What about Navy's Stealth Destroyer - the Zumwalt

Actually, we'd have the most flammable and least maneuverable warships in history....

 

Build a 100, and next time something 'happens' in "oil producing regions" we'll have the only supertankers no one is gonna mess with.

No need for that , the USA has more energy than most of the world combined.

The problem is our rulers do not allow us to drill and tap the vast resources.

500 years worth of coal, and the industry is being shut down for another political HOAX , Global ,cooling , warming ,climate change BS.

This is very sad as when Bush claimed he would allow exploration on the US east coast (not even leasing and drilling!!) the price of oil went from about $110BBL to about $40BBL

As energy is used by the entire world it is a huge blow to the std. of living of EVERYONE on the planet not to allow 2/3 cheaper oil.

Of course the tax sucking folks hate cheaper anything that might effect their spending power.

Weather a big expensive boat will change anything is improbable , its said generals are always fighting the Last War, the US Navy is not much different.

While not a gov enthusiast , DARPA is my first love.

They attempt to look fwd 30-50 years and figure what will be needed then.
They also work to rationalize current projects to reduce the cost by 10x or even 100x.

And sometimes they succeed !

 

When i look forward thirty years, the view is frightening

Read about the exoskeleton technology for soldiers.....

Robo cop

 

Strange. I was around during the Bush years, and I certainly don't remember the price of oil ever plunging from $110 a barrel to $40 a barrel in reaction to a statement from Bush.... nor have I found anything on google so far that backs it up. Do you have anything to support your statement, or are you also relying on memory?

On a related note, I did find a graph of domestic oil production during the Bush years and the first three years of Obama: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/int...sh-the-oil-chart-that-will-surprise-you/11859

It shows production trending downward during the entire time Bush was in office, and trending upwards during the Obama years. Are you certain the Bush administration was walking the walk as well as talking the talk, when they carried on about decreasing our reliance on foreign oil?

 

Strange. I was around during the Bush years, and I certainly don't remember the price of oil ever plunging from $110 a barrel to $40 a barrel in reaction to a statement from Bush.... nor have I found anything on google so far that backs it up. Do you have anything to support your statement, or are you also relying on memory?


Try google
http://www.forecast-chart.com/chart-crude-oil.html

Only copied the fall from 133 to 40 , my memory was wrong it wasnt 110 but 133 a BBL,sorry.


2008-6 133.9
2008-7 133.4
20008-12 41.00

When our US masters again allow us to get our own oil the mid east will be at war with each other for camel dung to cook with.

 

http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=640056


To me it looks incomplete or naked compared to conventional warships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Zumwalt_(DDG-1000)


http://www.phisicalpsience.com/public/Tumblehome_Hull_DDG-1000/Tumblehome_Hull_DDG-1000.html

 

I don't see anything that could be considered a reaction to any promises Bush made. The one you're talking about happened in 2008, at the very end of his second term. Why would anyone pay attention to what Bush said on the subject a few months before Obama was sworn in?

Reality check: that drop in prices was due to the general financial crisis that hit in 2008, rather than to any promises Bush made on his way out the door.

I don't have any 'masters,' and neither does anyone I know. When you say 'our American masters,' you must be referring to yourself and the mouse in your pocket....

 

I don't see anything that could be considered a reaction to any promises Bush made

Pretty hard to see in a column of numbers!

I don't have any 'masters,'

Guess you are not part of the 93,000,000 Americans that are loosing their chosen health care and being forced to pay for Big Brothers one size fits all Utopia.

 

Hmmmmm

 

Troy, a during(IIRC) Iran/Iraq war, someone was laying full size mines in shipping lanes. The size that can send most ships to the bottom before they get off a distress call.

Supertankers were plowing through "no problem" and taking sometimes two hits, just because they are so huge a '40 ft hole' in the first of a dozen or more compartments isn't a problem. If you were sitting quietly and touching structural steel you could feel a minor tremor. The guys in the aft superstructure said it was like a Cadillac hitting a speed bump.

IIRC they only carried seawater in forward hold knowing they were gonna plow through a minefield(just for environmental reasons....LOL). Large mines would be 100% fatal to most ships and these guys are only worried about what hippie chicks with think if their company logo gets connected to a few dead seagulls in an oil slick.

I'm not sure if the cost to slap on a few plates of steel afterword exceeded the profit on the oil, but I think it did due to price hike due to war heating up.

 

Supply and demand has little to do with oil price.

Cost of extraction is important....saudi oil bubbles out of the ground at something like 10 dollars per barrel, gulf of mexico oil is something like 50 dollars, arctic oil 70 dollars, ultra deep water oil 100 dollars.

Fraking gas is very expensive, tar sands is very expensive.

You may think that there is plenty of oil, but first look at the source when reasoning price.

 

Again: the drop in prices you pointed out happened during the last few months of Bush's last term, during the financial crisis. Claiming it was in response to him saying he was going to ease restrictions on oil leases and drilling was absurd on the face of it.

Your assertion that 93,000,000 Americans will (not may) have to replace or update their healthcare insurance policies is rooted in an article from Forbes magazine, and again: that's a conservative, anti-government regulation, anti-Obama publication. It came up with that number by juggling numbers and insurance categories, and assuming the absolute worst scenario: for example, taking the claim by some analysts that a large percentage of people buying individual policies will lose them, and applying that same percentage to everyone who has private sector insurance.

There's also the little matter of defining what you mean by 'losing their chosen healthcare.' I would argue that having their insurance policies updated or replaced to provide better coverage and eliminate huge deductibles isn't exactly 'losing healthcare'....

Nor is the term 'one-size-fits-all' an accurate description of the new requirements - unless by that you mean not allowing insurance companies to kick you out for pre-existing conditions, charge outrageous deductibles, restrict access to birth control and mental health care, etc.

And no, my policy isn't affected. It was in place before the deadline, and meets all the new standards. As do the policies held by millions of other Americans, who are apparently still without a 'master.'

 

Interesting; I didn't know that. Thanks for the story.

But what would have happened had they taken an Exocet missile in the side instead? Big fireball, I suspect.

 

>Your assertion that 93,000,000 Americans will (not may) have to replace or update their healthcare insurance policies is rooted in an article from Forbes magazine, and again: that's a conservative, anti-government regulation, anti-Obama publication. It came up with that number by juggling numbers and insurance categories, and assuming the absolute worst scenario: for example, taking the claim by some analysts that a large percentage of people buying individual policies will lose them, and applying that same percentage to everyone who has private sector insurance.<

And Forbes found it in the FEDERAL REGISTER , a gov publication.

Look with your eyes open most folks ins policies projected price doubled and deductibles are $7000 and up per year.

All this was expected by the buroRATS as they hope stoopid healthy young folks would treat the elderly by paying double or more for their insurance.
Instead they are seeming to opting out , paying a minor tax and negotiating directly for a cash fee that is usually 20% to 25% of the published hospital charges ,ins co pays (after adjustment) nonsense.


>Nor is the term 'one-size-fits-all' and accurate description of the new requirements - unless by that you mean not allowing insurance companies to kick you out for pre-existing conditions, charge outrageous deductibles, restrict access to birth control and mental health care, etc.<


At over 70 we are delighted to obtain the added benefits of invetro fertilization , addadicktome , and all the other delights of Big Brother Utopia insurance for all, OR ELSE!

All socialist Utopias eventually are exposed as mere Force and Fraud,social planners paradise at the end of a gov gun.ALL eventually FAIL! Read history.

Most Americans still get there insurance as a company benefit.. Companies MUST include the new UTOPIA med care in their policies, its not in the media as the regime has given big companies and other friends and $$$ donors a pass in an attempt to keep the changes out of the news , till after the 14 election.


Sadly as gov force is focused inside the country , so items like big stealth destroyers are not required.

Even aircraft carriers may become like battleships , out dated , as drones are easier to train than Pilots.

 

Originally Posted by Squidly-Diddly
Troy, a during(IIRC) Iran/Iraq war, someone was laying full size mines in shipping lanes. The size that can send most ships to the bottom before they get off a distress call.

Supertankers were plowing through "no problem" and taking sometimes two hits, just because they are so huge a '40 ft hole' in the first of a dozen or more compartments isn't a problem. If you were sitting quietly and touching structural steel you could feel a minor tremor. The guys in the aft superstructure said it was like a Cadillac hitting a speed bump.

IIRC they only carried seawater in forward hold knowing they were gonna plow through a minefield(just for environmental reasons....LOL). Large mines would be 100% fatal to most ships and these guys are only worried about what hippie chicks with think if their company logo gets connected to a few dead seagulls in an oil slick.

I'm not sure if the cost to slap on a few plates of steel afterword exceeded the profit on the oil, but I think it did due to price hike due to war heating up.
Interesting; I didn't know that. Thanks for the story.

But what would have happened had they taken an Exocet missile in the side instead? Big fireball, I suspect."


Yeah, but I'd guess the tanker would continue on even with 6ft hole in the side leaking burning oil out of one of a dozen holds. I'm pretty sure any tanker built after ww2 has good seawater fire suppression, and they all have at least the ability to pump seawater in and out of oil tanks. I heard they at least USED TO routinely wash oil holds out with sea water, discharge off shore, then take in ballast to the 'clean' tanks which could in turn be pumped out when docked in more sensitive area.

For a dual use tanker I'd have port-center-starboard holds, so if hiding in the center hold any missile hitting the side would need to go through outer double hull(6ft air gap), then about 40ft of water ballast, then another 1" steel plate.