If we are seeing this as a united europe, then perhaps other areas that have not been effected could help supply the troops from those who were. For example, if France was badly hit by an EMP, then the US or England could help supply their troops until they can do a power restart.

If my memory is not playing tricks on me, whch I don't think it is, an EMP will only effect electronics that are in use at the time, correct?

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

Wrong. The mountanous terrain of the balkans will hinder the attack force, forcing them into canyons and passes, allowing the defending force to set up ambushes, and strong defensive areas where the attackers will not be able to win. As for the medeterranian, with American and European dominance of not only the sea, but also the air, any attacking force will fail to even get to europe. It will be like the Australians trying to attack America.....without a navy (I know Australia has a navy, this is for argument purposes only). Absolutly impossible.

This has been analyzed here before, you think you have something new to say, you don't.

The Balkans are only part of it. With so many men they will open a multi-front war making their way through Hungary and Poland where everthing is flat.

As for the Medeterranian, this is were absolutely don't know what you are talking about.

In the open ocean such as the Pacific or Atlatic the Western Navies can reign supreme and nothing can chalenge them, but this is not the open ocean this is the Med which is small and enclosed.

The Islamics can launch thousands upon thousands of Exocet, Silkworm and Sunburn missles. They can do this from either land-based platforms or thousands upon thousand of disposable cheap sea vessels. These vessels can be anything, sail boats, pt boats, as long as it floats and can fit one missle, nothing fancy. Since the Med is not open ocean they can fare with lesser inferior sea craft to do the job.

The Euro navy will simply be overwhelmed with the missles even though they will destroy thousands of enemy vessels, more will come and they will eventualy be swamped.

After this is done the Islamics can they invade Spain, and open up both Italian flanks, landing from Africa and the Balkans. (There is more detail, but like I said I don't feel like explaining myself again in this thread.)

Not really. I think that not only by that time we will have a functioning nuclear defense program (since even now ours has a 50% knockout ratio). And if you dont think that America will strike back with nukes, then you truly do no understand America. We invaded 2 countries becuase terrorists blew up 2 buildings. If you dont think we will use a nuclear solution if they nuke our soldiers or cities, then you are a fool.

I think you are the fool here. When did I say they will nuke our cities? WHEN????

My explaination was that there will be NO NUCLEAR EXCHANGE because of EMP, for the reason given of not trading away even a few of our cities for their entire region.

YOU REALLY NEED TO READ WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED!

If we have an alternative fuel source, then the entire world will. China or europe could easily get 1 molecule of the fuel source and mass produce it themselves. The thing with the world today is that if one country gets a somewhat simplistic product that can save huge amounts on money, you can bet that every other modern world will have it in less then 1 year. So, since alternate fuels that are cost efficient are only 5 years away (or so scientists say) we can expect the rest of the world to have it within 6.

This post shows me you have no clue relating to reality whatsoever.

What if the alternative fuel comes form corn? What are they put corn in a duplicating machine, yeah maybe in Star Treck.

Economies will use what is readily and closely available, just because the US will use alt fuels doesn't mean China and Europe will. This just means because the US no longer demands oil, then this will free up more reseves for them, making it cheaper for them and making them even more dependant on oil. Do you see how this works.

And if what you are saying is true about Europe adapting alt fuels a year after the US does. How come Brazil has been using alt fuels for years, and Europe isn't using it, how come we are not using? Why? This is why I say you have no clue relating to reality.

Again the terrain is not built for good vehicle combat, the mountanous region allows infantry armed with anti-vehicle weapons to ambush and destroy vehicles as they pass through the mountains. EMP was covered in number one, enough said. Just as an after thought, were will all these vehicles come from? If you going to say oil money, please read the post under this first.

Id like to think that Europeans have learned that munich agreements are stupid against expansionistic countries, and if you think that the US will stand by while this happens, then you are wrong. The fact is, the ret of the world is dependent on the US and Europe, so they will be able to twist the arms of........the russians........or the chinese....or the indians. Anyone of these countries (except Russia) has the military might to harass the muslim rear and cause a pull back of some limited amount of muslim forces.....say.....50 million give or take. The europeans may have been complacent during WWII, but when they see the possibility of 200 million soldiers invading them, trust me it will be like the Japanese in America during WWII.

All this has been explain in the somewhere in the thread already, including where the vehicles will come from, bought from everyhwere, the bulk of which they can but from the hundred upon hundreds of thousands of surplus Soviet vehicle sitting preserved in mothball right now, which will then be refurbished, ect.

I'm simply too lazy to answer more the same type of questions for the umpteenth time. And considering the fact you can't even read properly what has been posted, I don't see why I have to do it all over again.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Greetings,

(1) European armies, because of indigenous technological developments and because of NATO technology transfers and standardization policies, have significant EMP countermeasures. Before stating that I am merely spouting BS, a cheap tactic, think about your own bias. You obviously think very poorly of Europe. Did you have a Pentecostal or a fundamentalist Christian upbringing? Why the belief (or hope) that Europe is doomed? See below for "evidence" of European EMP countermeasures.

Dude, I'm not the only one here who thinks Europe is doomed. I'm far from being a fundamentalist, although I am Christian. The problem with people like you when anybody opposes your views or shows common sense, you brand them a hick, or redneck, or even racist.

(2) You should spend some time reading the standard American military websites, ie. sifting through basic writings concerning strategic and operational thinking. You would quickly realize that American (and European) military experts know quite a bit concerning morale and virtually every aspect of war. This includes securing the homefront. In any case, waging war is far more than just throwing a million armed "freaks" at the enemy. That type of primitive philosophy invariably ends in disaster. Europe also has millions of armed "freaks". The Bundeswehr alone can theoretically mobilize around half a million men in the shortterm.

They will need more than half-a-million men. And the shortterm is exactly my point, it will take a while for Europe to mobilze fully, by then the war is well underway.

As for reading standard US military websites, I've done that alot. As far as that is concerened they do know everything about war as it exist right now. But then again the same type of military "experts" prior to WW2 got caught with their pants down because they failed to think outside the box of what can happen and is possible.

(3) The EMP does endanger the CIVILIAN economic system. There is no doubt about that. However, soldiers and not bankers would be the ones tasked with throwing back an invasion. And, Europeans would have time to quell a domestic uprising and respond to an invasion. The Muslims would, by virtue of geographical factors, be forced to move through the periphery and into the core European states (Russia, Germany, France and England). Even without opposition, a tank would take several days to reach Germany. What about England? What about France? The Bundeswehr would, even with a major uprising, crush a revolt and prepare for the invasion.

My point (which you admit) is the EMP will affect the civillian sector the most.

This will delay full mobilization, in order for the Islamics to out attrition the West at the front.

(4) The "Muslims" can always invade Europe...right now if they want. Their chances of victory, with or without an EMP, are zero.

When did I say the Muslims will have victory?

Even if you discount European conventional strength, you have to realize that the western Europeans have a large arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This is a complex issue. WMD would be a serious challenge for the Muslim invasion owing to their lack of countermeasures (like chemical suits, etc.)

They had all kinds of chemiclas, even biologicals in WW2 also, but no one used it. If it is used then both side will retaliate, and mostly only civilians will pay the price. I'm not discounting that this will happen on limited scale when the invasion occurs.

The non-use of chemiclas in WW2 is another case for my pointing out why there will be no nuclear exchange even with EMP, because the West is not insane.

(5) The immigrants represent a major problem in Germany (and France) at the moment. The problem relates somewhat to structural racism and the inability of the immigrants to find employment. The groups that do not assimilate easily, mostly islamic Africans, are thereby cut off from European society and the poor fellows have no access to a good education or good future. They are marginalized. On the fringes. They have no money, no power, no hope. Many indigenous Europeans, especially in France, seem to like things this way. Personally, the poor fellows have my pity. I do not fear the poor and huddled masses.

You do not fear the poor? What about the rich ones.

You truly don't understand this.

Any devout Mulsim whether he is rich or poor, fat or thin, will have his loyalty to Islam FIRST and not to your country.

This is so common sense it goes over your head doesn't it. I've mention their beliefs already several times you still don't get it.

(6) In 15 to 20 years, considering the pace of military technological developments in the west, we will have an army of robotic warriors who are immune to EMP and all WMD other than nukes. We will also still have thermonuclear warheads to offset any suicidal nuclear challenge. The industrial outlays of the west are just plain massive and no amount of development by the Muslim world will even come close to closing the gap. They just don't have the resources, money, or experience. Remember, globalization is EXPLOITING the Third World, not developing it.

They may not have the resources or experiences, but they have the money, and don't forget they have the will.

I've mentioned this before, they do not have to have the industrial capacity they can simply buy the weapons. Saddam Hussien had the 4th largest army at one point, and they didn't manifacture any of thier stuff. So they don't need and industrial base, in fact having no large sophisticated industrial base will make them less vunerable to EMP.

(7) Even if islamic terrorists denote nuclear weapons in Berlin or Hamburg, or even if they try a chemical or biological attack, I would join the Bush group and support the systematic destruction of the Middle East. I am sure, given enough European dead, that most Europeans would throw morality out the window. The cry for terrible retribution would not have anything to do with Hitler or Saddam. It would be understandable and reasonable...and it would write a new chapter in death.

When did I say they will nuke Berlin or Hamburg? I was illustrating why there will be NO NUCLEAR EXCHANGE BECAUSE OF EMP, as you were suggesting there would be. So the Islamics will in fact use EMP if they see it is to their advantage.

And since when is the Bush group trying to do a systematic destruction of the Middle East? Having democracy and openess in the Middle East, is excatly our one last chance (although it is a slim one) to see that this doesn't happen.

(1) EMP is a less-than-effective weapon: "Military electronics underwent a hardening process with the development of chips and other components resistant to EMP. Today even military jets and missiles are constructed to withstand the effect".

(2) Europeans are devising new strategies and methods

(3) Germany does not export EMP countermeasures as a non-proliferation strategy

(4) An Example - German Leopard is EMP "hardened": "Tank is fully NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protected, and all equipment is hardened against EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse)".

Yes, you will have the Leopard II fighting even in the event of EMP. I never said it would stop all military vehicles.

But what happens when you can't deliver ammo or fuel to it because the EMP has disabled the trains and vehicles delivering ammo and fuel to the battle front. Not to mention the electric circuits of the gas pumps and cranes that lift ammo and pump the fuel.

What do you do then? What happens when the tanks start run out of gas or ammo, and you are outnumbered 10 to 1???

This is why I said the EMP will have tremedous effect despite ALL what you have said.



This is just one of the reasons why the invasion is possible.

Originally Posted by Damien435

OG, what about the power grids in Europe? The military can only sustain itself for so long before their generators will start to run out of fuel, before their ships will sit dead in the water? How long can the military's current stores of munitions last before they will need to be resupplied?

Exactly. EMP alone is nothing.

Its the cumulative effects as a result of an EMP that will allow the invasion to occur.

This is not a one set deal, it is a combination of all factors that make this possible. Some people just can't seem to see this.

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

If we are seeing this as a united europe, then perhaps other areas that have not been effected could help supply the troops from those who were. For example, if France was badly hit by an EMP, then the US or England could help supply their troops until they can do a power restart.

First of all the whole continent of Europe will be affected, not just one country. (You still don't understand how this works, not to mention if Europe and the US were hit simultaneously)

But my point is the war is already well underway and it will take time for them to do this.

The fact that everything is out and there is no power will take even longer.

So you are hit with a double whammy producing more delays, all the while our outnumbered troops are fighting the enemy at odds of around 10 to 1 or more, and running out of fuel and ammo with no resupply becaue becuase there no power and nothing works.

Not to mention the in-country Jihadist are adding to the chaos and mess caused by the what is already happening.

Originally Posted by Damien435

If my memory is not playing tricks on me, whch I don't think it is, an EMP will only effect electronics that are in use at the time, correct?

Scientist are somewhat divided on this. Some say yes, some say no. I believe it depends on the circuitry of the item. I believe, from what I have read that some items will NOT be affected if it is off, and some will be affected regardless.

Missileer, mention something in this thread a while back, relating to the magnetics class he took in college, what he learned was pointing to all items being affected whether it is on or not. (if I'm not mistaken)

Originally Posted by Missileer

In college, I slept through most of Magnetics but we did learn that even a straight wire passed through a magnetic field has a current induced in it which, since Voltage is produced across the wire because of current flow is equal to the strength of the magnetic field, the higher the magnetic field, the more current and voltage. As long as the field is increasing, a current flows linearly. The pulse then collapses which induces a reverse current flow producing a reverse voltage just as strong as the first increase. In other words, you get hit with a double whammy. The current arcs across junctions such as air or any other non conductor like open switches or even two conductors in the same zip code. Just think of everything near enough to the blast becoming a large spark plug.

Originally Posted by gladius

This has been analyzed here before, you think you have something new to say, you don't.

The Balkans are only part of it. With so many men they will open a multi-front war making their way through Hungary and Poland where everthing is flat.

This of course, allows for Western Air superiority to come in to play, allowing easy carpet style bombings which can decimate an attacking force with no catualties on the western side.

Originally Posted by gladius

As for the Medeterranian, this is were absolutely don't know what you are talking about.

In the open ocean such as the Pacific or Atlatic the Western Navies can reign supreme and nothing can chalenge them, but this is not the open ocean this is the Med which is small and enclosed.

The Islamics can launch thousands upon thousands of Exocet, Silkworm and Sunburn missles. They can do this from either land-based platforms or thousands upon thousand of disposable cheap sea vessels. These vessels can be anything, sail boats, pt boats, as long as it floats and can fit one missle, nothing fancy. Since the Med is not open ocean they can fare with lesser inferior sea craft to do the job.

The Euro navy will simply be overwhelmed with the missles even though they will destroy thousands of enemy vessels, more will come and they will eventualy be swamped.

After this is done the Islamics can they invade Spain, and open up both Italian flanks, landing from Africa and the Balkans. (There is more detail, but like I said I don't feel like explaining myself again in this thread.)

This may be true, but again we are talking many years into the future. We already have the aegis (which works decently well), and it is still being advanced. We also have the THAAD, Arrow, and Patriot missle defense systems, all of which are land based. Between these and other advancements that I can not foresee (although im fairly sure they will exist) we are fairly secure. Who knows, maybe even lasers will become viable in 20-30 years.

Originally Posted by gladius

I think you are the fool here. When did I say they will nuke our cities? WHEN????

My explaination was that there will be NO NUCLEAR EXCHANGE because of EMP, for the reason given of not trading away even a few of our cities for their entire region.

YOU REALLY NEED TO READ WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED!

Hmmm.....do you not understand EMPs? As I posted before, there are 2 viable ways to create and EMP, and they both have diffrent effects. You can use a pinch, which will not so much as destroy electronics, more like disable it from between 1- 10 minutes(depending on the size and power). You also have a nuke, which generates a EMP intense enough to destroy electronics. Of course, you will need to be within 10 miles of your target for either of these, as that is the limit of the EMP radius for any ground level attack (it has to do with the density of the air).

So, since a pinch will do almost nothing to offset the western world, I suppose that a nuke is the only way to do what you are saying. The only other way to create an EMP this intense is a meteor strike, but I doubt the muslim world can control those.

Originally Posted by gladius

This post shows me you have no clue relating to reality whatsoever.

What if the alternative fuel comes form corn? What are they put corn in a duplicating machine, yeah maybe in Star Treck.

Economies will use what is readily and closely available, just because the US will use alt fuels doesn't mean China and Europe will. This just means because the US no longer demands oil, then this will free up more reseves for them, making it cheaper for them and making them even more dependant on oil. Do you see how this works.

And if what you are saying is true about Europe adapting alt fuels a year after the US does. How come Brazil has been using alt fuels for years, and Europe isn't using it, how come we are not using? Why? This is why I say you have no clue relating to reality.

Of all the posts on this thread, this one shocked me the most. Seriously, I thought you were more intelligent then this. If they come up with a VIABLE alternative fuel source, you can bet that the rest of the world would have it soon. The Star Trek comment was the most absurd. The only thing they need to do is examine the molecule that is being used (as in is it C2H6O(ethanol) or CH3OH(methanol)) and any decent scientist could tell you what it is and could mass produce it. This is not hard at all... A high school student could identify a molecule of this type.

The part about china and russia using oil is also false. Another basic part of economics is cost of production vs. price of commodity. If a viable type of alt. fuel could be produced, then it could be produced cheaply in a labratory (they are producing ethanol in labs now). They could be produced much cheaper then it takes to get oil, which costs quite a bit to extract.

After looking up what you said about brazil, I discovered that only about 50% of all cars in brazil use alt. fuel, and they all use ethanol. The problem with ethanol is that it is highly flammable when it mixes with too much water, and it costs more to produce then it does to get oil for us. We actually produce more ethanol then brazil does, and I personally use E10, which is a 10% ethanol mix. This is used through out the midwest of the USA (even though I live in the east) and production is slated to double by 2007.

Originally Posted by gladius

All this has been explain in the somewhere in the thread already, including where the vehicles will come from, bought from everyhwere, the bulk of which they can but from the hundred upon hundreds of thousands of surplus Soviet vehicle sitting preserved in mothball right now, which will then be refurbished, ect.

I'm simply too lazy to answer more the same type of questions for the umpteenth time. And considering the fact you can't even read properly what has been posted, I don't see why I have to do it all over again.

The Soviet vehicles you speak of might be useful now, but in 20-30 years, there is no doubt in my mind they will be complettly useless, considering they would have been made in the 1960s(and maybe earlier). That is like a Vickers Light Tank(1930s) taking on a bradly fighting vehicle. Even if it is refurbished, it still has all the weaknesses of a vehicle made 70 years earlier.

Originally Posted by gladius

First of all the whole continent of Europe will be affected, not just one country. (You still don't understand how this works, not to mention if Europe and the US were hit simultaneously)

But my point is the war is already well underway and it will take time for them to do this.

The fact that everything is out and there is no power will take even longer.

So you are hit with a double whammy producing more delays, all the while our outnumbered troops are fighting the enemy at odds of around 10 to 1 or more, and running out of fuel and ammo with no resupply becaue becuase there no power and nothing works.

Not to mention the in-country Jihadist are adding to the chaos and mess caused by the what is already happening.

The entire continent will not be affected, unless you entend to limit your EMP to 30 miles up (which will cause almost no damage anywhere) Since I have already meantioned the troops(while you ignore what I said, see above posts), I will not continue there. Again, military equipment will be hardened against EMP, so supply lines will still be flowing to the troops. Actually, most motors and such will be only lightly effected (check wikipedia for this) and EMPs have a 10 mile radius. You will need as many nukes as there are in existance just create and emp big enough to hit all of europe (not to meantion the US)

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

This of course, allows for Western Air superiority to come in to play, allowing easy carpet style bombings which can decimate an attacking force with no catualties on the western side.

Again, if they have enough SAM's they can still out attrition the air superiority. No doubt air power will get some of them, but it will take it toll on the airforce and they will have enough men to oulast it.

Besides carpet bombings are not generaly used on moving targets and formations they are used on static targets.

Even in Gulf War 1, with all the air sorties over the small open dessert area of Kuwait, you'd think they would have gotten all the tanks, but there were enough left over for a few big tank battles.

This will be an area of over the entire continent of Europe in composed of several different fronts, the air power can't be everywhere and alot will get through, not to mention the attriton rate they will have to face. This doesn't even count any disruption caused by EMP which will sever alot of the communication in oder to coordinate air strikes.

This may be true, but again we are talking many years into the future. We already have the aegis (which works decently well), and it is still being advanced. We also have the THAAD, Arrow, and Patriot missle defense systems, all of which are land based. Between these and other advancements that I can not foresee (although im fairly sure they will exist) we are fairly secure. Who knows, maybe even lasers will become viable in 20-30 years.

First of all THAAD will only have a range of 150km, EMP burst can be detonated at altitudes of 400km well out of range.

As for Aegis... This again is an illustration why aren't well informed on any of this stuff.

You obvisuosly havent heard of the Sunburn missle. The Sunburn was specifically designed by the Russians to defeat Aegis.

The Exocet and Silkworm sea-skimming missiles travel at sub-sonic speeds, it takes about 10 seconds at the range Aegis can hit them to reach the Ship. Aegis will have time to defeat a dozen of these coming in at once.

The Sunburn however, is a new supersonic sea-skimming missile It will take one second at the range Aegis can hit it, before it reaches the ship. Aegis will only be able to defeat on or two of these at the same time. What if a dozen or more come at the ship, what then?

Like I said, you're trying to say why this scenario won't work and you haven't got a clue whats out there.

btw...Iran now has a number of Sunburn missiles which it purchased from Russia.

As for the lasers you don't know when they will be put into service, I hope we do get them.

Hmmm.....do you not understand EMPs? As I posted before, there are 2 viable ways to create and EMP, and they both have diffrent effects. You can use a pinch, which will not so much as destroy electronics, more like disable it from between 1- 10 minutes(depending on the size and power). You also have a nuke, which generates a EMP intense enough to destroy electronics. Of course, you will need to be within 10 miles of your target for either of these, as that is the limit of the EMP radius for any ground level attack (it has to do with the density of the air).

So, since a pinch will do almost nothing to offset the western world, I suppose that a nuke is the only way to do what you are saying. The only other way to create an EMP this intense is a meteor strike, but I doubt the muslim world can control those.

Hahahahahahaha Rolf HAahahaha lol hahahaha

Are you sure you even understand EMP's, or have any understanding of whats real and whats not?

HAhahahahhahhahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahah ahhaahhaha. I think I need to explain this to you before I die laughing. This what I am saying; you are making all kinds of comments here try to disprove what I say, when you have no sense or clue of what is even real.

You are saying the range of nuclear EMP is only 10 miles? This is why I almost laughed myself to death.

US scientists first noticed EMP back in 1962, when they had a little nuclear experiment called "Starfish Prime". They exploded a one-and-a-half megaton nuclear weapon 400 km above Johnston Island in the Pacific. 1500 km away in Hawaii, there was massive electronic destruction as three hundred street lights blew up, burglar alarms triggered off, power lines fused and TV sets exploded.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s380431.htm

...the area covered by an EMP signal can be immense. As a consequence, large portions of extended power and communications networks, for example, can simultaneously be put at risk. Such far-reaching effects are peculiar to EMP...

...The area of the Earth's surface directly illuminated by EMP is determined entirely by the height of burst. All points on the Earth's surface within the horizon, as seen from the burst point, will experience EMP effects as depicted in figure 2, which is on page 3 of your handout. Note that a burst on the order of 500 kilometers in altitude can cover the entire continental United States...

...In stark contrast, high-altitude burst, detonated a few hundred kilometers above the surface of the Earth, has as its salient featured effect the ability to simultaneously bathe an entire continent in EMP. The ability of EMP to induce potentially damaging voltages and currents in unprotected electronic circuits and components is well-known. The immense footprint of EMP can therefore simultaneously place at risk unhardened military systems, as well as critical infrastructure systems to include power grids, telecommunication networks, transportation systems, banking systems, medical services, civil emergency systems and so forth...

For example, if a megaton class weapon were to be detonated 400 kilometers above Omaha, nearly the entire contiguous 48 States would be affected with potentially damaging EMP experience from Boston to Los Angeles, from Chicago to New Orleans.

We have recently learned that Soviet scientists observed similar disruptions following their high-altitude tests. In one test, all protective devices and overhead communication lines were damaged at distances out to 500 kilometers. The same event saw a 1,000 kilometer segment of power line essentially shut down by these effects.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...as197010_1.htm


An EMP has only the range 10 miles did you say?

HAHHAHAHAhahaha. Now you know why I can't stop laughing.

Try the entire Continental United States. Which is a bit more than 10 miles.

(the source by the way was from official congressional hearings and scientist being interviewed by members of congress)


You also mention about theat the Muslims would have to produce a meteor strike, I don't think so.

...I haven't looked at EMP for a long time, and I hope you will forgive me for being behind the times on this, but am I to understand that you are saying that the pulse could be generated by a high altitude explosion of any nuclear weapon? Or would it have to be a specially designed weapon to provide the magnitude of pulse you are talking about?

Dr. WOOD. Sir, any nuclear weapon of the type that is stockpiled anywhere at the present time will generate high altitude EMP simply because some finite fraction of the order of percent of its output will be in the gamma rays that drive the pulse, as Dr. Smith and Dr. Ullrich extremely ably described it in their opening statements...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...as197010_1.htm

Meteor strike??? More like any ONE nuclear weapon.

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

Of all the posts on this thread, this one shocked me the most. Seriously, I thought you were more intelligent then this. If they come up with a VIABLE alternative fuel source, you can bet that the rest of the world would have it soon. The Star Trek comment was the most absurd. The only thing they need to do is examine the molecule that is being used (as in is it C2H6O(ethanol) or CH3OH(methanol)) and any decent scientist could tell you what it is and could mass produce it. This is not hard at all... A high school student could identify a molecule of this type.
The part about china and russia using oil is also false. Another basic part of economics is cost of production vs. price of commodity. If a viable type of alt. fuel could be produced, then it could be produced cheaply in a labratory (they are producing ethanol in labs now). They could be produced much cheaper then it takes to get oil, which costs quite a bit to extract.

After looking up what you said about brazil, I discovered that only about 50% of all cars in brazil use alt. fuel, and they all use ethanol. The problem with ethanol is that it is highly flammable when it mixes with too much water, and it costs more to produce then it does to get oil for us. We actually produce more ethanol then brazil does, and I personally use E10, which is a 10% ethanol mix. This is used through out the midwest of the USA (even though I live in the east) and production is slated to double by 2007.

The only way you would believe what you are saying is if you were a hippie or something, are you?
You don't seem to have real perception of what's true in real world terms and what's not. Heres a quick lesson on economics & supply and demand.

Why is the US seriously considering alt fuel right now?

Because gas prices are so high. That's the only reason. If the prices were low again we wouldn't care less and there would be no demand to pursue it.

If the US stops importing fuel from the Middle East then it will free up reserves for China and Europe to use. Because there is more supply there is less demand, the prices go down.

Europe and China gets it cheaper where it would cost less for them to maintain the stauts quo rather than go into a costly effort to convert their infrastucture to handle alt fuels.

The price of oil will go as low as is nesacery to sell it. Opec will not sit on the oil do nothing when they can drive the prices down enough for Europe to keep being dependant on it. This is how economies work.

Beisdes if Europe wanted to convert to alt fuels, they would have done it years ago. The technology for alt fuels is nothing new, we are only pursuing this because of demand due to high gas prices.

Do you get it now?

The Soviet vehicles you speak of might be useful now, but in 20-30 years, there is no doubt in my mind they will be complettly useless, considering they would have been made in the 1960s(and maybe earlier). That is like a Vickers Light Tank(1930s) taking on a bradly fighting vehicle. Even if it is refurbished, it still has all the weaknesses of a vehicle made 70 years earlier.

If you armed all those vehicles with a modern TOW missle they have the potential for disabling or destroying an MBT. This kind of retrofit is easily done.

Your assesmnet of the Vickers is completely off, it would be more like the Tiger vs Shermans in WW2. We would be able to kill lots of their vehicles, but us being outnumbered some 10 to 1, the enemy would still be able to do harm, like the Shermans did with the Tigers.

Beside they will more than likely also have a fair number of modern MBT's almost if not equal to ours. Those vehicles I mentioned was to supliment and give them numbers. Those vehicles will go in with to support the MBT's in order to swarm the Western defences. Most likley, the MBT's will hit from the front while the lesser vehicles hit the flanks, and or provide screening action for their MBT's.

The entire continent will not be affected, unless you entend to limit your EMP to 30 miles up (which will cause almost no damage anywhere) Since I have already meantioned the troops(while you ignore what I said, see above posts), I will not continue there.

HAHAHAHha Please don't continue there, i may die laughing.

...It is my understanding that about 500 kilometers, a 1-megaton burst would lay down an EMP blanket over the entire contiguous 48 States that at the margins—that is at San Diego and Maine...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...as197010_1.htm

Again, military equipment will be hardened against EMP, so supply lines will still be flowing to the troops.

Wrong again.

...For example, 95 percent of our military communications go through commercial channels. Are we confident that EMP will not disable or disrupt these commercial communications systems? How confident are we that the military could continue to communicate effectively if commercial systems were disrupted or completely disabled by EMP? How thoroughly do we protect our weapons systems from EMP? Are we confident they will continue to function?...

...Much of what we depend on today would be susceptible to EMP effects, both in the military and civilian infrastructure...

Even more regrettable was the fact that most major military hardware and systems, especially those not considered vital to the conduct of strategic nuclear war, were not hardened against EMP much at all. As a result, at the present time our national profile of vulnerability to EMP attack is highly uneven, with large parts of our military machine and virtually all of the equipment undergirding modern American civilization being utterly EMP vulnerable.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...as197010_1.htm

The supply lines will be severely affected.

Most military communications, transport, and services are done through civillian cahnnels which are NOT hardened and will be affected. Not mention part of the militery itself is also NOT hardened.

This war will be very possible.

Actually, most motors and such will be only lightly effected (check wikipedia for this)

Again, you have no idea what this is about.

Other conducting structures, such as aircraft, ships, automobiles, railroad tracks, power lines, and communication lines connected to ground facilities, also effectively serve as receiving antennas for EMP coupling. If the resulting induced currents and voltages, which can be large, are allowed to interact with sensitive electronic circuit and components, they can induce an upset in digital logic circuits or cause damage to the components themselves...

This EMP also shut down radio stations, turned off cars, burned out telephone systems, and wreaked other mischief throughout the Hawaiian Islands nearly 1,000 miles distant from ground zero...

Mr. WELDON. How about automobiles? We mentioned that before because of the use of microprocessors and all. Do we have any studies done on the impact on automobiles and vehicles?

Dr. WOOD. Because of exactly what you said, sir, the fact that modern automobiles are very semiconductor- and microprocessor-intensive, the likelihood that they would suffer catastrophic damage so that they could not operate is much larger than it was back in the sixties when some automobiles, at least in anecdotal reports, were shut down due to the Starfish explosion. These were automobiles in the Hawaiian Islands
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...as197010_1.htm


Automobiles and and most vehicles will be disable and clog the highways, making it dificult for any surviving vehicles to transport supplies and munitions to the front.


This information from the sources I have posted, are from the nations top scientist regarding EMP, as they testified before congress. So don't give some other secondary source that is not information by the top scientists in this field.

and EMPs have a 10 mile radius. You will need as many nukes as there are in existance just create and emp big enough to hit all of europe (not to meantion the US)

For example, if a megaton class weapon were to be detonated 400 kilometers above Omaha, nearly the entire contiguous 48 States would be affected with potentially damaging EMP experience from Boston to Los Angeles, from Chicago to New Orleans.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...as197010_1.htm


I'll not laugh this time.

However, I suggest you just read the thread if you want more information.

The reason I say this becuase most of the stuff you ask has already been discussed. And two your grasp of what is real and what is not and how it relates to the real world is questionable, and I find myslef having to explain rudamentary stuff of how things work becuase you don't seem to have an acurate grasp of it, and I'd rather not do that.

In the future, I'm sorry but I'll have to refer you to reading the thread as you should have done, or at least explored in the first place, in order to get a handle of what this is all about, and how and realities relating to real world stuff, before making all kinds of comments why it won't work.

[quote=gladius]Beisdes if Europe wanted to convert to alt fuels, they would have done it years ago. The technology for alt fuels is nothing new, we are only pursuing this because of demand due to high gas prices./quote]

Hi Gladius the "Persistent",

If you keep firing back with all guns, you will eventually run out of ammunition. I sort of like the tenacity, however. Keep it up. Since I think that you are a rather sensitive person, and I am not here to cut off any heads, I would like to stress that this post is not intended to put you down, or Christians, or anyone. I only want to point out some theoretical issues.

I have noticed that conceptual verification does not work for you. If you argue that Europe will be dependent on Muslim oil in 50 years, and someone points out that there are alternatives, you argue that Europe will not alter their current system because they have not done so in the past. Your argument, and the matter of oil is only one aspect of many, is therefore "modernist" in tone.

Modernism: What is modernism? The modern period was the period of ideologies such as communism, fascism and nazism. Each of them offered a way of looking at history (historical materialism or social-darwinism) using what seemed a mysterious structure guiding human "development" (another modernist perspective). You propose the "Mahdi ideology" which is more reminiscent of the so-called Christian “End Times” or the eschatological belief that history as we know it will end in a titanic struggle between good and evil whereby Satan mobilizes the human masses against Jesus. I do not want to discuss the “End Times”. I only want to point out that your argument fails to surmount all of the obstacles normally found in any ideology. It is in a sense even cruder because the idea only takes a few elements of the Christian concept of Apocalypse (ie. Armageddon) and attempts to construct a prediction of the future using very selective judgments concerning the “evidence”. All contradictions are rejected.

Ideology: What is an ideology? Hannah Arendt: "An ideology is quite literally what its name indicates: it is the logic of an idea. Its subject matter is history, to which the 'idea' is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is, but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same 'law' as the logical exposition of its 'idea.' Ideologies pretend to know the mysteries of the whole historical process -- the secrets of the past, the intricacies of the present, the uncertainties of the future -- because of the logic inherent in their respective ideas". This definition matches the "Mahdi ideology".

The Problems: One of the problems with modernist techniques is that the study of history cannot be made scientific. Science generally attempts to study something using an hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and creating a model whereby the hypothesis is reproducible. But history is too complex to create a system whereby the future can be forecast. There are too many variables and possibilities for alternative outcomes. Using the case of European energy, it is easily demonstrated that (1) Europe imports heavily from Russia, (2) Indigenous oil is important, (3) Europe is developing significant alternatives such as bio-diesel or solar energy, and that (4) European politicians are in any case very keen on avoiding any dependency on the Muslim oil producers. You probably discount these "elements" of the problem BECAUSE they do not fit with your model concerning the future. Your "historicism" is leading you to interpret current developments in such a way as to fit the desired end of history. The notion that humans can understand the past in order to predict the future is utterly deceptive and, I am sorry to say, typical of fundamentalist Christian perspectives.

Modernism is not Truth: The actual verification of concepts becomes irrelevant. You might think that you are offering accurate and sufficient evidence, but you are in reality only coming back to the initial hypothesis. That is, the possibility that Europe could develop new technologies is unimportant because the Mahdi will attack Europe. The possibility that the Muslim world could change and become more passive is discounted as unimportant because the Mahdi will attack Europe. The contemporary weakness of the Middle-East is unimportant because the Mahdi will attack Europe (etc.) What matters is (1) the belief that the future will unfold exactly as envisioned, (2) that all evidence will bend to fit the theory, and (3) that nothing can be done to change the future. This historical determinism is ahistorical (counter to the teachings of the historical discipline) because the discipline emphasizes the utter complexity of all human actions. History cannot predict the future. It is also highly “modernist” in that the proponents wanted “to reveal official history as a joke, to demonstrate a sphere of secret influences of which the visible, tracable, and known historical reality was only the outward façade erected explicitly to fool the people”. (Hannah Arendt)

Although an EMP is possible if released overhead, it will not be nearly at a magnatude of what you are saying. To create an EMP that will short out communication networks (not lamp posts) across an entire continent, you will need a 20 megaton nuke detonated at 400 km. This attack would not permanantly damage it though, at that altitude the EMP would weaken enough (especially when you hit dense air) that it would knockout devices..........for a few minutes.....maybe an hour. Since I cant remeber the muslims having a 20 megaton nuke. At the same time, a missile going up to 400 km would be easily detected and destroyed by one of our missles.

Also, quick question on economics for you. If what you say is true, then why would any metal be reconstituted. 75% of the metal we use today is recycled from scrap. I mean, the people who mine metal and process it would just lower prices to maintain competative....right? Wrong, because the price to reconstitute is much lower then to mine it. The same is true of oil. It costs a lot of money to drill for oil, then to purify and ship it. If cost efficient alt. fuels could be made in a labratory, then a company with labs could lower the price lower then oil companies could afford to lower it. That is the basis of mass production: If something is harder to produce or extract, it will be more expensive.

As for vehicles it doesnt matter what weapons you mount on it, they wont work. Its like trying to drop a brand new V8 in an old VW bug....it just wont work. You can not refurbish a 70+ year old vehicle to modern standards....especially in combat situations.

As for the lasers as anti-missile, we actually have some. The US government just bought 10 747s, and mounted them with a laser on the nose for taking down missiles. Unfortunatly, it isnbt on their site yet, but I saw the article in this month's popular mechanics magazine.