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? |
Quote:
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. |
Buy an electric vehicle so the US can export more petroleum products, it's the American thing to do.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Is it? Isn't a country's infrastructure a legitimate target in a war? |
Quote:
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. |
Words and definitions don't matter. Terrorists are anyone that "we" don't like. And if you disagree, you're a terrorist too.
|
Quote:
The definition of terrorist doesn't include whether they are "good" or "bad", it simply defines what constitutes terrorism. |
I am going to put Marianne Williamson in a cannon, fire her at them, and she will love them to death.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
To snip a bit from wikipedia: Quote:
|
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. |
Fuel prices affect the cost of goods and services.
|
It effects you way more when you have that going on and you have to feed a gas guzzler.
|
Methinks you snipped a little too much.
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.) |
[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? |
How many times along history USA was a terrorist???
|
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? |
Quote:
|
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. |
terrorists too
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
The ethanol refinery here looks like an oil refinery.
|
Great. Now we're going to send missile units to protect their oil fields. I'd rather just let oil go up.
|
Yes and the Russians would like for that to happen too.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
At least we won in Korea!
|
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. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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 10:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com