Last Flight Sea Harrier(10) - SHAR_Last_Flight_10.JPG

[RichW]

[Alan Erskine]

"RichW" > wrote in message
...

I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"RichW" > wrote in message
...

I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...


--
Alan Erskine

[alf blume]

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:18:37 GMT:

AE> I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...

The Harriers GR 7 operate from carriers,
UK has nuclear subs in service
- so nothing's changed . . .


With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

[alf blume]

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:18:37 GMT:

AE> I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...

The Harriers GR 7 operate from carriers,
UK has nuclear subs in service
- so nothing's changed . . .


With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
> Hello, Alan!
> You wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:18:37 GMT:
>
> AE> I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...
>
> The Harriers GR 7 operate from carriers,
> UK has nuclear subs in service
> - so nothing's changed . . .

Harrier GR7's don't have radar - much has changed. Subs are useless against
aircraft - much has changed. The Argentine A-4R's have radar similar to the
F-16 - much has changed.


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
> Hello, Alan!
> You wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:18:37 GMT:
>
> AE> I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...
>
> The Harriers GR 7 operate from carriers,
> UK has nuclear subs in service
> - so nothing's changed . . .

Harrier GR7's don't have radar - much has changed. Subs are useless against
aircraft - much has changed. The Argentine A-4R's have radar similar to the
F-16 - much has changed.


--
Alan Erskine

[Netko]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:30:30 +0000, Alan Erskine wrote
(in message >):

> Harrier GR7's don't have radar - much has changed. Subs are useless against
> aircraft - much has changed. The Argentine A-4R's have radar similar to the
> F-16 - much has changed.

Something else which has changed is that the UK has significantly
stronger military forces on the islands than in 1982, as well as
the ability to re-inforce them relatively easily.

And Argentina is no longer run by a junta which specialised in
'disappearing' its own population.

These must count for something.

--

[Netko]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:30:30 +0000, Alan Erskine wrote
(in message >):

> Harrier GR7's don't have radar - much has changed. Subs are useless against
> aircraft - much has changed. The Argentine A-4R's have radar similar to the
> F-16 - much has changed.

Something else which has changed is that the UK has significantly
stronger military forces on the islands than in 1982, as well as
the ability to re-inforce them relatively easily.

And Argentina is no longer run by a junta which specialised in
'disappearing' its own population.

These must count for something.

--

[alf blume]

"Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> "alf blume" > wrote in message
> k...
>> Hello, Alan!
>> You wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:18:37 GMT:
>>
>> AE> I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...
>>
>> The Harriers GR 7 operate from carriers,
>> UK has nuclear subs in service
>> - so nothing's changed . . .
>
> Harrier GR7's don't have radar - much has changed. Subs are useless
> against
> aircraft - much has changed.

Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all A-4
bases, with nukes if called for...

[alf blume]

"Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> "alf blume" > wrote in message
> k...
>> Hello, Alan!
>> You wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:18:37 GMT:
>>
>> AE> I wonder when the Argentinians are going to invade the Falklands...
>>
>> The Harriers GR 7 operate from carriers,
>> UK has nuclear subs in service
>> - so nothing's changed . . .
>
> Harrier GR7's don't have radar - much has changed. Subs are useless
> against
> aircraft - much has changed.

Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all A-4
bases, with nukes if called for...

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...

> Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all A-4
> bases, with nukes if called for...

The British could have done that in 1982 and didn't. They won't do it now
either. Imagine the political repercussions from using nuclear weapons.


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...

> Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all A-4
> bases, with nukes if called for...

The British could have done that in 1982 and didn't. They won't do it now
either. Imagine the political repercussions from using nuclear weapons.


--
Alan Erskine

[alf blume]

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:50:12 GMT:

??>> Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all
??>> A-4 bases, with nukes if called for...

AE> The British could have done that in 1982 and didn't.

They didn't have to . . .

AE> They won't do it now either. Imagine the political repercussions from
AE> using nuclear weapons.

They can't really be sure, can they??
Anyway - missiles can also carry ordinary explosives
- one in the middle of Plaza del Mayo will do the trick!

Subs can close down sea traffic - carriers far from land can stop
air-travel.
An Argentinian attack on the Falklands would give the british the right
under the law!

So it's not gonna happen - too many smart people on both sides.

With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

[alf blume]

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:50:12 GMT:

??>> Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all
??>> A-4 bases, with nukes if called for...

AE> The British could have done that in 1982 and didn't.

They didn't have to . . .

AE> They won't do it now either. Imagine the political repercussions from
AE> using nuclear weapons.

They can't really be sure, can they??
Anyway - missiles can also carry ordinary explosives
- one in the middle of Plaza del Mayo will do the trick!

Subs can close down sea traffic - carriers far from land can stop
air-travel.
An Argentinian attack on the Falklands would give the british the right
under the law!

So it's not gonna happen - too many smart people on both sides.

With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

[Paul Elliot]

alf blume wrote:
> Hello, Alan!
> You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:50:12 GMT:
>
> ??>> Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all
> ??>> A-4 bases, with nukes if called for...
>
> AE> The British could have done that in 1982 and didn't.
>
> They didn't have to . . .
>
> AE> They won't do it now either. Imagine the political repercussions from
> AE> using nuclear weapons.
>
> They can't really be sure, can they??
> Anyway - missiles can also carry ordinary explosives
> - one in the middle of Plaza del Mayo will do the trick!
>
> Subs can close down sea traffic - carriers far from land can stop
> air-travel.
> An Argentinian attack on the Falklands would give the british the right
> under the law!
>
> So it's not gonna happen - too many smart people on both sides.
>
> With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:
>
>

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen it.

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Paul Elliot]

alf blume wrote:
> Hello, Alan!
> You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:50:12 GMT:
>
> ??>> Subs can launch cruise-missiles and tridents with impunity against all
> ??>> A-4 bases, with nukes if called for...
>
> AE> The British could have done that in 1982 and didn't.
>
> They didn't have to . . .
>
> AE> They won't do it now either. Imagine the political repercussions from
> AE> using nuclear weapons.
>
> They can't really be sure, can they??
> Anyway - missiles can also carry ordinary explosives
> - one in the middle of Plaza del Mayo will do the trick!
>
> Subs can close down sea traffic - carriers far from land can stop
> air-travel.
> An Argentinian attack on the Falklands would give the british the right
> under the law!
>
> So it's not gonna happen - too many smart people on both sides.
>
> With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:
>
>

Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen it.

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[alf blume]

"Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
t...
>
> Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
> it.
>
I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

[alf blume]

"Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
t...
>
> Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
> it.
>
I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
>
> "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
> t...
> >
> > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
> > it.
> >
> I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

C'mon.

--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
>
> "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
> t...
> >
> > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
> > it.
> >
> I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .

Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

C'mon.

--
Alan Erskine

[alf blume]

"Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> "alf blume" > wrote in message
> k...
>>
>> "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
>> t...
>> >
>> > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
>> > it.
>> >
>> I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>
> Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
nation better than a quick little war!
2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"

[alf blume]

"Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
...
> "alf blume" > wrote in message
> k...
>>
>> "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
>> t...
>> >
>> > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
>> > it.
>> >
>> I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>
> Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?

You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
nation better than a quick little war!
2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"

[Grumpy AuContraire]

Alan Erskine wrote:
>
> "alf blume" > wrote in message
> k...
> >
> > "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > t...
> > >
> > > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
> > > it.
> > >
> > I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>
> Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?
>
> C'mon.
>
>


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...

JT

[Grumpy AuContraire]

Alan Erskine wrote:
>
> "alf blume" > wrote in message
> k...
> >
> > "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
> > t...
> > >
> > > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
> > > it.
> > >
> > I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>
> Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?
>
> C'mon.
>
>


I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...

JT

[Paul Elliot]

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>
>>"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
>>
>>>"Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
t...
>>>
>>>>Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>>
>>Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?
>>
>>C'mon.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
> US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
> interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...
>
> JT

To recapitualte:
Never underestimate British pride.
--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Paul Elliot]

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>
>>"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
>>
>>>"Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
t...
>>>
>>>>Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have seen
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>>
>>Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?
>>
>>C'mon.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
> US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
> interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its own...
>
> JT

To recapitualte:
Never underestimate British pride.
--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[alf blume]

"Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
t...
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>> I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
>> US remained completely neutral.

The US would have a hard time maintaining NATO if a member could be attacked
and not recieve help from the USA.

>> Quite frankly, I don't see why the
>> interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
>> own...

Agree - but why search for common logic (other than geopolitics) in politics
;-)

> To recapitualte:
> Never underestimate British pride.

Right!

[alf blume]

"Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
t...
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>> I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
>> US remained completely neutral.

The US would have a hard time maintaining NATO if a member could be attacked
and not recieve help from the USA.

>> Quite frankly, I don't see why the
>> interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
>> own...

Agree - but why search for common logic (other than geopolitics) in politics
;-)

> To recapitualte:
> Never underestimate British pride.

Right!

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...

Alf

One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something like
that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved that in
1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low cloud. How are
the GR-7's going to "defend land"?


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...

Alf

One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something like
that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved that in
1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low cloud. How are
the GR-7's going to "defend land"?


--
Alan Erskine

[alf blume]

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:34:48 GMT:

AE> Alf

AE> One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
AE> carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something
AE> like that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved
AE> that in 1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low
AE> cloud. How are the GR-7's going to "defend land"?

Didn't write that . . .

With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

[alf blume]

Hello, Alan!
You wrote on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:34:48 GMT:

AE> Alf

AE> One of your comments yesterday was something in the order of "Aircraft
AE> carriers can stand off at long distances and protect land" or something
AE> like that. Not in the South Atlantic without radar; the British proved
AE> that in 1982 - the Harriers were often grounded by fog, rain or low
AE> cloud. How are the GR-7's going to "defend land"?

Didn't write that . . .

With best regards, alf blume. E-mail:

[NoJags Neil]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
>
> "Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>> "alf blume" > wrote in message
>> k...
>>>
>>> "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
>>> t...
>>> >
>>> > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have
>>> > seen
>>> > it.
>>> >
>>> I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>>
>> Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?
>
> You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
> politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
> 1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
> chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
> nation better than a quick little war!

See Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups by (Colonel) John
Hughes-Wilson. I don't think it was that deliberate: never underestimate
the stupidity of politicians. They were a new government elected on a
monetarist mandate to drastically cut government spending, and that included
foreign policy and the armed forces. They ended up sending out all the
wrong signals to the Argentinian junta. I think it was more luck than
judgement that Thatcher ended up (in the eyes of the electorate anyway)
smelling of roses despite it being her cockup that caused it. Also, don't
forget that fighting the 1982 war and maintaining the current garrison just
to protect the archaic Falkland Islands Company and its serfs appears
strategically ludicrous, until you consider that there is oil in the area.

> 2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
> dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
> power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"
>

No, I think it was more to do with the 'o' word again, plus a desire to
blindly maintain the "special relationship", which has worked largely to our
mutual advantage in the past.

[NoJags Neil]

"alf blume" > wrote in message
k...
>
> "Alan Erskine" > skrev i en meddelelse
> ...
>> "alf blume" > wrote in message
>> k...
>>>
>>> "Paul Elliot" > skrev i en meddelelse
>>> t...
>>> >
>>> > Never underestimate Argentine pride. I lived in BA in 1971. I have
>>> > seen
>>> > it.
>>> >
>>> I think that british intelligence services are well aware of this . . .
>>
>> Just like they were in 1982? Or in 2003 (Iraq)?
>
> You think they didn't know? - they did in both cases - both wars were
> politically motivated and intelligence ignored.
> 1) Thacher was made perfectly aware of the Argentinian preparations - but
> chose a war to divert attention from internal problems - nothing unites a
> nation better than a quick little war!

See Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-ups by (Colonel) John
Hughes-Wilson. I don't think it was that deliberate: never underestimate
the stupidity of politicians. They were a new government elected on a
monetarist mandate to drastically cut government spending, and that included
foreign policy and the armed forces. They ended up sending out all the
wrong signals to the Argentinian junta. I think it was more luck than
judgement that Thatcher ended up (in the eyes of the electorate anyway)
smelling of roses despite it being her cockup that caused it. Also, don't
forget that fighting the 1982 war and maintaining the current garrison just
to protect the archaic Falkland Islands Company and its serfs appears
strategically ludicrous, until you consider that there is oil in the area.

> 2) Same situation - Blair knew that the presence of WMD were at best
> dubious - the war was politically motivated: "Britain is still a world
> power - look we can fight on equal terms with the US!!!"
>

No, I think it was more to do with the 'o' word again, plus a desire to
blindly maintain the "special relationship", which has worked largely to our
mutual advantage in the past.

[NoJags Neil]

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...

>
> I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
> US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
> interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
> own...
>

See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

[NoJags Neil]

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...

>
> I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
> US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
> interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
> own...
>

See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

[Alan Erskine]

"NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
...
> See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
...
> See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...

And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).


--
Alan Erskine

[Grumpy AuContraire]

NoJags Neil wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
> > US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
> > interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
> > own...
> >
>
> See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...



But this was not known back in the 1980, yes?

JT

[Grumpy AuContraire]

NoJags Neil wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > I think that Britain would have had a much more difficult time had the
> > US remained completely neutral. Quite frankly, I don't see why the
> > interest in maintaining a colony that is not economically viable on its
> > own...
> >
>
> See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...



But this was not known back in the 1980, yes?

JT

[Grumpy AuContraire]

Alan Erskine wrote:
>
> "NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...
>
> And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
> begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).
>
>


I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
discovered than is admitted.

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

[Grumpy AuContraire]

Alan Erskine wrote:
>
> "NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...
>
> And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
> begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).
>
>


I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
discovered than is admitted.

What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...

JT

(Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

[Paul Elliot]

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>
>>"NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...
>>
>>And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
>>begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
> discovered than is admitted.
>
> What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
> time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
> to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
> leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...
>
> JT
>
> (Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Paul Elliot]

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>
> Alan Erskine wrote:
>
>>"NoJags Neil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>See my post above. There's oil in them thar seas...
>>
>>And if Argentina's economy keeps going the way it is (down), that oil will
>>begin to look very attractive (especially at $70-$80 a barrel).
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I think that the real truth is that there's much more oil to be
> discovered than is admitted.
>
> What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
> time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
> to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
> leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...
>
> JT
>
> (Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Luke]

"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
et...
>
> There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
> diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
> run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
> fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
> alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
> cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.

(shaking his head)
Sit down before you hurt yourself....


Luke

[Luke]

"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
et...
>
> There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
> diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
> run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
> fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
> alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
> cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.

(shaking his head)
Sit down before you hurt yourself....


Luke

[Paul Elliot]

Luke wrote:

> "Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
>>diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
>>run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
>>fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
>>alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
>>cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.
>
>
> (shaking his head)
> Sit down before you hurt yourself....
>
>
> Luke
>
>


OK then, would you please enlighten me as to why any of these assertions
are impossible?

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Paul Elliot]

Luke wrote:

> "Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
>>diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
>>run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
>>fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
>>alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
>>cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.
>
>
> (shaking his head)
> Sit down before you hurt yourself....
>
>
> Luke
>
>


OK then, would you please enlighten me as to why any of these assertions
are impossible?

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Luke]

"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
. net...
> Luke wrote:
>
> > "Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
> > et...
> >
> >>There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
> >>diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
> >>run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
> >>fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
> >>alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
> >>cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.
> >
> >
> > (shaking his head)
> > Sit down before you hurt yourself....
> >
> >
> > Luke
> >
> >
>
>
> OK then, would you please enlighten me as to why any of these assertions
> are impossible?


Known thermal efficiencies of Otto and Brayton Cycle devices
Energy densities of alternative fuels
Excessive secondary emisive biproducts of alternative fuels generation
Fuel handling safety issued with the general public
Limited supply sources for raw materials of bio fuels
Incalculable infrastructure changes
... I could go on...


Leave song writing to the dreamers. Leave science to the engineers.
Oh, and yes, I am an engineer.


Luke

[Luke]

"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
. net...
> Luke wrote:
>
> > "Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
> > et...
> >
> >>There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
> >>diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
> >>run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
> >>fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
> >>alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
> >>cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.
> >
> >
> > (shaking his head)
> > Sit down before you hurt yourself....
> >
> >
> > Luke
> >
> >
>
>
> OK then, would you please enlighten me as to why any of these assertions
> are impossible?


Known thermal efficiencies of Otto and Brayton Cycle devices
Energy densities of alternative fuels
Excessive secondary emisive biproducts of alternative fuels generation
Fuel handling safety issued with the general public
Limited supply sources for raw materials of bio fuels
Incalculable infrastructure changes
... I could go on...


Leave song writing to the dreamers. Leave science to the engineers.
Oh, and yes, I am an engineer.


Luke

[Paul Elliot]

Luke wrote:

> "Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>Luke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
et...
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
>>>>diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
>>>>run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
>>>>fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
>>>>alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
>>>>cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.
>>>
>>>
>>> (shaking his head)
>>> Sit down before you hurt yourself....
>>>
>>>
>>> Luke
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>OK then, would you please enlighten me as to why any of these assertions
>>are impossible?
>
>
>
> Known thermal efficiencies of Otto and Brayton Cycle devices
> Energy densities of alternative fuels
> Excessive secondary emisive biproducts of alternative fuels generation
> Fuel handling safety issued with the general public
> Limited supply sources for raw materials of bio fuels
> Incalculable infrastructure changes
> ... I could go on...
>
>
> Leave song writing to the dreamers. Leave science to the engineers.
> Oh, and yes, I am an engineer.
>
>
> Luke
>
>
>
>
>
>

All these issues make it more DIFFICULT, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
It is amazing what people can accomplish when the price of oil goes up
to $200.00+/bbl

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Paul Elliot]

Luke wrote:

> "Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>Luke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Paul Elliot" > wrote in message
et...
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no doubt that fossil fuels CAN be replaced. Virtually every
>>>>diesel on the road today can run on a bio-diesel fuel. Every car could
>>>>run on pure alcohol. Of course, gas turbine and turbojet aircraft can
>>>>fly on almost anything flammable, piston engine planes could also use
>>>>alternatives. All it takes is the motivation to change. Eventually the
>>>>cost of extracting petroleum will provde that impetus.
>>>
>>>
>>> (shaking his head)
>>> Sit down before you hurt yourself....
>>>
>>>
>>> Luke
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>OK then, would you please enlighten me as to why any of these assertions
>>are impossible?
>
>
>
> Known thermal efficiencies of Otto and Brayton Cycle devices
> Energy densities of alternative fuels
> Excessive secondary emisive biproducts of alternative fuels generation
> Fuel handling safety issued with the general public
> Limited supply sources for raw materials of bio fuels
> Incalculable infrastructure changes
> ... I could go on...
>
>
> Leave song writing to the dreamers. Leave science to the engineers.
> Oh, and yes, I am an engineer.
>
>
> Luke
>
>
>
>
>
>

All these issues make it more DIFFICULT, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
It is amazing what people can accomplish when the price of oil goes up
to $200.00+/bbl

--
PC Paul
89 PC800
77 R100RS

Trip pics at: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to
society" - Theodore Roosevelt

[Alan Erskine]

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...

> What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
> time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
> to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
> leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...
>
> JT
>
> (Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

There's already technology available to replace fossil fuels; not just the
biodiesel and ethanol already mentioned. There's a process known as TDP -
Thermal Deploymerisation Process (that's why it's known as TDP!) that can
take any carbon-based fuel (food scraps; garden waste; waste plastic; waste
paper; agricultural waste; forestry waste etc) and make gaseous and liquid
fuels (diesel; petrol [gasoline] and kerosene) that would mean we wouldn't
have to change anything on our cars - even biodiesel requires some changes.

I read one article that said (paraphrased) "In 2001, the U.S. imported 4.2
billion barrels of crude oil. Using TDP, all the agricultural waste in the
U.S. could replace 4 billion barrels of that". The other 200 million
barrels could be replaced with fuel farms (growing trees, probably) as well
as food and forestry waste.

--
Alan Erskine

[Alan Erskine]

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...

> What riles me is the failure of the politicos to recognize that it is
> time to employ technology to replace fossil fuels. Something comparable
> to JFK's "Going to the Moon" effort. There just is not a good supply of
> leaders with testicular fortitude to do what is right...
>
> JT
>
> (Who thinks fossil fuels could be passé within ten years if...)

There's already technology available to replace fossil fuels; not just the
biodiesel and ethanol already mentioned. There's a process known as TDP -
Thermal Deploymerisation Process (that's why it's known as TDP!) that can
take any carbon-based fuel (food scraps; garden waste; waste plastic; waste
paper; agricultural waste; forestry waste etc) and make gaseous and liquid
fuels (diesel; petrol [gasoline] and kerosene) that would mean we wouldn't
have to change anything on our cars - even biodiesel requires some changes.

I read one article that said (paraphrased) "In 2001, the U.S. imported 4.2
billion barrels of crude oil. Using TDP, all the agricultural waste in the
U.S. could replace 4 billion barrels of that". The other 200 million
barrels could be replaced with fuel farms (growing trees, probably) as well
as food and forestry waste.

--
Alan Erskine