Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.science > #128 > unrolled thread

a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire

Back to article view | Back to aus.science

Contents

  a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2023-03-08 03:02 +0100
    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-08 13:40 +1100
      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-08 15:22 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> - 2023-03-08 16:00 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2023-03-08 17:47 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 07:50 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 08:11 +1100
            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 08:14 +1100
              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2023-03-09 07:21 +1000
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 08:41 +1100
                  Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 09:37 +1100
                    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 09:43 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:17 +1100
                        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 14:20 +1100
                          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 15:48 +1100
                            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2023-03-09 23:30 +1100
                  Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 10:56 +1100
                    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 11:18 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:40 +1100
                        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 13:30 +1100
                          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 15:02 +1100
                            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 17:01 +1100
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 09:34 +1100
              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 09:33 +1100
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 09:47 +1100
                  Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:01 +1100
                    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 14:07 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 15:59 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2023-03-09 16:27 +1000
                        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 20:19 +1100
                          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 22:59 +1100
                            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-10 12:42 +1100
                              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-10 13:53 +1100
                                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-10 14:32 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 10:48 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire alvey <Patty.O.Furniture@Coast.org> - 2023-03-08 23:58 +0000
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2023-03-09 12:46 +1100
      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-08 16:08 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-08 19:40 +1000
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 09:02 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 11:08 +1100
            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 11:23 +1100
              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 12:15 +1100
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 13:58 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:18 +1100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#128 — a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire

I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
escape the apocalyse.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#129

On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
> escape the apocalyse.
> 

**I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
container. I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer. 
Maybe 2 years. A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years. 
A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV array, 
whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#130

On 8/03/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>> escape the apocalyse.
>>
> 
> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
> container. 

Bit more than that. I've had petrol that's been stored for over 2 years 
that's been fine. It lasts even longer if you use a fuel stabiliser.

I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer.

Diesel storage is about the same as petrol.

> Maybe 2 years. A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years. 
> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV array, 
> whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.

Lol :)

You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from a 
disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen to 
drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big deal. 
Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with fresh fuel 
for your escape.

Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which is 
highly unlikely :)


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#131

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 15:22:10 +1100, Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

>On 8/03/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>
>> 
>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
>> container. 
>
>Bit more than that. I've had petrol that's been stored for over 2 years 
>that's been fine. It lasts even longer if you use a fuel stabiliser.
>
>I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer.
>
>Diesel storage is about the same as petrol.
>
>> Maybe 2 years. A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years. 
>> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV array, 
>> whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
>
>Lol :)
>
>You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from a 
>disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen to 
>drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big deal. 
>Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with fresh fuel 
>for your escape.
>
>Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which is 
>highly unlikely :)

In the good old days we would experiment with an old 2-stroke motor
mower, feeding it with all sorts of mixes with petrol, like benzine
carbon tetrachloride,  turps, old paint and sump oil.
The carbonTet mix gave a beautiful blue/green flame shooting from the
no-muffler exhaust, while the rest gave voluminous clouds of smoke
from blue to black.
Such fun!
Later during a transport strike we found a mix of lighter fuel & turps
would run a car, albeit erratically.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#133

On 8/3/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>
>>
>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
>> container. 
> 
> Bit more than that. I've had petrol that's been stored for over 2 years 
> that's been fine. It lasts even longer if you use a fuel stabiliser.

Petrol storage is temperature dependent. If the tin shed you store it in 
regularly gets up to 30C or more, expect your fuel to go off in as 
little as three months. Worse if it's been adulterated with *ethanol*. 
Then you will *experience* the joys of phase separation.
> 
> I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer.

Of course you are, and you'd be wrong. Diesel will go off in 12 months 
on average, same as petrol. Because diesel is a less volatile fuel, it 
won't go off because of evaporation of the volatile components like 
petrol does. Instead it tends to grow bacteria.

https://www.agro.crs/fuel/detail/prevent-microbial-growth-in-fuel-tanks

> 
> Diesel storage is about the same as petrol.

In a properly sealed container - about 12 months - for both. But, hang 
about, didn't you say in your ignorance that diesel will last a bit 
longer? Ah, the joys of watching you contradict yourself.
> 
>> Maybe 2 years. A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ 
>> years. A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV 
>> array, whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
> 
> Lol :)
> 
> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from a 
> disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen to 
> drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big deal. 
> Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with fresh fuel 
> for your escape.
> 
> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which is 
> highly unlikely :)
> 
Been looking at what's been going on around the world lately? Obviously 
not. Remember where pretty much most of our fuel comes from - hint, not 
more than 22% from local sources. The other 78% comes from other places 
in the world. Any disruption to *crude oil shipping* and your fantasy 
situation has an extremely high likelihood of occurring.

-- 
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
       (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#135

On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>
>>
>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
>> container. 
> 
> Bit more than that. I've had petrol that's been stored for over 2 years 
> that's been fine. It lasts even longer if you use a fuel stabiliser.
> 
> I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer.
> 
> Diesel storage is about the same as petrol.
> 
>> Maybe 2 years. A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ 
>> years. A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV 
>> array, whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
> 
> Lol :)
> 
> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from a 
> disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen to 
> drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big deal. 
> Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with fresh fuel 
> for your escape.
> 
> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which is 
> highly unlikely :)
> 
> 

**You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of sea 
freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners will be 
the only vehicles travelling anywhere.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#136

On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>
>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from 
>> a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen to 
>> drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big deal. 
>> Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with fresh 
>> fuel for your escape.
>>
>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which 
>> is highly unlikely :)
>>
>>
> 
> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of sea 
> freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners will be 
> the only vehicles travelling anywhere.

I doubt it.

We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol we 
use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than making our 
own. We could start our own production up and make our own fuel here if 
the need arose.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#137

On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from 
>>> a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen 
>>> to drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big 
>>> deal. Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with 
>>> fresh fuel for your escape.
>>>
>>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which 
>>> is highly unlikely :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of 
>> sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners will 
>> be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol we 
> use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than making our 
> own. We could start our own production up and make our own fuel here if 
> the need arose.
> 
> 

**The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.

OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough oil 
for our needs.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#138

On 9/03/2023 7:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away 
>>>> from a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you 
>>>> happen to drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't 
>>>> a big deal. Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container 
>>>> with fresh fuel for your escape.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises 
>>>> which is highly unlikely :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of 
>>> sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners 
>>> will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol we 
>> use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than making 
>> our own. We could start our own production up and make our own fuel 
>> here if the need arose.
>>
>>
> 
> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
> 
> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough oil 
> for our needs.
> 
Australia is a very big place to blockade.
-- 
Clocky on programming 18 Feb 2022
"What, you copy and paste code into a sketch in Arduino, select the 
libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program"

Clocky on NASA 18 Mar 2022
"Oh, and btw... if you worked for NASA how is it thay you are seemingly 
oblivious to Commodore Amigas used at NASA"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#139

On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 7:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away 
>>>>> from a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you 
>>>>> happen to drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year 
>>>>> isn't a big deal. Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the 
>>>>> container with fresh fuel for your escape.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises 
>>>>> which is highly unlikely :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of 
>>>> sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners 
>>>> will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol we 
>>> use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than making 
>>> our own. We could start our own production up and make our own fuel 
>>> here if the need arose.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
>>
>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>> oil for our needs.
>>
> Australia is a very big place to blockade.

**Indeed and China has (or soon will have) the capacity, the will and 
the desire to do so. Australia needs to be totally self-sufficient in 
energy production as soon as possible. Oil is our biggest problem and we 
need to find alternative energy sources very quickly. Make no mistake: 
China will neutralise Australia as soon as they think they need to. 
Cutting off our oil is a very quick and easy way to fuck us. Oil tankers 
move slowly and Chinese aircraft are much faster.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#143

On 9/03/2023 8:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:

>>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
>>>
>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>>> oil for our needs.
>>>
>> Australia is a very big place to blockade.
> 
> **Indeed and China has (or soon will have) the capacity, the will and 
> the desire to do so. Australia needs to be totally self-sufficient in 
> energy production as soon as possible. Oil is our biggest problem and we 
> need to find alternative energy sources very quickly. Make no mistake: 
> China will neutralise Australia as soon as they think they need to. 
> Cutting off our oil is a very quick and easy way to fuck us. Oil tankers 
> move slowly and Chinese aircraft are much faster.

China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words into 
action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any action 
they take against us would invariably see them facing action against our 
allies which is not something they would look forward to.

We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to 
under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally wrong 
in my opinion.

-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#144

On 9/03/2023 9:37 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 8:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> 
>>>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>>>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>>>> oil for our needs.
>>>>
>>> Australia is a very big place to blockade.
>>
>> **Indeed and China has (or soon will have) the capacity, the will and 
>> the desire to do so. Australia needs to be totally self-sufficient in 
>> energy production as soon as possible. Oil is our biggest problem and 
>> we need to find alternative energy sources very quickly. Make no 
>> mistake: China will neutralise Australia as soon as they think they 
>> need to. Cutting off our oil is a very quick and easy way to fuck us. 
>> Oil tankers move slowly and Chinese aircraft are much faster.
> 
> China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words into 
> action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any action 
> they take against us would invariably see them facing action against our 
> allies which is not something they would look forward to.

**That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part. Should that 
fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we will be left on 
our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can bet he would be 
happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia MUST be able to be 
self-sufficient in both defence and essential commodities.

> 
> We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to 
> under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally wrong 
> in my opinion.

**We'll see. The next US election will be critical to China's plans. 
Trump will not defend Taiwan and has zero interest in Australia.


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154

On 9/03/2023 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:37 am, Noddy wrote:

>> China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words 
>> into action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any 
>> action they take against us would invariably see them facing action 
>> against our allies which is not something they would look forward to.
> 
> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part. 

I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first 
place :)

> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we will be left on 
> our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can bet he would be 
> happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia MUST be able to be 
> self-sufficient in both defence and essential commodities.

Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't have 
the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a very 
large island.

As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the sun 
has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican Party to 
stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think "Sleepy Joe's" 
days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be the next US 
President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't appear to be 
anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the same 
isolationist views.

The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in office 
in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the Americans 
both in terms of investment and strategic importance for them to sit 
idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.

America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just so 
they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the 
world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing 
nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest 
sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)


>>
>> We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to 
>> under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally wrong 
>> in my opinion.
> 
> **We'll see. The next US election will be critical to China's plans. 
> Trump will not defend Taiwan and has zero interest in Australia.

Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161

On 9/03/2023 12:17 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:43 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 9:37 am, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>> China likes to talk tough, but when it comes to putting their words 
>>> into action they're not that flash. They're also well aware that any 
>>> action they take against us would invariably see them facing action 
>>> against our allies which is not something they would look forward to.
>>
>> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part. 
> 
> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first 
> place :)
> 
>> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we 
>> will be left on our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can 
>> bet he would be happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia MUST 
>> be able to be self-sufficient in both defence and essential commodities.
> 
> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't have 
> the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a very 
> large island.

**Bullshit. As others have stated, we need to make ourselves to be like 
a porcupine, in a defensive sense. That would likely mean hosting nukes 
on our soil on in subs. Long range missiles, sea mines, drones and drone 
subs should all be considered to ensure that China refrains from 
attacking or interfering with our trade. We CANNOT rely on the US or 
anyone else. To remind you of WWII, the US was quite prepared to 
sacrifice Australia to the Japanese, should it have been required. The 
US will do so again.

> 
> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the sun 
> has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican Party to 
> stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think "Sleepy Joe's" 
> days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be the next US 
> President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't appear to be 
> anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the same 
> isolationist views.

**DeSantis has been described as 'Trump with a brain'. Which makes him 
potentially far more dangerous. DeSantis has no care for Australia. We 
need to do far more to enhance our defences and our critical 
infrastructure. It has recently been stated that Xi intends to take 
Taiwan in 2027. We have FOUR years to get our shit together.

> 
> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in office 
> in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the Americans 
> both in terms of investment and strategic importance for them to sit 
> idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.

**Nonsense. Americans don't know where Australia is and, apart from our 
baristas, they don't care about Australians. Which, of course, means 
that their politicians don't care either.

Consider Ukraine: Despite the commitment and bravery of the Ukrainian 
people, the US has not committed a single military person to fight in 
Ukraine. The US is (rightly) concerned of what retaliation Russia might 
unleash on the US if they did. In a few years, China will be a MUCH 
bigger worry.

> 
> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just so 
> they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the 
> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing 
> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest 
> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)

**There is NOTHING in Australia that the US can't find anywhere else. 
Except decent coffee. They ain't gonna defend their coffee habit.

> 
> 
>>>
>>> We live in difficult times and it would be a fatal flaw to 
>>> under-estimate the Chinese, but your pessimistic view is equally 
>>> wrong in my opinion.
>>
>> **We'll see. The next US election will be critical to China's plans. 
>> Trump will not defend Taiwan and has zero interest in Australia.
> 
> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.

**Trump PROBABLY won't be the next POTUS. However, never understimate 
the stupidity of the American public. They voted for Reagan, Dubya and 
Trump. That speaks volumes for just how dumb Americans are.


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#163

On 9/03/2023 2:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 12:17 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part. 
>>
>> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first 
>> place :)
>>
>>> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we 
>>> will be left on our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can 
>>> bet he would be happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia 
>>> MUST be able to be self-sufficient in both defence and essential 
>>> commodities.
>>
>> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't 
>> have the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on a 
>> very large island.
> 
> **Bullshit. 

Really? We're a country that is geographically almost the same size as 
mainland USA, with around 1/13th of the population and an economy around 
1/20th of the US. If you don't consider that to be "small" then I'm 
fucked if I know how you gauge sizes.
   > As others have stated, we need to make ourselves to be like
> a porcupine, in a defensive sense. That would likely mean hosting nukes 
> on our soil on in subs. Long range missiles, sea mines, drones and drone 
> subs should all be considered to ensure that China refrains from 
> attacking or interfering with our trade.

That is a lovely sentiment Trev, and it would be nice. But we simply do 
not have the manpower or the money to be able to do that. Not even close.

How much do you reckon it would cost us to man ourselves with enough 
weapons of mass destruction to make the Chinese think twice about 
invading us? The Chinese sound like they're ready to take on the 
Americans over Taiwan, and if they're not perturbed about the threat of 
American military might I can't see *anything* we could ever do here 
that would make them change their minds if they ever saw fit to invade us.

> We CANNOT rely on the US or anyone else. To remind you of WWII, the US was quite prepared to 
> sacrifice Australia to the Japanese, should it have been required. The 
> US will do so again.

Yeah, I don't think so.

You must study different historical sources than I have, as during WWII 
the Americans considered Australia to be far too valuable an outpost in 
the Pacific region for it to ever fall into Japanese hands, which is why 
they sent their fleet to the Coral Sea to defeat the Japanese amphibious 
invasion of Port Moresby.

 From mid 1942 onwards, Australia was the largest Pacific base the US 
had, and there was no way they were ever going to surrender it :)
>> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the 
>> sun has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican 
>> Party to stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think 
>> "Sleepy Joe's" days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be 
>> the next US President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he doesn't 
>> appear to be anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or have the 
>> same isolationist views.
> 
> **DeSantis has been described as 'Trump with a brain'. Which makes him 
> potentially far more dangerous. DeSantis has no care for Australia. We 
> need to do far more to enhance our defences and our critical 
> infrastructure. It has recently been stated that Xi intends to take 
> Taiwan in 2027. We have FOUR years to get our shit together.

Stated by who?

Take such comments with a massive grain of salt. For the last 25 years 
the American State Department has been predicting that Indonesia will 
invade Australia "within 10 years". Guess what? In that 25 years they've 
been wrong twice, and are well on their way to making it a hat-trick.

*IF* the Chinese *were* ever going to invade us, do you honestly think 
they'd throw out a projected date so we had time to prepare? :)

>> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in 
>> office in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the 
>> Americans both in terms of investment and strategic importance for 
>> them to sit idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.
> 
> **Nonsense. Americans don't know where Australia is and, apart from our 
> baristas, they don't care about Australians. Which, of course, means 
> that their politicians don't care either.

Go back and read what I said a second time and see if it sinks in. 
America has far too much strategic investment in this country for it to 
ever be lost to the Chinese, or anyone else for that matter. The average 
American Joe may not give a flying fuck about us, and the average US 
politician may not either. But the joint chiefs, heads of the various 
intelligence agencies and the industrial military complex in general 
will all recognise the danger of losing this cornerstone of the South 
Pacific to the enemy.

> Consider Ukraine: Despite the commitment and bravery of the Ukrainian 
> people, the US has not committed a single military person to fight in 
> Ukraine. The US is (rightly) concerned of what retaliation Russia might 
> unleash on the US if they did. In a few years, China will be a MUCH 
> bigger worry.

America, or anyone else for that matter, isn't sticking their nose into 
the Ukrainian affair because it's mostly considered to be a civil war. 
Fighting between the Ukrainians and Russians has been going on for 
decades, and while it has the potential to get ugly if foreign forces 
*do* put boots on the ground against the Russians, the Americans (and 
others) are not exactly sitting idly by and doing nothing either.

The US is funding the Ukrainians with cash and military equipment on a 
*massive* scale, and while the Russians may not be happy about that 
they're not doing too much complaining because that's exactly what 
*they* were doing during the Vietnam war. The Russians are getting their 
own back and they have to suck that up. They're also well aware that 
given the horrendous shit-show they've made of demonstrating how 
incapable their military might is against the Ukrainians, they would be 
doing all they can to avoid a direct military confrontation with the 
Americans who would no doubt kick the absolute fucking snot out of them 
on the battlefield.

The threat from Russia is not in the form of a protracted military 
engagement, which they would no doubt unquestionably lose, but from a 
Nuclear strike. The Americans would be well aware of this, which is why 
I suspect that they have the bulk of their ballistic missile submarine 
fleet on station within striking range of every Russian target of 
importance as we speak.

The Chinese situation is a different ball game. They know that a move 
against Taiwan will involve a direct confrontation with the US, and 
possibly the UK, and New Zealand,  and us.

>> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just 
>> so they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the 
>> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing 
>> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest 
>> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)
> 
> **There is NOTHING in Australia that the US can't find anywhere else. 
> Except decent coffee. They ain't gonna defend their coffee habit.

Pine Gap is a pretty important part of America's overall intelligence 
gathering ability, and I don't expect they'd be all that keen to see it 
fall into Chinese hands :)

>> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.
> 
> **Trump PROBABLY won't be the next POTUS. However, never understimate 
> the stupidity of the American public. They voted for Reagan, Dubya and 
> Trump. That speaks volumes for just how dumb Americans are.

The American public can be as stupid as rocks, and a great many are, but 
they can't vote for someone who's not an official candidate. I don't 
believe Trump will be unless he stands as an independent.

-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#169

On 9/3/2023 3:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 2:20 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 12:17 pm, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>>> **That reliance would be a fatal mistake on our part. 
>>>
>>> I don't think so. That's why we have military alliances in the first 
>>> place :)
>>>
>>>> Should that fucking idiot, Trump, be elected as the next POTUS, we 
>>>> will be left on our own. DeSantis is an unknown factor, but you can 
>>>> bet he would be happy to sacrifice Australia for votes. Australia 
>>>> MUST be able to be self-sufficient in both defence and essential 
>>>> commodities.
>>>
>>> Australia will *never* be self sufficient at anything, as we don't 
>>> have the population or the wealth to be so. We are a small nation on 
>>> a very large island.
>>
>> **Bullshit. 
> 
> Really? We're a country that is geographically almost the same size as 
> mainland USA, with around 1/13th of the population and an economy around 
> 1/20th of the US. If you don't consider that to be "small" then I'm 
> fucked if I know how you gauge sizes.
>    > As others have stated, we need to make ourselves to be like
>> a porcupine, in a defensive sense. That would likely mean hosting 
>> nukes on our soil on in subs. Long range missiles, sea mines, drones 
>> and drone subs should all be considered to ensure that China refrains 
>> from attacking or interfering with our trade.
> 
> That is a lovely sentiment Trev, and it would be nice. But we simply do 
> not have the manpower or the money to be able to do that. Not even close.
> 
> How much do you reckon it would cost us to man ourselves with enough 
> weapons of mass destruction to make the Chinese think twice about 
> invading us? The Chinese sound like they're ready to take on the 
> Americans over Taiwan, and if they're not perturbed about the threat of 
> American military might I can't see *anything* we could ever do here 
> that would make them change their minds if they ever saw fit to invade us.
> 
>> We CANNOT rely on the US or anyone else. To remind you of WWII, the US 
>> was quite prepared to sacrifice Australia to the Japanese, should it 
>> have been required. The US will do so again.
> 
> Yeah, I don't think so.
> 
> You must study different historical sources than I have, as during WWII 
> the Americans considered Australia to be far too valuable an outpost in 
> the Pacific region for it to ever fall into Japanese hands, which is why 
> they sent their fleet to the Coral Sea to defeat the Japanese amphibious 
> invasion of Port Moresby.
> 
>  From mid 1942 onwards, Australia was the largest Pacific base the US 
> had, and there was no way they were ever going to surrender it :)
>>> As far as the Americans are concerned, I believe Trump's day in the 
>>> sun has passed. He's too much of a liability now for the Republican 
>>> Party to stand him as a candidate for a second term, and I think 
>>> "Sleepy Joe's" days are also numbered. DeSantis will most likely be 
>>> the next US President, and while he *is* a relative unknown he 
>>> doesn't appear to be anywhere near as hardcore right as Trump is, or 
>>> have the same isolationist views.
>>
>> **DeSantis has been described as 'Trump with a brain'. Which makes him 
>> potentially far more dangerous. DeSantis has no care for Australia. We 
>> need to do far more to enhance our defences and our critical 
>> infrastructure. It has recently been stated that Xi intends to take 
>> Taiwan in 2027. We have FOUR years to get our shit together.
> 
> Stated by who?
> 
> Take such comments with a massive grain of salt. For the last 25 years 
> the American State Department has been predicting that Indonesia will 
> invade Australia "within 10 years". Guess what? In that 25 years they've 
> been wrong twice, and are well on their way to making it a hat-trick.
> 
> *IF* the Chinese *were* ever going to invade us, do you honestly think 
> they'd throw out a projected date so we had time to prepare? :)
> 
>>> The other point to consider is that regardless of whomever is in 
>>> office in the White house, Australia has far too much value to the 
>>> Americans both in terms of investment and strategic importance for 
>>> them to sit idly by and see it over run by a hostile country.
>>
>> **Nonsense. Americans don't know where Australia is and, apart from 
>> our baristas, they don't care about Australians. Which, of course, 
>> means that their politicians don't care either.
> 
> Go back and read what I said a second time and see if it sinks in. 
> America has far too much strategic investment in this country for it to 
> ever be lost to the Chinese, or anyone else for that matter. The average 
> American Joe may not give a flying fuck about us, and the average US 
> politician may not either. But the joint chiefs, heads of the various 
> intelligence agencies and the industrial military complex in general 
> will all recognise the danger of losing this cornerstone of the South 
> Pacific to the enemy.
> 
>> Consider Ukraine: Despite the commitment and bravery of the Ukrainian 
>> people, the US has not committed a single military person to fight in 
>> Ukraine. The US is (rightly) concerned of what retaliation Russia 
>> might unleash on the US if they did. In a few years, China will be a 
>> MUCH bigger worry.
> 
> America, or anyone else for that matter, isn't sticking their nose into 
> the Ukrainian affair because it's mostly considered to be a civil war. 

You have no clue. The US and NATO have realised that Russia sees its war 
in Ukraine as a matter of *existential* survival - and rest assured 
Russia will soon no longer exist as a functional country - with or 
without the war. The demographics of Russia will see to that. The 
Russians and the Ukrainians are the same race of people - Slavs. It's 
way more complex than a civil war. Ukraine was a buffer zone, among 
others, that inhibited invasion of mother Russia by the invaders from 
Europe - ie. Napoleon, Hitler. Russia wants its buffer zones back and, 
with it, the Soviet Union.

The US and NATO looked at how the Russians fared on the first few days 
of the war back in February 2022 and saw that Russia could no longer 
fight a conventional war - then realised that if the US and NATO put 
troops on the ground, Russia would be backed into a corner and would 
bring out the heaviest shit they have at hand - and that would be nukes. 
Desperate countries do that you know. So Ukraine has to fight this war 
on the ground themselves with generally only logistics and MI support - 
no US or NATO boots on the ground. So far so good.

> Fighting between the Ukrainians and Russians has been going on for 
> decades, and while it has the potential to get ugly if foreign forces 

Mainly from 2011 and 2014 when Russia no longer obeyed treaties it 
signed between themselves and Ukraine.

> *do* put boots on the ground against the Russians, the Americans (and 
> others) are not exactly sitting idly by and doing nothing either.
> 
> The US is funding the Ukrainians with cash and military equipment on a 
> *massive* scale, and while the Russians may not be happy about that 
> they're not doing too much complaining because that's exactly what 
> *they* were doing during the Vietnam war. The Russians are getting their 
> own back and they have to suck that up. They're also well aware that 
> given the horrendous shit-show they've made of demonstrating how 
> incapable their military might is against the Ukrainians, they would be 
> doing all they can to avoid a direct military confrontation with the 
> Americans who would no doubt kick the absolute fucking snot out of them 
> on the battlefield.

The US knows this, as does NATO, and it also knows nukes would be 
instantly on the table.
> 
> The threat from Russia is not in the form of a protracted military 
> engagement, which they would no doubt unquestionably lose, but from a 
> Nuclear strike. The Americans would be well aware of this, which is why 
> I suspect that they have the bulk of their ballistic missile submarine 
> fleet on station within striking range of every Russian target of 
> importance as we speak.
> 
> The Chinese situation is a different ball game. They know that a move 
> against Taiwan will involve a direct confrontation with the US, and 
> possibly the UK, and New Zealand,  and us.
> 
>>> America is making waves about China's desires to control Taiwan just 
>>> so they're not held to ransom by the Chinese having control over the 
>>> world's chip market. In light of that, I can't really see them doing 
>>> nothing and letting the Chinese take over one of the world's largest 
>>> sources of coal, aluminium, uranium, gold or just about anything else :)
>>
>> **There is NOTHING in Australia that the US can't find anywhere else. 
>> Except decent coffee. They ain't gonna defend their coffee habit.
> 
> Pine Gap is a pretty important part of America's overall intelligence 
> gathering ability, and I don't expect they'd be all that keen to see it 
> fall into Chinese hands :)
> 
>>> Trump won't be the next US President, so it's a non issue.
>>
>> **Trump PROBABLY won't be the next POTUS. However, never understimate 
>> the stupidity of the American public. They voted for Reagan, Dubya and 
>> Trump. That speaks volumes for just how dumb Americans are.
> 
> The American public can be as stupid as rocks, and a great many are, but 
> they can't vote for someone who's not an official candidate. I don't 
> believe Trump will be unless he stands as an independent.
> 

-- 
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
       (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#147

On 9/3/2023 8:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 7:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away 
>>>>>> from a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you 
>>>>>> happen to drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year 
>>>>>> isn't a big deal. Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the 
>>>>>> container with fresh fuel for your escape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises 
>>>>>> which is highly unlikely :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade 
>>>>> of sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV 
>>>>> owners will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it.
>>>>
>>>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol 
>>>> we use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than 
>>>> making our own. We could start our own production up and make our 
>>>> own fuel here if the need arose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
>>>
>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>>> oil for our needs.
>>>
>> Australia is a very big place to blockade.
> 
> **Indeed and China has (or soon will have) the capacity, the will and 
> the desire to do so. Australia needs to be totally self-sufficient in 
> energy production as soon as possible. Oil is our biggest problem and we 
> need to find alternative energy sources very quickly. Make no mistake: 
> China will neutralise Australia as soon as they think they need to. 
> Cutting off our oil is a very quick and easy way to fuck us. Oil tankers 
> move slowly and Chinese aircraft are much faster.
> 
You are missing one thing, trade goes 2 ways and China desperately needs 
our coal and other minerals such as lithium and iron ore, if they were 
to block our fuel imports then they wouldn't be getting any of our 
exports so it would cause them more problems than it would cause us.
Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt but 
the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it happening 
are very very slim.


-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150

On 9/03/2023 10:56 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 8:41 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 9/03/2023 7:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 9/03/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away 
>>>>>>> from a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you 
>>>>>>> happen to drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year 
>>>>>>> isn't a big deal. Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the 
>>>>>>> container with fresh fuel for your escape.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises 
>>>>>>> which is highly unlikely :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade 
>>>>>> of sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV 
>>>>>> owners will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt it.
>>>>>
>>>>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol 
>>>>> we use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than 
>>>>> making our own. We could start our own production up and make our 
>>>>> own fuel here if the need arose.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>>>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>>>> oil for our needs.
>>>>
>>> Australia is a very big place to blockade.
>>
>> **Indeed and China has (or soon will have) the capacity, the will and 
>> the desire to do so. Australia needs to be totally self-sufficient in 
>> energy production as soon as possible. Oil is our biggest problem and 
>> we need to find alternative energy sources very quickly. Make no 
>> mistake: China will neutralise Australia as soon as they think they 
>> need to. Cutting off our oil is a very quick and easy way to fuck us. 
>> Oil tankers move slowly and Chinese aircraft are much faster.
>>
> You are missing one thing, trade goes 2 ways and China desperately needs 
> our coal and other minerals such as lithium and iron ore, if they were 
> to block our fuel imports then they wouldn't be getting any of our 
> exports so it would cause them more problems than it would cause us.

**No, it would not. They have their own (inferior, but usable) coal. As 
do other places. And one of the biggest is Russia. China has not and 
will not cut ties with Russia. The biggest known lithium deposits are in 
Chile. Followed by China and most recently, Iran. China owns a very 
large chunk of the company which mines lithium in Chile. China is 
readying itself for a divorce from Australia. Iron ore is available from 
a number of sources. China doesn't need Australia as much as you 
imagine. We are just cheap(er).

> Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt but 
> the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it happening 
> are very very slim.

**China won't be screwing itself. China is playing the long game. We 
aren't. Australia is, as usual, looking very short term.


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156

On 9/03/2023 11:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 10:56 am, Daryl wrote:

>> Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt but 
>> the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it 
>> happening are very very slim.
> 
> **China won't be screwing itself. China is playing the long game. We 
> aren't. Australia is, as usual, looking very short term.

Of *course* they'd be screwing themselves. Right in the arse from a 20 
foot run up with no lube.

Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean 
they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else. In 
fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous in the 
last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their economy would 
collapse and along with it their power.

Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....

-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#158

On 9/3/2023 12:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 11:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 10:56 am, Daryl wrote:
> 
>>> Whilst it may cause us pain to not have fuel imports we will adapt 
>>> but the Chinese would be screwing themselves so the chances of it 
>>> happening are very very slim.
>>
>> **China won't be screwing itself. China is playing the long game. We 
>> aren't. Australia is, as usual, looking very short term.
> 
> Of *course* they'd be screwing themselves. Right in the arse from a 20 
> foot run up with no lube.
> 
> Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean 
> they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else. In 
> fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous in the 
> last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their economy would 
> collapse and along with it their power.
> 
> Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....
> 
A large well equipped military is very very expensive, if economy goes 
downhill with it goes the ability to support a large military, they may 
still be able to afford to have lots of military personnel but large 
numbers of ships and planes won't be of much use if they can't afford to 
use them.


-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | aus.science

csiph-web