EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   The Lounge (https://ecomodder.com/forum/lounge.html)
-   -   Terrorist attack on Saudi oil (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/terrorist-attack-saudi-oil-37839.html)

Xist 09-15-2019 01:46 PM

Terrorist attack on Saudi oil
 
This is the worst attack in decades, including Saddam firing scuds. https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-o...ne-11568480576

Is there any electric car equivalent? What if ten drones blew up a solar or wind farm? Maybe if they took out a battery array, but would that be as disruptive or horrible to the environment?

freebeard 09-15-2019 03:00 PM

Quote:

Is there any electric car equivalent?
Kamikaze automatons?

edit:
One source (coffee with you-know-who) is saying the attack was a pulled punch. If they were serious they'd have attack the desalination plants.

As for the vulnerability of oil vs electricity, that's a question for penetration testers. But electricity is fungible, it comes from varied sources.

oil pan 4 09-15-2019 04:16 PM

Buy an electric vehicle so the US can export more petroleum products, it's the American thing to do.

Fat Charlie 09-16-2019 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebeard (Post 606735)
If they were serious they'd have attack the desalination plants.

That's if you're serious about disrupting Saudi society and maybe forcing them to import more bottled water.

If you want to send price shocks around the world and make the Saudis look bad to their customers, you throw a cheap little attack (that everyone knows is scalable) at the oil.

jakobnev 09-16-2019 02:30 PM

Quote:

Terrorist attack on Saudi oil

Is it? Isn't a country's infrastructure a legitimate target in a war?

redpoint5 09-16-2019 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakobnev (Post 606779)
Is it? Isn't a country's infrastructure a legitimate target in a war?

Is there a declared war? If you're implying it was not a terrorist attack, the definition of terrorism is an attack by a non-nation group without having declared war.

All targets are legitimate in war because anything supporting an existential threat must be destroyed as quickly as possible. Existence trumps any notions of fair play.

Fat Charlie 09-16-2019 03:45 PM

Words and definitions don't matter. Terrorists are anyone that "we" don't like. And if you disagree, you're a terrorist too.

redpoint5 09-16-2019 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie (Post 606784)
Words and definitions don't matter. Terrorists are anyone that "we" don't like. And if you disagree, you're a terrorist too.

Sure they matter, which is why we're able to have discussions. We share a notion of the meaning of words well enough that we can understand each other.

The definition of terrorist doesn't include whether they are "good" or "bad", it simply defines what constitutes terrorism.

Xist 09-16-2019 04:34 PM

I am going to put Marianne Williamson in a cannon, fire her at them, and she will love them to death.

Fat Charlie 09-16-2019 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 606785)
Sure they matter...

Sorry, the covfefe got in the way.

jakobnev 09-17-2019 01:26 AM

Quote:

the definition of terrorism is an attack by a non-nation group without having declared war.
There are 99 definitions of terrorism but that ain't one.

To snip a bit from wikipedia:

Quote:

The following criteria of violence or threat of violence fall outside of the definition of terrorism:[5][6]

wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality that are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation states
reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property
legitimate targets in war, such as enemy combatants and strategic infrastructure that form an integral part of the enemy's war effort
collateral damage, including the infliction of incidental damage to non-combatant targets during an attack on or attempting to attack legitimate targets in war
The oil fuels the war, both literally and economically.

oil pan 4 09-17-2019 10:26 AM

If this had happened in 2013 gasoline prices would already be up another $1 gallon.

Not that I care either way. I drive a leaf now.

Xist 09-17-2019 10:39 AM

Fuel prices affect the cost of goods and services.

oil pan 4 09-17-2019 11:19 AM

It effects you way more when you have that going on and you have to feed a gas guzzler.

freebeard 09-17-2019 01:07 PM

Methinks you snipped a little too much.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
U.S. law

Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation.

U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".[42]

18 U.S.C. 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism":

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

Cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

jakobnev 09-17-2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebeard (Post 606837)
Methinks you snipped a little too much.


Methinks not, you see all the sections you quoted talk about the motive being to influence, intimidate or coerce. (An attack on resources is instead intended to have a direct effect on the war.)

Just by the attacker being a non-nation group and not having declared war isn't enough to qualify for something to be a terrorist attack. (There is a reason the word has "Terror" in it.)

freebeard 09-17-2019 05:43 PM

[shrug]

I wasn't commenting on motives, but the parts in bold: 'U.S. law' and '(i)... (ii)... (iii)'.

I apologize for using 'methinks'.

The latest I heard was it was cruise missiles, likely purchased with U.S.money from the Obama administration. Remember the pallet loads of cash?

All Darc 09-17-2019 08:53 PM

How many times along history USA was a terrorist???

freebeard 09-17-2019 11:19 PM

About average? More importantly have we gotten any better in the last little while?

Was the [false flag] missile scare in Hawaii terrorism? It let North Korea know they were endangered by their own weapons program and brought them to the table.

Hurricane Dorian was headed straight to the Port St. Lucie nuclear plant; then it did a sit-and-spin on the Chinese bases in The Bahamas. Was that terrorism?

Other than that haven't we been doing pretty well?

jakobnev 09-18-2019 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All Darc (Post 606871)
How many times along history USA was a terrorist???

So many times that Americans always feel the need to push terrorism definitions that explicitly exclude state actors from being terrorists.

redpoint5 09-18-2019 11:23 AM

I'm not justifying all US actions by adhering to a definition of terrorism.

Anyhow, what concerns me more is the fact that drones are super cheap, and this is an indication of terrorism to come; where cities can be bombed by small and cheap drones that can't be linked back to their point of origin.

We're going to need interceptor drones at some point.

aerohead 09-18-2019 11:23 AM

terrorists too
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie (Post 606784)
Words and definitions don't matter. Terrorists are anyone that "we" don't like. And if you disagree, you're a terrorist too.

I suppose the British considered 'us' terrorists back in 1776.

freebeard 09-18-2019 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5
Anyhow, what concerns me more is the fact that drones are super cheap, and this is an indication of terrorism to come; where cities can be bombed by small and cheap drones that can't be linked back to their point of origin.

We're not there yet.

Apparently it was cruise missile[s], necessary to pack the ordinance. With flocks of fly-weight drones, they will tend toward 'single-bullet' kamikaze drones that take out personnel.

redpoint5 09-18-2019 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebeard (Post 606925)
We're not there yet.

Apparently it was cruise missile[s], necessary to pack the ordinance. With flocks of fly-weight drones, they will tend toward 'single-bullet' kamikaze drones that take out personnel.

Well, that's more what I was thinking (small drones; single kill targets), but we're not far off from relatively cheap drones capable of higher payloads and ordinance.

There's Youtube videos of people flying RC planes hundreds of miles. Cheap GPS makes manual control unnecessary.

Imagine if the Japanese balloon bombs had access to $2 GPS chips and altimeters with some cheap digital control logic. They'd still have mostly ended up in empty space since most of the US is empty, but I imagine something like that could be effective to terrorists.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 09-19-2019 11:20 PM

One of the reasons why I support ethanol and biodiesel is the possibility to keep the production less concentrated at some specific area and resorting to different feedstocks. Attacking dozens of biofuel factories might be harder than doing the same against a handful of oil refineries.

oil pan 4 09-19-2019 11:58 PM

The ethanol refinery here looks like an oil refinery.

Fat Charlie 09-20-2019 09:21 PM

Great. Now we're going to send missile units to protect their oil fields. I'd rather just let oil go up.

oil pan 4 09-20-2019 11:14 PM

Yes and the Russians would like for that to happen too.

freebeard 09-21-2019 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFA
Esper reiterated that the United States does not seek a conflict with Iran and called on Tehran to return to diplomatic channels. He also said that there could be additional U.S. deployments if the situation were to escalate.

I'd be more concerned with more military equipment to the Saudis.

redpoint5 09-21-2019 02:43 AM

I've never liked arming the enemy of my enemy. If a cause justifies the use of force and violence, we should do it ourselves; else, leave it alone. Also, when violence is justified, it should be as quick and fierce as possible to end it as quickly as possible.

As a tangent, though I am not hawkish, I never understood how Embassys get overrun with the people inside being murdered. There should be hundreds of invader bodies on and around the walls of embassys from the first waves of people attempting to overtake it. If it is sovereign land of the representative country, their duty is to protect it by all means necessary. Each invasion should play out like the Alamo.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 09-21-2019 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redpoint5 (Post 607155)
I've never liked arming the enemy of my enemy. If a cause justifies the use of force and violence, we should do it ourselves; else, leave it alone. Also, when violence is justified, it should be as quick and fierce as possible to end it as quickly as possible.

That's a good point. Unless there are some mutual strategic interests that would lead to a long-term relationship between the parts involved, it's quite dangerous to share military resources. And even though I believe in peace through superior firepower, getting the USA involved in so many conflicts between third-parties becomes pointless to some extent while some improvements at the home front could lead to a lesser dependence on supplies from war-torn zones abroad.

Xist 09-22-2019 12:33 PM

I drove Army trucks in Afghanistan. I cannot tell you whether we should have been there, just that we did everything we could to help the good guys and hunt the bad guys.

While it seems like most people say they were always against invading Afghanistan, there was overwhelming support at the time. How many politicians were against it?

Bernie Sanders.

I hate to think of what it would take for popular support for another war, or for a decisive victory.

We never had one of those in Afghanistan (or Iraq).

Wars are supposed to boost the economy, but that sure did not seem to happen, either.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 09-22-2019 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xist (Post 607229)
While it seems like most people say they were always against invading Afghanistan, there was overwhelming support at the time.

I remember, there was a much greater support for a military operation in Afghanistan right after 9/11 than 2 years later in Iraq. Well, even though I don't consider such operations to be a mistake at all, I do believe the average Americans could take a look into options to reduce the dependence on oil. Not only opening their minds to engine efficiency and other fuel-saving features that serve right for everyone else abroad, but also for biofuels. Even if a war ends up being effectively necessary, a lesser dependence for resources from a war-torn zone at the home front is desirable, and might become a valuable asset even when it would seem unlikely for the USA to engage in such war.

freebeard 09-22-2019 10:39 PM

Quote:

I do believe the average Americans could take a look into options to reduce the dependence on oil. Not only opening their minds to engine efficiency and other fuel-saving features that serve right for everyone else abroad, but also for biofuels.
The average American had little leverage, but the (much despised ) capitalists looked ahead and looked around and exploited shale oil with new technology. Now the USofA doesn't need overpriced oil from the Middle East and we slowly disentangle from there.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Xist
I hate to think of what it would take for popular support for another war, or for a decisive victory.

We never had one of those in Afghanistan (or Iraq).

Or, as I recall, Vietnam. So war has become unpossible. It's moved into Internet and weather and space. Girls Und Panzer will remain a fantasy.

Xist 09-23-2019 02:35 PM

At least we won in Korea!

redpoint5 09-23-2019 03:24 PM

I understand the complexity well enough (still poorly) to know why we muck about with things like indirectly fighting the USSR in Vietnam, or storming Afghanistan. I'm sure I was as hawkish following 9/11 as anyone, but I was also more naive then. It's easy to rally support to punch the enemy when they hurt us so badly, but we also have to be pragmatic about it too. Are we winning if we kill a bunch of bad guys but now can't take toothpaste on airplanes, get frisked, miss flights, etc... and those bad guys are replaced with new bad guys?

Bin Laden might have spearheaded the attacks, but it was all Saudi men that did the dirty work. I don't consider the Saudi's to be our allies because they don't share enough of US values. We should be less tolerant of bad behavior from our allies, just as we should be less tolerant of bad behavior from those closest to us (starting with ourselves).

As I said with Iraq, I'd have sent bombs to Hussain the moment he broke the peace treaty by kicking out weapons inspectors. No need to invent WMD to justify taking him out. He's provided enough direct reasons without needing to invent new ones.

Bad ideas like Communism are doomed to fail, and I take a Regan view of fighting it; to simply point out how terrible things are in places that adopt it, and how great we've got things. Let bad ideas fail on their own. If liberty and democracy and free markets is a bad idea, they would fail.

That said, I'm not an isolationist. When people are being murdered by their governments unjustly, that's intolerable. Hard to say how much we should expect people to defend themselves, and how much to intervene though.

freebeard 09-23-2019 05:53 PM

Quote:

At least we won in Korea!
That was only a 'police action'. And according to General Patton we lost the 2nd World War.

I didn't buy into 9/11 from the get-go. I watched that flag atop the 2nd World Trade Center building drop straight as a plumb bob accelerating at 1g, and thought what are those odds?

Fat Charlie 09-23-2019 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xist (Post 607229)
I drove Army trucks in Afghanistan. I cannot tell you whether we should have been there, just that we did everything we could to help the good guys and hunt the bad guys.

There were no good guys there. There were bad guys we didn't like, and enemies of theirs that we picked to call good guys. Expedient if you want to hit the bad guys you don't like and need some diplomatic cover, but not really sustainable.

oil pan 4 09-24-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebeard (Post 607321)
That was only a 'police action'. And according to General Patton we lost the 2nd World War.

I didn't buy into 9/11 from the get-go. I watched that flag atop the 2nd World Trade Center building drop straight as a plumb bob accelerating at 1g, and thought what are those odds?

I say we test it in full scale. Or at least half scale.

redpoint5 09-24-2019 12:41 PM

Material stress can propagate at faster than the speed of sound (in air). If it's a concrete structure, the stresses can be applied at the speed of sound in concrete (whatever that is). Collapse speed would be carried out by the acceleration of gravity (1G).

Following Occam's Razor, the buildings were most likely destroyed the way we observed them; structural failure following intense heat from jet fuel burning.

How fast can a Prince Rupert Drop structurally fail?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-f4gokRBs


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com