Peter Cairns

Wisbech, Good post I agree with almost everything you say. Though I don't quite agree with the "Demagoge" line, as a long time quoter of "you need three things to fight a war, Money, Money and More Money", I think there could be a period of danger when in order to stay ahead of the rest the cost of the US military ( particularly high tech), outstrips the ability of the US economy to support it. I am not saying it's here now, although the cancellation of the Commanche, to upgrade the existing fleet, might be a sign of it begining, but I think it may well be in the next decade. Incidently on the BBc news today there was a report warnibg that if things continue as they are, as well as 40% of Americans being obese, up to 30% could well be diabetics by 2020. With Diabeteise being particularly high in African American and Hispanics, who make up a big proportion of the US military, you start to wonder how the US will be able to fill the ranks. I know the British army has had real problems, and only a couple of years back extended basic training, just to get recruits fitness to the right level. Peter.

Well John, Yet another classic long post that said very little, to summaries The security is so tight little gets out, thats why we know so little, and Just because we have no evidence doesn't mean it's not true. And that ladies and gentlemen is a charter to say and believe anything you like. It is also a route to a world where all views are seem as of equal merit regardless of the evidence or level of support. In short " A Whacko's Paradise". Peter.

On problem for anyone buying Russian tanks, is that they have evolved from cold war designs which from the T-55 on were designed for fast offenseive action. That means of the three basic factors, Firepower. Mobility and protection, protection came last. The Russians took the view that the best protection was not to get hit, so they went for rapid massed armour that would concentrate and overwhelm a defender, This can be seen in their emphasis on low profile big gunned tanks, where rate of fire and hitting power was of more importance than range or accuracy. In a Cold war scenario the Russians expected tank engagements to be closer to 1,000m than 2,000m. and ven spoke of under 500m in the Assault. However the problem for the likes of Iraq, was that they were defending, not attacking, and were trying to hold possitions with an offensive tank design designed for short range, against a heavier armoured attacker with a longer range gun. It's a bit like a soviet SMG squad with PPsh-41's trying to attack a .50 cal 300 yards away over open ground. Good as the PPsh wa,s it's just the wrong weapon for the job. Peter.

John, You could post ever single piece of "Evidence" you have, and just by scrapping the surface of mainstream academia on all the topics you talk about I could bury you under an ocean of well research, well documented, verifiable, peer reviewed data. For you or any conspiracy theorist to claim that your body of evidence for UFO's, hyperweapons or anything else balances what is accepted by the world scientific community is just plain daft. I gave up making an effort to read the kind of stuff you quote in my teens, actually during the period when I was doing my degree and really had to start doing my own reading and research. What I quicky found was that there was a clear difference between the type of peer reviewed replicated research that is in academic journals, and the stuff in Newsagent magazines. One of the easiest to spot, and it's pretty easy for anyone going over your posts to find, is the "Circle of evidence". It sort of works like this, You quote "A" as a source, and when we read it, he to back himself up quotes "B". So you read "B" and find that his sources are "C" and, well "A". As you have read "A" you go on to look at "C", and surprise, surprise, his source is, yes you guessed it "A". So what on first inspection looks like an impressive collection of evidence, turns out to be no more than a house of cards, a few flimpsy pieces holding each other up to look far more than they actually are. If my tone seems flippant, it's because it is, I take hampster racing more seriously than your posts, and I've never seen a hampster race. Peter.

Over and above performance and price, there is technology transfer and politics. In some cases such as India the Russian through necessity have been willing to give up more know the US ever would. Hell the Uk is upset about the lack of transfer in the JSF and it's paying 10% of the development. The LCA did suffer because of sanctions but that actually worked in Russias favour. There is little doubt that the F-16 in it's latest guise is better than a Mig-27, or even a Mig-35, but if you can buy three Migs for the same price and money is tight and the Mig will do, then you buy the mig. The India airforce can get by with Mig-35's because they are cheap and good enough. They will more than match current Pakistani F-16's and the SU-27 will take care of the latest model, which as Pakistan doesn't have F-15's is all they need. The best Russian weapons can't go head to head with the best western ones, but that's often not what a country needs. Iraq's Mig-29's were no match for the USAF, but more than capable of seeing off Irans aging F-5's. It's the same with some of there successful SAM sales, they aren't up to US standards but far cheaper and often more than enough to deal with the air threat they face. If you are facing a third rate threat, why waste money of a first class defence when a second class one is good enough and far cheaper. The fighters and tanks China has sold Pakistan are well suited to a war with Indian, given Pakistans budget, but they wouldn't last ten minutes against the US. Peter.

Yeh Yeh ,John, Any day now they'll be repealling the law of gravity so that we can all float to work. The world scientific community has been trying to find evidence for gravity waves for decades, and low and behold, you can find it yourself in your bedroom with two tin cans,a piece of string, a light bulb and a magnet. I may be a cynic, but the most powerful element I've come across in your posts is Nonsensinium. Peter.

Wicky, The truth is out there Boyo. and that's some picture on your profile mate...... Peter

One of the things that BF mentioned early on was that CMx2 would be scalable, so for instance you could have a game that had 1 to 12 representation for an American civil war game that would allow large actions. However you could also have a WW2 variant where a single unit was a Sherman Platoon that acted as one but was represented by four tanks, in the same way that a CM:SF team of 4 will act as one unit, but you'll see all four guys. Now heres my idea, if you had both games , a 1:12 WW2 and a 1:1 WW2, then you could while playing the large scale, have the option to click on a part of the terrain and have it saved as a QB for the smaller game. This saved game, would use a 2km by 2km map based around the terrain from the big game, with all the units within it represented. I don't think it would be possible to stop the game ,play the small game and go back in real time, but if two players wanted to quit and play the QB, they might be able to feed the final result in some way. Even if interaction wasn't possible, just being able to recreate key parts of a large battle as small a scale CMQB, would be fun. Peter.

Well Wicky's post says it all, at last the truth is out. The secret that has eluded the best minds on earth, and which governments have kept from the public is a network of secret forests growing Alien Trees from which they farvest "Anti-Gravity" wood. Well when I say harvest, at least the stuff that doesn't float off when they cut it. I heard a story once from this guy who knew this guy who was working at a airline crash site and he said they found a tree branch in one of the engines , The officals said it happened when it hit the ground, but who knows. Peter.

Bigduke, Decent doesn't beat good, and as Steve says if the opposition has good, who wants to buy average. So the Russians have to exaggerate just to sell. The US has had far more competition and openness, so it is harder to get away with bogus claims, although that doesn't stop them trying. Oil or not right now Russian is still in a mess and struggling to feed itself. Anyone who would pour money in to new weapons when he has a conscript army living on watery soup, is an idiot, and Putin may be many things but he's not that. Ever with $75 a barrell it will still take a decade for Russia to stablises and another after that if ever to be a player again. What has developed is this second tear of powers who can't stand up to the US alone, but who by cooperating can go there own way, Russia, China, India and Iran, have over the last decade formed a loose arms buying and making bloc that is an interesting alternative for those who either through choice or wealth don't buy US. Peter.

Steve, As to combustion engine fuels China with it's 10 million cars for it's 1.3 billion population, ( 1 car to fuel for every 130 Chinese) is in far better shape than the US which with just under 300 million people has over 130 million (thats pretty close to 1 caf for every 2 people, and I bet the average Chinaman drives a nissan that uses a lot less than a SUV). I don't really disagree that all nations should be doing more to reduce their dependancy on fossil fuels particularly (imported) oil, but with regards to future competition with the US, chian seems to have a far smaller problem than the US when it comes to scares resources. China needs a far smaller share of what is available than the US, and it's not up to it's neck in debt. A while back I talked about export volumes rather than price, If a US M-16 costs 4 times what a chinese AK costs then the US can make twice as much by selling half as many. That means that when it comes to industrial muscle, China prpbably is pretty close to matching the US in output already. Peter.

Steve, But renewables is only part of the picture, sure spending is small compared to global spend on conventional fuels, but that's like saying because Audi spend more making cars than on research they're not interested in Research. My point was that if we look at renewables there is evidence that the Chinese are taking it at least as seriously as others, and that as with a smaller economy they seem to be spending more than the US ( and you can get more wind turbines for a $1 in China than the US), that they are taking a more serious long term view, exactly what you said they were good at. Looking at Nuclear the US has civil 103 reactors to Chinas 9, but if you looked at planned new capacity it's 14 US and 19 Chinese, so again a clear sign that the Chinese are taking there need to diversify seriously. Finally the figure for Coal for electricity generation suggest a huge future expansion of that. It may be dirty and crap for the Climate, but it's a domestic resource. China will face problems but it does seem to be doing more to diversify and meet it's future needs than the US. Of the too countries the one most dependant on middle east oil seems to be doing the least about it. Oh and the problems with russian supplies are about capacity constraints rather than reserves, what Russia lacks is expertise and investment, not oil or gas. Peter.

John, I am not the first or the last person on this forum to think you are the king of the conspiracy theory, and making a joke about it, is just that, a joke..... Get a life. Hell if I took the hump every time someone made a joke about me being Scottish, i'd have left years ago..... Peter

Bigduke6, Sorry Duke little of that will wash. The US has more or less given up on the B-1 in favour of the B-2 and is looking at designs for the B-3. As the tu-160 wasn't actually in the class of the B-1 that puts them three generations behind. The Soviets have been making great claims for there tanks for a generation and every time they are fielded they turn out to be a generation behind, and the fact that it can go through every rail tunnel that would be sealed by a TLAM long before it reached it is hardly an advantage. The SU-27 is a good palne, in terms of a stright dogfight it can give an F-15 a run for it's money, but the avionics suite is at less a decade behind, and it will never match an F-22, even wth vectored thrust and a new Radar. As to the quantities you quote at this rate it will be a decade before they can field a Division with a tank to match the Leopard 2, so I doubt the Germans are worried. Finally just as you should take some of the claims for performance with a pinch of salt, you should bury the claims of budget and production in the stuff. In the last decade virtually no Russian defence ministry claim or announcement of futurer aquisition numbers has ever been met. The last I heard the newest Su-27's the Russian airforce go were the refurbished development aircraft from the order from the Indian Airforce. The Russians make some good stuff and alot of countries will buy it as add on's and upgrades, but they really are a spent force for at least another ten years. Peter.

Interesting that no one from BF has joined the debate yet...... Peter.

John, Of all the examples you cite only two come close to the criterion Imentioned, the case of "the Red Car" and the "AC power "system advocated by Edison. They meet the first criteria in that they are proven technologies that have been in some way attacked or opposed by vested interest. No matter how long your quotes on UFO's and cold fussion, the fact that these are not accepted everyday technologies that we can all use, means they fall at the first hurdle. Where even the examples you quote fail is that all of the actions that you talk about were public. These were very vocal campaigns and yes the big guy won, and they were dirty, but that is more to do with abusing a monopoly and business tactics than secret conspiracy. The famous Apple v Microsoft battle and the claims of anti competitive behaviour at not the same as a conspiracy to suppress. Peter.

These things are for export only because to all intents and purposes the Russian armed forces are bankrupt. The Russian airforces limited upgrade of it's various Su-27-30's has been founded on the back of the sales to China and India , with the Russian airforce getting the less advanced rebuilds while the exports are new aircraft. It looks like the chnaces of getting their Mig-29's updated to the latest Mig-35 standard are pretty much dependant on the Indians ordering it to get production up and running. Peter.

Steve, You were saying...... Renewable Energy Investment at Record High - Report Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version CHINA: November 7, 2005 BEIJING - Global investment in renewable energy hit a record $30 billion last year, accounting for 20-25 percent of all investment in the power industry, and with solar power the fastest-growing energy technology, a Worldwatch Institute report released on Sunday said. The Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based organisation working for environmental sustainability, said the renewables sector was growing as a result of government support and increasing private sector investment. "Policies to promote renewables have mushroomed over the past few years. At least 48 countries worldwide now have some type of renewable energy promotion policy, including 14 developing countries," the report said. Most countries with renewable energy policies are targetting 5 to 30 percent of their electricity production by 2012, the end of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Kyoto requires developed nations to cut their emissions of heat-trapping gases by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012, but the United States and Australia did not ratify the pact and developing countries, including China and India, are exempt from the emissions caps. Nonetheless, China, which has a goal of making renewable energy account for one-tenth of its power grid by 2020, is a world leader in existing renewable electricity capacity, with 37 gigawatts, followed by Germany, the United States, Spain and Japan. It also plays host on Monday to a two-day international conference on renewable energy. "The fact the conference is taking place here in Beijing confirms taking up renewable energy is no longer the sole purview of developed countries and the emerging countries also wish to play a leading role in this area," European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas told a news conference. He said the conference would discuss how to enhance international frameworks for developing and transferring renewable technologies and developing market-based mechanisms that can provide affordable renewable energy sources. COMPETITIVE PRICES Asia is seen as an especially fertile market for renewable energy as it grapples with growing demand for power to feed rapid economic expansion at the same time as global oil prices are rising. Solar photovoltaic capacity globally grew by 60 percent per year between 2000 and 2004, making it the fastest-growing energy technology in the world, with solar power in about 400,000 homes in leaders Japan, Germany and the US feeding power into the grid. Photovoltaic cells convert sunlight into electricity through a process known as the photovoltaic effect. Costs are also declining as technologies improve and the scale of production grows. "Solar and wind power costs are now half what they were 10-15 years ago. Many renewable technologies can compete with retail and even wholesale prices of conventional technology under good conditions," the Worldwatch report said. Production of biofuels, which are made from agricultural products ranging from sugarcane and wheat to waste oil from cooking, exceeded 33 billion litres in 2004, or about 3 percent of the gasoline consumed globally. Story by Lindsay Beck REUTERS NEWS SERVICE Peter.

People so far are a bit worried about the screen refresh rate, one frame a month..... Peter.

I doubt the Chinese have anything that can match the US unit for unit or plane for plane, or will have for at least a decade or ever for that matter, but that misses the point. They don't need too. For me the possible scenario I have painted is based on the Chinese continuing to do what they have been doing for almost two decades now, slowly spreading there economic influence, to bring nations in to there sphere. Until recently there was a race between Chinese and India oil companies to buy up oil companies and assets to secure long term acccess to oil. This was piushing up the price as they tried to out bid each other. Last month they agreed a cooperation pact and are now making joint bids, as that way the both get oil and the best price. If you loook at a list of the top 20 oil producing countries they produce about 950bb a day. Saudi with over 260bb accounts for almost a third. But behind that we have Iraq, Kuwait , so that US allies produce, about half of all the oil. However these are not Stable and it all comes through the gulf and has to travel a long way. Then in the next group, are Iran, Russia, Venezuela and China, who among them produce about the same as Saudi. These countries with the exception of venezula are better placed to supply China, ( especially China). Current US consumption is (2001 figure) about 20bb a day. Some 5% of the output of Saudi, Iraq, and Kuwait. Chinese consumption is 5bb a day, or 2% of it's suppliers capacity. So at least in the short term China even as it grows has a more secure source of oil than the US, particularly if any conflict that stopped Iran exporting, would almost certainly effect the rest of the gulf. Another complicating factor for the US is the list of other main users, which in the top ten include, Japan, Germany. Italy and France ( the EU uses about 75% of the US). The top ten also includes Brazil, Russia and India in the other camp. All of these countries are effectively competeing with the US their ally for the same oil. In effect we have a developed Western Group with very high oil consumption overly dependant on on small area for supplies and with limited domestic production, and if not against them then apart from them, a small group of fast expanding countries who have access to a smaller but more secure supply with far larger production capacity. Put simply time is not on the US's side, while the Chinese can play the long game. The chances of China meeting it's oil demands, (growing as they are) at a price it can afford are better than the US's to be able to meet it's. Thus as the economic tables turn, increasingly China will as it has already in investment and manufacturing become the politic centre of asia. My war in Taiwan has the US trying to intervene militarily to reverse the slow decline in it's influence in Asia, and the world. Taiwan going over to the Chinese is the economic domino that causes the fight. Unlike Steve who takes the quite legitemate view that it will ever be all out or not at all, I think that a Vietnam Korea or Kuwait scenario is quite possible. Seeing the loss of a Key regional ally to a competeing power the US rightly or wrongly tries to keep the faction that supports it in power. True it could be argued that the US only acted in these cases when there was a direct military threat and where the majority were pro US, but all these are real conflicts that were limited and contained (thank God). Interestingly in Korea, there was atacit agreement that if the Chinese never attacked US carriers, the US wouldn't attack the Chinese mainland. No deal was ever done but both sides just understood where the next step was on the escalation ladder and decided not to take it. I could see a situation ( probably unlikely) where the Chinese avoided attacking US carrier groups East of Tawain ( difficult to do anyway) and the US restricted it's airwar to Tawain itself and not the Straits or China. I also think it's time someone started a CM:FF ( Freedom/Fight, for Formosa) threat so we can work on this scenario as a lot of people seem keen on it as a future module. Peter.

Of course the last picture will turn up in the arab media as "Evil Americans steal Bikes from Children". Peter.

Keith, But it's true, Egypt over ran Israel and then installed it's own puppet government who even today pretend to be jewish to get aid from the US government. Just ask John Kettler, he'll tell you all about it. Peter.

LtCol West Your not listening to the scenario..... The Chinese already effectively occupy Taiwanbefore the US arrives. Japan, Korea, and the Philipeans, will not allow thw US to use their bases for what they view as a civil war. Therefore, You can't close the straits until you destroy the defences on Taiwan which include US made PAC3 patriots, and you can't use F-15's or F-16's because they don't have the range. So there is no F-16 v Su-27 ( which as soviet RH AAM's outrange anything an F-16 carries, is one I'd call in favour of the Chinese) and your M-1 can't fight a T-90 until it gets ashore. Peter.

LtCol West Wrong, an army marches on it's stomach, and with three quarters of the NK force in the southern quarter, any interdiction aimed at logistics would quickly get results. Target their food and water supply and they couldn't sustain an attack for more than two weeks. Peter.

On the subject in general of this "Dark Forces" suppressing "Hyper Advanced Technology", can anyone cite an example of a cuurently available everyday piece of technology, that was successfully suppressed and hidden for a substantial length of time by anyone. I mean they can either do it for ever, which is highly unlikely, or only for a limited time, in which case there would be plenty of evidence of the practice, Peter.