that operate mostly at sea will need training different than those that operate mostly on land, or in the air.
Two big issues in the Navy for survival is staying afloat and fighting fires. This means every Navy person has to know how keep from drowning if they go overboard, and put out fires so they don't have to jump in the water. The Marines are predominately a forward operating force so they have the belief that every Marine is a rifleman, their standards for marksmanship is the highest of all the branches. In the Army I certainly learned to shoot, I had some water survival training, but I believe some skills like reading maps and a compass was emphasized above that of other branches. I'm not as familiar with Air Force training, learning only that they don't practice camping out in the woods like Army and Marine recruits do.
I believe I share some of your confusion. I'd think that all branches should have a consolidated basic training where everyone learns the basics of how to fight a war. After basic training every recruit still must go on to the training specific to their primary occupation, whether that be infantry, helicopter pilot, truck driver, or musician. That's how smaller nations, and some large ones, run their armed forces.
I can't even get my mind around the Navy driving little boats, far inland, in little muddy rivers "because it's water".
That's probably because the Navy has the people best trained to fight on water. The Army does have a "navy" of their own for moving on muddy little rivers, but that's so they can get tanks and trucks across. If it's more complicated than that then call in the Navy.
Assets and personnel are, as best I can tell, divided up by task. The Army is given the training and tools for fighting across land. This means big tanks, and slow moving aircraft to cover them. The Air Force is trained and equipped for air dominance and dropping warheads on foreheads. This means planes that are big, fast, or both. As you noticed the Navy is equipped to own the water. The Marines cover those transitions in terrain, like taking beaches.
In the end every branch works together as part of the much larger DoD unit. I believe all military police for every service train at the same Army base. I'm quite certain most or all truck drivers, regardless of service, train at the same base. Military intelligence for all services train at the same Air Force base. When it comes to actually fighting the different services all pitch in where their training and assets are needed. I was never deployed overseas but I heard of bases far inland being operated by the Navy, guarded by the Air Force, where patrols were operated by all services. The heavy metal was purely operated by the Army but trucks were driven by all services. The people doing the patrols were infantry, combat engineers, military police, and I think there were some EOD guys too.
Why have the Navy run a base far inland? Because at that point not a lot was happening at sea and they wanted the best cooks serving the food and the best medics patching people up, and you find both in the Navy. I was in the Army but I still like the Navy, those sailors are nice enough to give us soldiers a ride to where we need to be when we need it.
I am wondering exactly what is going to be divided out from the Air Force into this new branch.
My guess would be Navstar GPS, ICBMs, land and orbit based anti-satellite and ICBM assets, most DOD owned communications and weather satellites. What would NOT be transferred would be many spy satellites, my guess is that the USAF and other entities want to keep direct control of those. The Navy would most definitely keep it's sea launched missiles.
Is this just going to become the military equivalent of the 60's era NASA?
You mean like running manned missions to space? Unless the missions have some military utility I kind of doubt it. Would the space force operate a manned battle station in orbit?
Does this also signal a move toward placing conventional weapons in orbit?
I'm pretty sure the placement of weapons in orbit don't gain much in utility over land based weapons and take up a lot of energy for initial launch and station keeping. It's just far easier to launch a big rocket from the surface and let it go ballistic to the target. As I recall dropping something from orbit only shortens the time to target if it's already above the target when needed.
A nation like Russia or China would not only consider a geo-stationary weapons platform over their heads as provocative they might just find a way to arrange an "accidental" collision with one of their satellites to kill it. A nation that lacks anti-sat capability would also find it provocative but won't be able to do much about it than perhaps keep blowing up train stations and pizza parlors with bombs strapped to schoolkids, or keep exploding rockets on launchpads claiming they'll get one off the ground any day now. These kinds of people don't need any more provocation and they also don't pose the kind of threat that would require weapons fired from orbit.
The F-35 program was pretty messed up. It is truly a jack of all trades and master of none. There's nothing really wrong with the F-18 except that the electronics are getting very dated (in spite of repeated up dates) and the air frames have so much flight time that maintaining them is getting expensive enough to consider just building a new series of jets to replace them. The Air Force was having similar problems with the F-15 getting old.
Here's what I expect to happen. The F-35 will be bought up in large numbers but never really replace the airplanes it was meant to replace because of the high cost and poor performance. The USAF will go back to seek yet another air frame that will be cheaper than the F-35 and F-22 but unique to them. Given the lessons learned from the F-22 and F-35 this new plane will be far better than both but cheap enough and capable enough to replace nearly every single seat air frame that they currently fly. At the same time the Navy will seek a replacement for the F-35C and keep flying the F-18 until this new air frame comes along and the F-35 will be retired at the same time as the F-18.
This would leave the F-35 as a second or even third tier air frame for USAF and USMC, the Navy will just give up on it as quickly as it can and give the F-35 air frames they have to the other services for parts. The USAF will tolerate the F-35A as it's a sunk cost for them and they have other planes like the F-22 for high stakes missions. The USMC is likely to tolerate the F-35B because it's a fast mover that can be launched from a helicopter carrier. The F-35C is just a total loser.
The United States Air Force was in fact previously the Army Air Corps. Since the Navy operated a lot of aircraft too at the time some assets from the Navy moved to the Air Force. Also at that time the US Army was in a separate War Department and the Navy in the Navy Department. This created some confusion and logistics issues in World War 2 as each branch had separate standards on things like gas masks and even boots and blankets. The Air Force was created at the same time the Army and Navy were consolidated under the Department of Defense. This created standards that would be shared among all military branches to remove much of the logistics issues that they experienced previously.
One issue of debate was if the Navy would be able to keep it's aircraft or if the new Air Force would be flying planes from aircraft carriers. The issue was resolved in that land based aircraft would be flown by the Air Force. The Navy and Marines could only fly aircraft launched from ships. The Army would not have any fixed wing combat aircraft but could keep some fixed wing non-combat aircraft (cargo and VIP planes mostly) and could have rotary wing aircraft.
I could see a similar issue arising. The US Navy already operates some satellites, only communication relay satellites as I recall. Then there are satellites operated for military support by civilian government agencies. Obviously the Air Force operates most military orbital assets now. How would these assets be distributed? I'm guessing the Navy might be reluctant to give up control of their satellites.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
There is already a "space force" within the USAF. There is also small number of satellites operated by other military branches, as well as civil agencies that have a direct support role to the military. This USAF space force is getting large enough that it's become in effect a separate branch on its own. Not quite the size of the US Navy but if broken out from the Air Force it could easily be on par in size with the US Coast Guard. The USCG is not a military service but it can be called upon to serve in war. There are other services with a military structure that perform support services to the military, and so share a rank structure and uniforms with the military. These services are called "uniformed services" and uniformed services include the military services.
The USCG was already mentioned as one uniformed service that could be called upon to serve under the DOD in war. There is also the US Public Health Services Commissioned Corps and NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. As I understand it the USPHS has officers that they "loan out" to the various military branches to serve as medical specialists on military bases and ships at sea. The NOAA don't necessarily get "loaned out" like USPHS officers but they operate at sea in parallel with the Navy and USCG for watching the weather. I believe the NOAA has aircraft they fly from Navy and Air Force bases.
Anyway, the point is that even a non-combat capable force may be needed to manage space assets in support of the other military branches. Just like we already consolidate weather forecasting and medical care in uniformed services. The Navstar GPS satellites would be one asset that would be most definitely transferred to the "space force". Then there would be spy satellites and communications satellites, and perhaps even weather satellites even though the NOAA already manages some already. Separating the space force off from the USAF would mean the USAF can get back to flying airplanes and leave the managing of satellites for the benefit of all military branches to the new space force.
Perhaps one combat role the space force could command would be the fleet of ballistic missiles. The space force could be in command of anti-ICBM and anti-satellite systems. As I recall the US Navy has some anti-satellite capability and if this capability is shared or transferred to the space force then maybe we could see the space force with it's own fleet of blue water ships.
It sounds like the USAF wants to wash its hands of the space based military assets, they want to be in the business of dropping warheads on foreheads. Things like GPS and spy satellites are a general military need, not something unique to the USAF. When it comes to things like creating budgets we might see the Army wanting more satellites for something but the USAF not wanting to give up manpower and funds to do it. I guess the Army can get, and likely already has, a small "space force" of its own.
Seems to me this is more of a directive to answer the questions on how this space force would work, what assets it would manage, how large it should be, where it would have bases, what kind of training it would have, and so forth. POTUS can want a new space force but without knowing exactly how it would work he can't bring a proposal to Congress to create it as an entity separate from the USAF.
Besides, what do we refer to the personnel as?
In the early days of the USAF they were called "soldiers" until they agreed on "airmen". Is it correct to use "guardsman" refer to those in the Coast Guard? Those in the National Guard? Both? Neither?
The proper term, or more proper term, would be "uniformed services".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's a reason that non-combat services wear uniforms identical, or at least highly similar, to those of combat services. In a time of war these uniformed services will be called upon to support the military, in that capacity they must have a hierarchy and such that is compatible with the military to make communication easier. As an example consider a surgeon, or some other medical provider from USPHS, comes in to a room full of injured soldiers in various levels of need of treatment as well as military corpsman. This person is going to have to get everyone's attention, give orders, and the people receiving the orders will need to recognize this person's authority. Failure for this medical professional to command properly can mean soldiers die. One way to display this authority is to have such people wear a uniform consistent with the officers these soldiers deal with every day.
There is another reason to have these people wear military style uniforms. These people will travel in international waters and do things like take weather measurements, board ships that may carry the flag of another nation to provide care or perform an inspection of some sort, and so on. There are international laws, norms, and regulations that provide legal protections for people in uniform. Those not in uniform, and therefore not displaying the nation they represent in an obvious manner, may be considered a spy. Espionage is a big deal even in peacetime. No government likes employees of another government sneaking around in their business. A person with a flag of their nation on their shoulder, and insignia of some sort declaring their function (such as medical corps, climatologist, surveyor, border patrol, etc.) will be instantly recognized and treated appropriately. Even if these foreign nations do not share a language the symbols used to denote rank, occupation, nation, and so forth are generally universal enough to get much of the needed information across at a glance.
Wait - youâ(TM)re claiming that the religious zealots from Europe who said they have an eternal homeland after 2000 years are reasonable but the second and third generation of the people displaced are not, even though they are still stateless and occupied by said European religious zealots?
I'm saying that after 70 years of the borders of Israel being where they are there is no one alive today on either side with any claims for land except that under their feet. For the most part all of the people were born on the land they live on. We can rehash all the history of who possessed this land all the way back to before Judaism existed if we want but that changes nothing on who owns it now. Israel owns this land and they can keep it as long as they can defend it. These 20 year old punks that toss fire bombs at Israeli border guards can claim that the land on the other side of the fence is there's but it's not. They never set foot there and therefore can claim no ownership. These "European religious zealots" have never been to Europe, and have no citizenship in any European country.
Here's an idea, send the Palestinians to Europe. They have just as much right to be in Europe as the Israeli Jews. Oh, that's right, these Arabs are going to Europe. Seems that they are as poorly behaved in Europe as they are at home, being as they have a tendency to rape the women, drive trucks over children, and hack the men to pieces with machetes. Has Europe been "mean" to the Arabs too and somehow deserve this treatment? Was this land also "stolen" from the Arabs and they just want the land back? Is this all just a political dispute? I say not. This is religious zealotry from the Muslims and they are willing to "convert or kill" everyone or die trying. I'm willing to grant their wish, they can die trying and get their 72 virgins.
You seem to not know a heck of a lot about this, so itâ(TM)s unsurprising you are parroting propaganda, but the Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank face starvation rations and no clean water in one case and dispossession in the other, and both face near-daily violence from Israelis. You should open a newspaper or two, or maybe read a book.
They could have better conditions if they wanted it more than to kill Jews. I have no sympathy for the living conditions of those that threaten the lives of Jews for being Jews. I have read a book or two, and I see the news. The Israeli authorities give those in Gaza pipes to fix their water supply, fertilizer to grow crops, and sugar to can their food. What they do is weld the pipes into makeshift rocket casings, use the sugar and fertilizer to make rocket propellant, then send the unguided rockets to kill random innocent people. Had they instead used this material to improve their own living conditions they'd have food and clean water. I'm impressed by their ability to improvise these weapons but saddened by their inability to use those resources for improving their living conditions.
I think youâ(TM)ll find itâ(TM)s about occupation and Israeli brutality. Seriously, the level of ignorance youâ(TM)re showing here is embarrassing. Even the Israelis admit that they have a brutal occupation with the intent of starving the Palestinians into acquiescence. They just canâ(TM)t mass murder the Palestinians because then theyâ(TM)d be subjected to sanctions, and they rely on massive aid handouts from the EU and US just to survive.
Israel has nuclear weapons. As I recall VP Biden let this slip as before it was merely speculated. Iran has stated openly that if they get a nuclear weapon they fully intend to drop it on Israel. If Israel was equally brutal then they'd drop nukes on Iran, Gaza, and wherever else they thought it necessary. Iran faces sanctions now, precisely because they have more hate than intelligence. Israel is smart enough to hold back their brutality on their neighbors to avoid these san
Math and science scores have also been falling in the USA. Coincidence? Causation?
The argument (as I understand it) is that due to bias in raising children, society etc. there are not enough woman to staff a (hypothetical) all-woman company (and no one wants such a company!). So to give an over simplified example: due to systematic bias, there are too few women who know how to lead a company. Thus your hypothetical all-woman company could not happen.
You misunderstood my argument.
All women companies do in fact happen, I've seen them and they've become successful. This tends to happen with small companies within certain fields, such as medicine. When a company reaches a certain size then people will specialize more. A veterinary clinic that had all women employees at first will at some point in their growth look for someone to do things like take out the trash, sweep the floors, change the light bulbs, and clean the toilets. Given that strength is beneficial for carrying trash, and height beneficial for changing light bulbs, then people hired for this will likely be taller and stronger. Men tend to be taller and stronger than women and so this person is likely to be male.
Over time this formerly all female company might need someone to manage the books. If we look at averages on how men and women perform with numbers we see that men tend to do better. Therefore this position will likely be filled by a man.
It's not that it's impossible to find sufficiently talented women to fill all positions, only that a company over a certain size is unlikely to be entirely women due to the needs common to any given company.
The all-male company is, however, very possible because you can (more easily) find men for all positions.
Just like it is possible for a small company to be run entirely by women it is possible for a small company to be run entirely by men. An automotive repair shop might be run entirely by men because men tend to like to do such things. An automotive repair shop is unlikely, though it's not impossible, to be run entirely by women. All male companies are more common because there are more men in the workforce and men tend to take on the risks of starting their own company.
Also the argument of "naturally gravitate" is hotly contested. I personally see no reason why this it is more natural for a women to be a nurse than a bricklayer. (And just to preempt the physical strength argument: if women had to lay bricks, maybe we as a society would have developed ways to lay bricks more efficient (requiring less strength) or found ways to get by without brick laying altogether. )
You can't just preempt the physical strength argument because laying bricks is an occupation that will inherently require physical strength. If for some reason we as a society had to have women lay bricks then we'd find the tallest and strongest women, with the best manual dexterity, to do it. It's "more natural" for men to lay bricks because the nature of the job means men are better at it, on the average.
Let's take the nursing example though. Women tend to gravitate to pediatric medicine. 30% of all physicians are women but 60% of pediatric physicians are women. Why is that? Is it because women prefer to be around children? Maybe. It can also be because of the strength and height differences with men. Moving a child around is easier than an adult. An uncooperative patient that weighs 200 pounds will overpower a 100 pound nurse, regardless of the sex of either. In a large hospital, with nurses of an equal distribution of men and women, will naturally develop more nurses in pediatrics because the high school football player with a concussion thinks he's being attacked by aliens needs to be wrestled to the ground and restrained before he hurts himself. Who are you going to send to do that? The 100 pound female nurse? Three 100 pound female nurses? Or the 250 pound male nurse that was once a high school football player? Enforcing a rule of 50/50 male/female nurse
As a rule I tend to not reply to ACs but this one amused me.
While medical engineers should mostly consist of people with undefined sexuality?
My guess is that those with undefined sexuality would tend to become medical engineers so they can figure out what's wrong with them and develop means to correct that condition.
Fairness is not the reason these diversity programs exists. Long term profit is.
If profit was the motivator then no one would hire based on diversity, they'd hire the best people that they could find for the job.
I recall an anecdote of a person that claimed in some forum or another that sports teams were racist because football linemen tended to be black while the more prestigious roles of captain and quarterback tended to be white. A football coach stood up and exclaimed that he did not care what color the teammates were, he picked the best person for the position. Failing to do so meant losing games and his job being at risk. Just because the skin color happened to generally fall upon different positions did not mean racism, only that genetics and athletic abilities happened to coincide with skin color.
Forcing a football team to have more white linemen and consider who is captain based not on skill but on skin color means losing football games. For high school coaches all the way up to professional team owners this means losing games and therefore losing profits, if not immediately then in long term career success.
That may be true or it may not be. But you're potentially discounting a fantastic candidate because "most women wouldn't be good at that..." But what about the one who is?
If that's what you believe I wrote then you need to go back and read it again.
I'm merely recognizing that men tend to do better than women in software engineering and other STEM occupations. That means that if Google hires the best people for software engineering they won't get a 50/50 men/women ratio. The distribution will be more like 85/15 men/women. I get this ratio based on the ratio of men and women that graduate in computer science and related fields.
The question is whether or not a company is not hiring a woman for a position she could do because she's a woman.
What we see Google doing is passing over superior applicants for software engineering positions because that applicant is a man. We know this is happening because of documents leaked out from the company. Given that discriminating for jobs based on sex is illegal in the USA, and has been for years, Google should be sued into oblivion for this.
Merely because the people whose land was stolen are pissed and are fighting to get it back?
Israel, as it exists today, was created in 1947. That's over 70 years go. The people that had this land "stolen" are quite likely all dead. The few that remain, if any, are not likely in fighting form. The people fighting today are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of that generation. How many generations removed can they still call this their land?
I grew up in the USA, as did my parents and grandparents. If I go back far enough I can find ancestors from Germany and other European nations. Does this mean I can go back and claim land there? I don't think so. What point was that right lost? Give me a number of generations. It's not "their land" any more than some piece of Germany is my land.
Also, while 75% (give or take) of people in Israel are Jewish the rest are not. They weren't killed off or relocated out of the country. Those that can behave themselves and not be pissed about a 70 year old gripe will live in peace and prosperity within the borders of Israel. Those that can't will be imprisoned, not killed or forced out.
And you think that shows Religion in a good light?
I think this shows Jews in a good light. Muslims? Not so much.
If Israel really was the bloodthirsty culture you believe it to be then they'd bomb the Gaza Strip until it glowed in the dark. The Gaza Strip is 99.9% Muslim, why is that? Could it be because the Jews and Christians were largely killed or forcefully relocated? All the rockets that go over that border originate from Gaza and land in Israel. Sure, the Israeli Army will defend it's border with lethal force so bullets and grenades do cross from Israel into Gaza. They do this because they know if the border is breached that those that cross will do so with the intent to kill as many Jews as they can. This isn't about land any more, no one fighting this war has ever set foot in Israel before.
Israel is showing considerable restraint and diplomacy. This has not been reciprocated by its neighbors. I read my history and know of the Six Day War. Israel has a far superior military than any of its neighbors. If they wanted to take the Sinai Peninsula again, and keep it, then they could do so at any time. But they gave it back as an offering to hopefully reach peace. All they got in return was more rockets fired at them.
This is not a political war. Maybe in 1947, or perhaps 1967, it was but no more. All those warriors from then are dead or senile. This is a one sided religious war, Muslims wanting to kill Jews or die trying.
Where the fuck do you get "Christian" from?
I get it from two things. First, it is that people with the general "Protestant work ethic" tend to be successful. That's not saying this work ethic is unique to Christians, only that this has had an effect on society where it shows up in the demographics. Hard working people can be found in all cultures but those living in a society that is predominately Christian in social norms place greater value in hard work than others. That does not mean the successful person is a "believer" and goes to worship every Sunday, only that they've lived in a society of people that was built upon Christian values like that of the West.
Second, I make this distinction to separate ethnicity of most Europeans from those with Jewish ancestry. Again, this does not require the person be a practicing Jew, only that they've descended from ethnic Jews. I make this distinction because even though ethnic Jews are highly intelligent on the average they do not have the same "spacial intelligence" (for lack of a better term) that those of a Christian ancestry would have.
Over generations Jews have lived in a culture where they were second class citizens, so they were rarely land owners or tradesmen. They tended to be in occupations that allowed them to travel, work out of small offices, and so on. This combined with the norms within Jewish tradition lead them to be lawyers, actors, bankers, and other occupations that valued verbal skill. This had an effect on the genes.
Contrast that with Christian culture for much of time. Christians were predominately farmers, tradesmen, sailors, soldiers, and such. There were a few priests, monks, and nuns but they didn't contribute to the gene pool the same way for obvious reasons. Spacial skills were very important to excel in these professions. Certainly there were plenty of Christian lawyers and bankers but that was not a dominant occupation like for ethnic Jews.
White as an ethnic group contains largely those of Christian ancestry and Jewish ancestry. If we take a large enough and random enough populations of both and give them tests similar to that of a college entrance exam then we will see the Christians dominate in mathematics skill, and therefore in fields like computer science, and Jews dominate in verbal skill, and therefore in fields like law.
I'm sure I've "triggered" many social justice warriors with this explanation. Go fuck yourself if you find it "triggering". If you find my logic flawed then I'm open to discussion.
The story is that white employment at google fell over 8 percent in only 4 years!
I agree, that is amazing. To do that they'd have to do some serious "diversity" hiring. I assume that Google will be reluctant to fire productive workers, that is unless they expose their racism in a document that was leaked outside the company. Therefore the shift in demographics must come from natural attrition (people die, take different jobs, retire, etc.) and new hires. Unless a company is growing rapidly, and there's a pool of untapped "diversity" to draw from, they can shift only so fast.
I suspect that this pool of diverse employees must be very thin because graduates in fields like computer science is still dominated by white Christian males. There's a 2 to 1, or perhaps as high as 4 to 1, ratio of men to women graduating in these majors, depending on who you ask. I found out that women owned small businesses can get preferential treatment in Illinois. Unless your business is located where this kind of preferential treatment exists then your pool of hires will be less diverse.
That brings a saying I heard to mind, diversity is such a great idea that it takes the force of government to create.
Good job, Google! You are now well on the way to "diversify" yourself into oblivion. Keep this up and in maybe 4 or 8 more years you'll be begging for your "diversity" to move to Illinois where the government can pay for their reduced output at increased wages.
You mean religion in general is cancer.
Right, because Christianity and Judaism have been so toxic that cultures that live consistent with Judaeo-Christian norms have failed miserably.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Look at Israel and compare it to it's neighbors. The nation that exists, and was created, as a sanctuary for Jews in the world has the ability to produce all the water and food it needs for itself and then some. They produce some of the best technology and are able to fend off attackers which consistently have more numbers and resources but also a religion that leads them to a path of suicide. This suicide is quite literal, they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them to "win" a war. While Europe was looking at the stars and plotting the motion of the planets there were cultures in the Americas and Africa that were sacrificing themselves and their children to their gods.
That's not saying that Europeans were entirely peaceful and intellectual, they had plenty of wars based on national borders and their interpretation of how to best worship a god. I will also admit that cultures in Asia prospered without a Judaeo-Christian culture. They still had their own religion and also had incredible advancements in science and technology.
Religion is not cancer. You could argue that people can be peaceful, intellectual, and also without religion. I'd like to see an example of such a culture. Best we see of that is a culture that replaces worship of a god or gods with worship of a leader or of government. Such cultures tend to devolve into shit holes like North Korea. Islam is cancer and we see this play out every day in the news. Many of these Muslim nations exist only because of trade with nations that do not practice Islam. Had they been left to their own devices they'd slowly revert to goat herders as the infrastructure they imported decayed into dust.
Perhaps someday Islam will evolve into a religion that is not bent on suicide. I see hints of this in Saudi Arabia, where they have begun to allow women to get an education and drive a car. A culture that keeps half their population ignorant and sheltered will continually be outdone by cultures that do not. It might also help if they don't strap bombs to their children and blow them up.
Interview with a manager that saw his company die from diversity hiring:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Scott Adams, the same guy that writes Dilbert, has a similar story. Scott Adams was driven to writing comics because he saw his career hit a dead end from diversity hiring policies where he worked. Ignoring the inherent unequal distributions of qualities among different genetic populations is dangerous. Reality always wins out.
Consider this... If women did the same work as men but for 75% of the wages then a company consisting completely of women would beat all the rest. I have seen small companies run entirely by women but they've been veterinary clinics, medical clinics, and schools, but that's because women naturally gravitate to occupations where a strong nurturing personality is beneficial.
Here's another thing, women don't really want equal distribution in all occupations. Women make up a small portion of prisoners. Should we lock up women to make up for that? Women make up a small portion of the people that die in war, should we send more women out to fight and die? There's a small ratio of women that dig ditches, clean out sewers, climb power transmission towers, hang siding and shingles, pour concrete, pick up trash, stack bricks, and on and on. We shouldn't have women doing these occupations just to keep things "fair". Just as we shouldn't demand more women engineers to keep things "fair". What's "fair" is allowing people to get the jobs they are suited to by personality and merit. When we do that we have many males in engineering and many females in medicine.
We can have a meritocracy and prosperity or we can artificially enforce "diversity" and see civilization fall apart. Google will have to learn this one way or the other.
Your pdf link is produced by the nuclear industry, which has been shilling for decades. Got any independent sources?
At least the post had a citation, all you have is an unsubstantiated criticism. I suggest you go look for a source yourself. Seems to me that you have access to a computer with internet, make the best of it.
Also, if you'd actually read the paper you'd see that wind power is less expensive than nuclear. For an organization that is supposed to be a shill for nuclear power you'd think that maybe they'd fudge the numbers a bit for nuclear power. The paper seems pretty evenhanded, IMHO, as it shows that if we are to have inexpensive and low CO2 energy in the future then we must have a combination of wind and nuclear. We'd probably need some natural gas in there as well, at least until we built enough windmills and nuclear reactors.
Your Wikipedia link says that nuclear is the most expensive in many other countries too, including poster child France that is supposed to be a model for others to follow.
The Wikipedia article also shows solar power to be extremely expensive for much of the world. If we want to "save the planet" then solar should stay in the realm of communication satellites and off grid remote areas. Even in sunny places like California and Australia solar is still more expensive than wind, coal, and natural gas.
Right, let's do what Germany did and tax fossil fuels. That means people with low incomes get saddled with higher costs while the government makes gobs of money on the taxes. Of course the government wants to tax carbon emissions, it's something that people will have to buy to fuel their cars, cook their food, and heat their homes. There's no escaping a carbon tax.
Maybe people could just buy an electric car, a heat pump, or whatever, to replace the fossil fuel equivalents they have now. To do so they'd have to save up some money for these big purchases. It's kind of hard to do that if the government is taking a bigger chunk of their income in taxes.
If you want more people to "save the planet" then they need resources to do it. I suppose instead of "resources" I could use the word "capital" but capitalism is bad. Can't have capitalists get capital, they might build an electric car factory with it.
Sorry, the government isn't going to save us. We're going to have to save ourselves.
Oh, and Germany did in fact lower their CO2 output with a carbon tax. That's because people have less money to spend on things like heating their homes, or cooking their food. We don't need to "save the planet", the planet will be just fine. We need to save ourselves, because the government isn't going to do it.
Chernobyl had government owned and operated nuclear reactors. Fukushima was a privately owned and operated nuclear power plant. Which one resulted in more death and destruction?
Governments do not care about you. A private entity might not care about you either, that is until you stop paying your electric bill. Dead people don't pay their bills. Dead people don't vote either but then the survivors just get substandard services and get to bury their dead family and friends.
I'll take a greedy capitalist over any government bureaucracy. A capitalist offers services to get my money. A government takes my money first and then offers services as the excuse to keep taking it. If my government doesn't meet my needs then maybe I can vote in a better government in 2 years. If a private company doesn't meet my needs then I can drop them at the end of the monthly billing cycle and go somewhere else.
Much of the problems of the nuclear power industry in the USA is that the government has not allowed sufficient freedom for the nuclear power industry to develop. I find it very hard to believe that no one in 40 years has figured out how to make a profitable nuclear power plant. I quite certain that they have, only the government has buried them in enough paperwork, and therefore costs, to prevent any profitability.
I'll hear the tree huggers scream about how nuclear power is not safe, produces all this waste, etc. Go do a Google search on deaths per terawatt, then explain to me on how nuclear power is not safe. Go search on how much CO2 is produced from nuclear power. So search on the waste produced, the costs, and so much more. There is no reason we can't have cheap, safe, and "green" nuclear power except the idiots that would rather see the world burn from global warming than have their claims of the threats nuclear power poses proves false.
You say we should remove the profit motive from nuclear power for the sake of safety? Go fuck yourself. It's because of the profit motive that the USA has enjoyed as safe of nuclear power as the world has ever seen.
It isn't flawed if your genome is accustomed to seafood.
Europeans ate plenty of seafood for a very long time throughout history. This was put on hold for about 1000 years when the Moors invaded and tended to kill or enslave those fishing in the Mediterranean Sea.
I'm sure many would think that on an evolutionary scale this 1000 years is not likely to affect the genetic makeup of Europeans. Access to protein is important for one's health and losing access to fishing will mean needing to seek it elsewhere. This means hunting for furry and feathered creatures, and/or domesticating goats, sheep, and cattle while often consuming their milk.
Lactose tolerance in adults is for the most part highly centered on Europe. Those that couldn't fish would need protein from milk. If they couldn't tolerate drinking milk for protein then they might kill their cow to eat the meat, but then they risk running out of protein pretty quick.
There was a trade of salted fish from northern waters but that meant a potential for rotten fish, high salt intake, and so on for moving fish so far in a time where things moved at the speed of a laden ox. Oh, and since I know someone is going to ask... I'm talking about European laden oxen, not African.
BTW, Africans did have domesticated cattle but they didn't always drink the milk. To get protein from the cattle and not kill it they'd draw blood and drink that, perhaps mixed with the milk.
Getting all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet is possible, but tricky. And as Zontar the Mindless mentions on this thread, we are omnivores. Look at the teeth in our mouths and our digestive tracts. We evolved to eat food from a variety of sources. And we are predators, built for the hunt, with eyes in the front of our heads, the better to spot prey with stereo vision.
We have evolved to eat cooked food as well. This is unique to humans. Comparisons of the human digestive system to other omnivores expose this difference.
What is a bit amazing to me is that there is a difference between what men and women have evolved to eat. Meat is a dangerous food. Not only does meat fight back until it's dead but even then it can kill you from being under cooked, or as mentioned above over salted. A man getting sick from meat means he's miserable for a while, assuming it doesn't kill him. A woman getting sick runs the risk of a miscarriage if pregnant, including same the risk of death as men. Miscarriages from eating meat over long evolutionary time spans will lead to differences in the genetics. This is why pregnant women are discouraged from eating certain foods and often feel ill when eating things they would otherwise tolerate when not pregnant. Women can better tolerate a vegetarian diet than men. That's not saying it's impossible for men to go on a vegan diet, only that men run greater health risks for doing so.
There are many animals in this world in that if you give them an unlimited supply of food, they will keep on eating until they die; often in very short order.
I grew up on a dairy farm and I'd see this happen. I personally didn't see a cow eat itself to death but I have seen cows eat until they got sick and had heard stories of people having to dispose of cows that had eaten until they died. This seems to only be true of corn feed though, a cow will know enough to stop eating grass/alfalfa/haylage eventually. I do remember a calf that didn't know enough to not eat the straw. That calf got bloated and sick constantly until it learned that straw is not good food.
Your posts implied that natural gas would be the main fuel in the US, as in cars all ship with natural gas standard like they ship with gasoline standard now. And I don't see that happening over EVs.
My claim is that those the desire transportation that is "greener" and/or cheaper than gasoline will gravitate towards CNG over EV. CNG is not likely to replace gasoline and diesel fuels completely but as I see it CNG will be more popular than electric. I don't know if anyone is following this thread any more but I'm typing this to defend my arguments now and gather my thoughts to defend it in the future. I'll do this in a claim/counterclaim format.
Claim: Electricity will become so cheap that no one would buy anything other than an electric car. This price drop will be from a combination of green energy sources like wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal becoming much cheaper than anything producing CO2.
Counterclaim: Assuming that electricity becomes cheaper because of competition then that prices natural gas out of the electricity producing market. Given that 30% of the electricity in the USA comes from natural gas now the displacement of natural gas from the electricity would free up a lot of natural gas for use elsewhere. Given that natural gas and petroleum oil comes from the same place then as long as we need oil we will produce natural gas as a byproduct. Given that fuel for aviation, marine shipping, and heating, will continue to be used for a long time regardless of what people use to fuel their cars there will continue to be cheap natural gas for a long time, likely decades. To compete with EVs and to take advantage of this cheap fuel CNG vehicles will likely move from niche markets to passenger cars fairly quickly.
Claim: People enjoy the convenience of recharging their EV at home, and plug-in hybrids offer the convenience of recharge at home while offering range extension and improved cold weather performance for those that find the need for such. This leaves nothing, or little, for the CNG market to grip to as CNG is a high cost alternative.
Counterclaim: CNG does in fact have a high initial cost, I do not dispute that. We do see current car makers offer CNG vehicles for those that desire them, and so they have the tooling to make these vehicles, as well as experience in designing and supporting them with parts. Should CNG gather a following like EVs have now then it can reach a tipping point, again like EVs, which brings filling stations and local dealers carrying them as standard offerings. The convenience of refueling at home would no longer be unique to EVs, CNG cars would also have this available for those willing to install the equipment in their homes. CNG also offers 5 minute fill-ups at filling stations equipped with high pressure CNG filling points. Given that natural gas enjoys an existing infrastructure in distribution in many metro areas the cost to add CNG filling should be as low, or lower, than offering EV charging points. Also, given that a CNG fill-up takes no longer than that for gasoline the filling stations are not likely to be as reluctant to offer this as people won't tie up the space for 30 minutes at a time. This tipping point would not only create filling points fairly quickly but also traditional ICE makers would have an easier time meeting demand for vehicles as there is a high part count commonality with gasoline engines. Prices should come down very quickly.
Claim: With more people demanding "green" cars the incumbent ICE makers will find competition with EVs an incredible threat to their future profitability. EV cars will have convenience and low fuel costs that ICE cars cannot provide.
Counterclaim: As mentioned above the ICE makers already have experience with CNG vehicles. The cost conscious will see the low fuel cost, convenience of at home refueling, but without the range anxiety of EVs. Those seeking a "green" alternative will see that CNG produces half the CO2 of gasoline, has
Upgrade less often.
If I upgrade every 4 to 6 years instead of every 2 to 3 years, then Apple is selling half as many computers. Why would they want to do that?
Isn't upgrading less often a trend generally across electronics now? It seems to me that it is.
Years ago I remember being able to pick up perfectly functional computers from friends and family because they bought something newer and faster. I'd be invited over to help them set up their new computer and in exchange I'd get their old hardware. Given the pace of improvement of electronics at the time I'd mostly just use the computers I got for parts or as "toys" to play with while I experimented with different Linux distributions and such. At some point I no longer got perfectly functional computers in exchange for my services. Instead I'd get laptops with dead screens and/or batteries (still useful for me as desktop computers), a desktop that had critical parts broken (I'd part them out to upgrade my gear), or other half functional gear. Now I get nothing, well I'd still take their hardware in hopes of getting something but mostly it's just so that I can help them in recycling the gear properly. People don't upgrade any more unless what they have is completely beyond repair.
I suspect several factors in this. One big factor, and the major topic here, is that technology is not improving like it once did. We've pretty much hit a plateau on clock rates so we get instead smaller, but no faster. We get cheaper computers I guess, but so long as the $1000 computer someone bought keeps doing what they bought it to do they aren't likely to buy a $500 computer to replace it.
Another factor I see is that the economy hasn't been that great. People that have trouble paying their phone bill are not likely to get a new phone.
Then there is the matter of hardware being more durable. I know people that bought new phones because the old one fell into the toilet, got it's screen cracked from falling off a table, or buttons and switches wore out. Waterproofing and near bulletproof glass is common on phones now. With desktops losing their optical drives, spinning platter drives, and even cooling fans, the parts that can wear out are minimal. Keyboards and mice don't even wear out like they used to.
There's also the matter of there not being a "must have" application that requires a faster computer. People use their computers to chat on web forums, consume the ample audio and visual content on the internet, or whatever. Just about any computer can do that. Most any cell phone sold in the last 5 years can do that. The people that drove computing in the past, gamers and content creators, are often satisfied with pretty run of the mill stuff. Those that want "more" don't dominate the market like they used to. This might also be because those that want "more" can just buy another cheap computer to help them in their work, dividing the work among many computers, than have to invest in one big computer to do their work.
I don't see this as unique to Apple, this is an industry wide phenomenon. Seems to me that every manufacturer of electronics has slowed down in producing new offerings.