Iran kick off looking iminant?

deprave

New Member
Driving home from work I heard a good interview with a military professional in intel in iran and he says he thinks nothing is going to happen. People are freaking out I think. This would be bad for both countries...this is crazy really..China, Russia, and Sierra say they would back them but we would wipe Iran out in a second flat probably.....

@post above

The Nuclear bomb stuff I don't think thats true. They have been making threats that is definitely true.

Bricktops post from the parts I read describe it fantastically..."Cold War 2" ...sounds about right.
 

Brick Top

New Member
Driving home from work I heard a good interview with a military professional in intel in iran and he says he thinks nothing is going to happen. People are freaking out I think. This would be bad for both countries...this is crazy really..China, Russia, and Sierra say they would back them but we would wipe Iran out in a second flat probably.....

I wouldn't go so far as to say I am sure that nothing will happen, but I would say I feel it is far less likely that anything will happen than a handful of people here seem to feel. As Mother Jones put it:

Will Iran actually shut down the Strait? It doesn't seem likely. While Iran could certainly cause problems, closing down the Strait would in fact be difficult for it to do. According to Reuters, "Iran would not be able to sustain a line of ships to block the Strait because it mainly has smaller boats that do not have the ability to stay in open waters in a coordinated formation for days. Meanwhile, both Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Navy have since backtracked on the threat. Mahmoud Mousavi, a Deputy Commander in the Iranian Navy, told state media Sunday that Iran "does not intend to impede maritime shipping in the area." Threats to close the Strait are also nothing new; Iranian officials for years have claimed that they would shut down the Strait (it's never happened). As Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a candidate for Iran's parliament,told the Washington Post: "Our threat will not be realized. We are just responding to the US, nothing more."


The Nuclear bomb stuff I don't think thats true. They have been making threats that is definitely true.
If you meant that you do not believe that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, I would have to disagree.

Think about it a moment. Iran build secret super deep bunkers to house it's nuclear research and development and and uranium enrichment operations. If all they wanted was peaceful nuclear power why would they go to such an extent? Why the secrecy? Why the effort and expense to build the facilities well below the depth of bunker-buster bombs?

Tehran also wants to be self-sufficient in making fuel for its reactors. The process that makes nuclear power fuel, though, is also used to make material that can be used in nuclear weapons. Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a country has the right to make its own nuclear fuel, as long as the process is closely monitored. Iran refuses close monitoring.

Most countries that generate nuclear power import the fuel they need. Russian offered to supply Iran with all the fuel rods it needs as long as all the spent rods were returned. Iran said no. You would think that if Iran really needed the nuclear power generation they would jump at such an offer, at least for the short term. They could throw all their efforts into building a reactor powered electricity generation plant and have all the fuel rods they needed for as long as it would take for them to then later be able to produce their own. Again, Iran said no. That doesn't sound like a nation that really need the generating capacity of a nuclear power plant.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN body responsible for monitoring the treaty, hasn't been convinced that Iran has been completely forthcoming about its nuclear intentions.

When it comes to allowing IAEA inspections, has Iran allowed them? Yes, according to Iran. Not totally, according to the IAEA. So Iran only goes along with the ones they feel are safe and only when under a lot of pressure and feel they need to placate the IAEA and possibly various concerned governments of other nations.

In 2002, Washington became very concerned after intelligence reports pointed to the existence of two secret nuclear facilities. According to an Iranian opposition group, the plants had been funded by front companies. The IAEA said the construction of the plants may have violated Iran's obligations to the agency, especially if Iran introduced nuclear material into the facility to test it, without informing the IAEA. I already mentioned the secrecy part, and asked why it was needed, but what about their funding coming from front companies? Why route the funding through front companies rather than just normal governmental expenditures?

On June 19, 2003, the IAEA called on Tehran to stop plans to begin enriching uranium and to allow inspectors the access they would need to clarify questions over Iran's nuclear program. The agency did not declare Iran in violation of its treaty obligations, nor did it refer the matter to the UN Security Council, as some U.S. officials had urged. The IAEA's director general - Mohamed ElBaradei - said the country had failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities. If everything is aboveboard, even if DEEP below ground, why not report certain nuclear materials and some activities? Why hide something there is no need or reason to hide?

In August 2003, UN inspectors reported they had found traces of weapons-grade, enriched uranium in an Iranian nuclear facility. What was Iran's excuse for that one, that they bought used equipment and there must have been a slight trace of weapons-grade, enriched uranium on it. I suppose the next time the IAEA asks for an inventory of all nuclear materials Iran has Iran will say, well, we had it all made out, but our dog ate it.

On Sept. 12, 2003, the IAEA board of governors expressed "grave concern that, more than one year after initial IAEA inquiries to Iran about undeclared activities, Iran has still not enabled the IAEA to provide the assurances that all nuclear material in Iran is declared and submitted to Agency safeguards and that there are no undeclared nuclear activities in Iran." The board called on Iran to fully co-operate with the IAEA and ensure there are no more failures to own up to its nuclear capabilities, or risk being declared in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty.

A toughly worded United Nations resolution, which strongly deplored "Iran's 18-year cover-up of a nuclear program including uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing," prompted Iran to freeze nuclear inspections. So, Iran got caught with it's hand in the cookie jar and them threw a temper tantrum and would not come out of it's room or let anyone in because it was scolded for being a bad little nation.

In March 2006, the IAEA sent a dossier to the UN Security Council that accused Iran of withholding information. After looking into the "Iran file" for three years, the agency said it had serious doubts about the nature and direction of Iran's nuclear program.

OK, so all those dates are old. But what about something from today?

IAEA confirms Iran’s underground nuclear programme

Jan 10, 2012


Vienna: The UN nuclear agency on Monday confirmed that Iran has begun enriching uranium at an underground bunker to a level that can be upgraded more quickly for use in a nuclear weapon than the nation’s main enriched stockpile.


Comment from the International Atomic Energy Agency came after diplomats said that centrifuges at the Fordo site near Iran’s holy city of Qom are churning out uranium enriched to 20 percent. That level is higher than the 3.5 percent being made at Iran’s main enrichment plant and can be turned into fissile warhead material faster and with less work.


“The IAEA can confirm that Iran has started the production of uranium enriched up to 20 percent … in the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant,” said an agency statement, which used the alternate spelling for the site.


Western nations condemned the move — even though it was expected, with Tehran announcing months ago that it would use the Fordo facility for 20 percent production. Iran began to further enrich a small part of its uranium stockpile to nearly 20 percent as of February 2010 at a less-protected experimental site, saying it needs the higher grade material to produce fuel for a Tehran reactor that makes medical radioisotopes for cancer patients.


But with the time and effort reduced between making weapons-grade uranium from the 20-percent level, the start of the Fordo operation increases international fears that Iran is determined to move closer to the ability to make nuclear warheads — despite insistence by the Islamic Republic that it is enriching only to make reactor fuel.

In this 26 September, 2009 file satellite image provided by GeoEye shows a facility under construction inside a mountain located about 20 miles (32 kilometers) north northeast of Qom, Iran.

Its dismissal of findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency of secret experimental work on a nuclear weapons program also worries the international community.

France warned of stinging international retribution for “this new provocation.” A Foreign Ministry statement said the move “leaves us with no other choice but to reinforce international sanctions and to adopt, with our European partners and all willing countries, measures of an intensity and severity without precedent.”
British Foreign Secretary William Hague condemned the “provocative act which further undermines Iran’s claims that its program is entirely civilian in nature.”

Tehran’s “claim to be enriching for the Tehran Research Reactor does not stand up to serious scrutiny,” he said in a statement. Hague said that Iran “already has sufficient enriched uranium to power the reactor for more than five years and has not even installed the equipment necessary to manufacture fuel elements” out of the enriched material.


Iran recently threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, an important transit route for almost one-fifth of the oil traded globally. Tehran also has been angered by the West’s efforts to sanction Iran over its nuclear program, including a possible ban on European imports of Iranian oil.
Fordo’s location increases concerns.

The facility is a hardened tunnel and is protected by air defense missile batteries and the Revolutionary Guard. The site is located about 20 miles (32 kilometres) north of Qom, the religious nerve center of Iran’s ruling system. The semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted Iran’s nuclear chief, Fereidoun Abbasi, as saying Sunday that “the enemy doesn’t have the ability to damage it.”
Built next to a military complex, Fordo was long kept secret and was only acknowledged by Iran after it was identified by Western intelligence agencies in September 2009.


Hague said Fordo’s size — it is too small for an industrial enrichment complex of the type Iran says it needs to make fuel — “location and clandestine nature raise serious questions about its ultimate purpose.”

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also questioned Iran’s motives. “When you enrich to 20 percent, there is no possible reason for that if you’re talking about a peaceful program,” she told reporters. “So it generally tends to indicate that you are enriching to a level that takes you to a different kind of nuclear program.”

Two diplomats spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential and based on an inspection of Fordo last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

They said 348 machines were operating at Fordo in two cascades — the linked up configuration needed to enrich. Two other cascades were nearly assembled but not working, they said.

The centrifuges appeared to be the standard old-generation machines in use at the main enrichment site at Natanz and not advanced, more efficient prototype versions.

That, too, was confirmed by the IAEA, which said it was monitoring operations at the plant.

About 8,000 centrifuges are operating at Natanz, where five years of enrichment have turned out enough material for several nuclear warheads.

The Fordo startup was first reported Sunday by the daily Kaynan, a hardline newspaper close to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on all important matters of state. Abbasi was more circumspect, saying Saturday that his country will “soon” begin enrichment at Fordo.

It was impossible to reconcile the two reports. But the diplomats speculated that they could be a further reflection of divisions within Iran’s ruling circles about how upfront the nation should be with nuclear activities that are drawing increasingly severe international penalties beyond four sets of UN Security Council sanctions.

Iran — which claims it only seeks nuclear reactors for energy and research — has sharply increased its threats and military posturing against stronger pressures, including US sanctions targeting Iran’s Central Bank in attempts to complicate its ability to sell oil.

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard force was recently quoted as saying Tehran’s leadership has decided to order the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic oil route, if the country’s petroleum exports are blocked. Revolutionary Guard ground forces also staged war games in eastern Iran in an apparent display of resolve against U.S. forces just over the border in Afghanistan.

Iranian officials have issued similar threats, but this was the strongest statement yet by a top commander in the security establishment.

“The supreme authorities … have insisted that if enemies block the export of our oil, we won’t allow a drop of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. This is the strategy of the Islamic Republic in countering such threats,” Revolutionary Guard deputy commander Ali Ashraf Nouri was quoted as saying by another newspaper, the Khorasan daily.

Adding to Iran-US tensions, Iran’s state radio reported Monday that a Tehran court has convicted an American man of working for the CIA and sentenced him to death.

Iran charges that as a former US Marine, Amir Mirzaei Hekmati received special training and served at US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before heading to Iran for his alleged intelligence mission. The radio report did not say when the verdict was issued. Under Iranian law, Hekmati, a dual US-Iranian national has 20 days to appeal. His father, a professor at a community college in Flint, Michigan, has said his son is not a CIA spy and was visiting his grandmothers in Iran when he was arrested.

In an interview broadcast Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb. Panetta reiterated US concerns about a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against US forces in the region.

“We have common cause here” with Israel, he said. “And the better approach is for us to work together.”

Panetta’s remarks on CBS’ Face the Nation reflect the US administration’s long-held view that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to create the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step.

President Barack Obama approved new sanctions against Iran a week ago, targeting the central bank and its ability to sell petroleum abroad. The US has delayed implementing the sanctions for at least six months, worried about sending the price of oil higher at a time when the global economy is struggling.
The US and Israel have said that all options remain open, including military action, should Iran continue with its enrichment program.


http://www.firstpost.com/world/iaea-confirms-irans-underground-nuclear-programme-177192.html


There is no denying that, so to speak, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
 

Brick Top

New Member
hey Brick top have you ever bin there ??? i have worked in russia , kuwait you obviously are blind to the fact the USA sticks there nose in others peoples business to much
Congratulations on where you have worked. It must have been interesting.

As for sticking noses in, don't forget that the former Soviet Union did it's best to stick it's nose into the Middle East and get in good with as many Arab nations as possible. And as I mentioned in another message where I had to educate you, during the Korean War the former Soviet Union's best pilots were flying North Korean Migs. That's sticking their nose in for sure. Then of course they were right there behind the scenes with North Vietnam. And then there was the time they invaded Afghanistan. They have also stuck their noses in Central and South American business and of course have been a major player in Cuba for many decades. Plus if you want to go back to WWII, the former Soviet Union kept all the nations they drove the Nazi's out of, including a large portion of Germany itself. They did not free the people. They enslaved them and locked them behind a wall, literally. An iron curtain hung between many, many millions and their freedom of self determination.

So do not even bother to attempt to make the U.S. sound bad and Russia sound good.



its mentioned how russia had so many space mission failures last time i read USA has no nasa missions ???? its ended usa's space program
Pardon me for being so blunt, but MY GOD, YOU ARE SO VERY, VERY IGNORANT! The U.S. did not end it's space program. NASA retired the shuttle fleet but are, and have been for some time, working with contractors/builders to have new more modern capsules built that will fit on the Saturn V rocket, the very same rocket that took NASA crews to the moon a number of times, and also are working on the creation of larger more powerful rockets that will be capable of carrying much heavier payloads and travel much father in the future.

That is hardly what a space program that has been ended would be doing.



so what you wanna know who is really sending stuff in space CHINA they got the money show me the money baby
Gee, that's terrible news. It must bean the downfall of the world as we know it.

If you actually followed international news closely there are major fears about how China is nearing a major economic collapse. It's economy is not as sound as you obviously believe it to be.

so Bricktop obamas adminstration saying no irans nuclear weapon program kinda sounds like Iraq all over
Regardless of what sort of negative comparison you attempt to make to the situation with Iran, it will not change the facts.

why are you so concerened if they building NUKES you worried there going to bomb you WHY could it be from bullying them around to much no different then getting a stick and poking a pitbul keep poking it sooner or later that pitbull will have enough and rip your leg off
It is not a personal concern, not as of yet anyway. But, as I have previously most clearly informed you, Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as they are a member-state of the treaty and are actively attempting to build nuclear weapons they are in violation of the treaty.

I have never said Iran has no less of a right to possess nuclear weapons, though I believe it would be a major mistake to allow a known terrorist nation to have nukes, but if they do want nuclear weapons all they have to do is what North Korea did in 2003, withdraw from the treaty and admit their nuclear ambitions. That is all they have to do.

But if you think they could be a danger to the Western World by blocking the Straits, just imagine how much of a danger they could be to the Western world if they possessed nuclear weapons capable of destroying much of the entire Middle Easts oilfields and pipelines, or just using nuclear blackmail to force other Middle East nations to cut the supply of oil to whoever Iran does not want to have it.

could this be true usa is actually the evil starting to look like it ya think what kind of a mess you fcks left in iraq did you find any weapons of mass distruction ?????
When you are right, you are right. Iraq was much better off under a murderous dictator who lived in massive palaces with gold toilets while he let his people starve or die from lack of medications, and who intentionally had large areas flooded taking away land where people grew food on so they ended up starving and who had people tortured and murdered and women and young girls gang raped and who gassed the Kurds living in the North of Iraq and who invaded three neighboring nations during his rule. That was so much better than a new system of government where some bugs will still have to be worked out by the Iraqis themselves, but where they can determine who will lead them.

Were any WMD found? Not to my knowledge. But there were satellite pictures taken of a number of long convoys leaving suspected WMD storage sites and heading into Syria and there were also nearly non-stop 24-hour per day cargo flights leaving Iraq to Russia and trucks that were loading them were also seen going back and forth to suspected WMD storage sites.

Dubya's mistake was telegraphing his punch, of giving warning far in advance thus allowing Saddam to clean house before the U.S. arrived.



Now with many europian unions pulling away from you seems your not being liked to much anywhere anymore
So the U.S. is not liked very much by some of the failing European semi-socialist nations. Gosh darn-it, I'll cry myself to sleep tonight thinking about that.

But if they dislike the U.S. so much then why did a number of them impose the same or similar sanctions on Iran and why is the E.U. thinking about placing a ban on the purchase of any Iranian oil? They seem to feel rather much the same about Iran as the U.S. does and be it out of support for the U.S. or self interest, or maybe for future survival, they are not bucking the U.S., and that's not an unfriendly thing for them to do.




with your dollar so crictical and china iran russia being able in any given minute can crush your economy one begins to wonder when will this happen maybe sooner then you think before usa would use strength and show of power but that theory just dont cut it when your dealing with countries that have just as much power now with china ussr backing iran oh my how things change in a hurry
I sure wish you could come at least half close to formulating a cohesive sentence that clearly conveyed what you are attempting to say. Is English something like your second or maybe third language?

As I previously mentioned, if you followed international news you would see that many nations in the world are very concerned because China is creeping up on it's own economic collapse.

Is China facing an American future?

By Michael Schuman | July 20, 2011




inShare3​

At first glance, that may sound like a crazy question. The two giants of the global economy appear to be heading in opposite directions. China is the world’s up-and-coming superpower, propelled forward by stratospheric growth, advancing industry, a goal-oriented political system and a supposedly superior form of economic management, “state capitalism.” On the other side of the Pacific, the U.S. looks like a bumbling behemoth, its competitiveness on the wane, its political system paralyzed and its future direction uncertain. What could these two economies possibly have in common?


More than you think. Very rapidly, China is beginning to encounter the same economic pressures as the U.S. Some are simply the natural outgrowth of China’s supercharged development. Others are being brought about by policy errors – similar, in fact, to those made by the West before the 2008 financial crisis. All of these new pressures are serious and, if not handled properly, could alter the course of China’s economic progress.


First of all, China, like the U.S., is facing a challenge from competitors with lower wages. As my colleague Bill Powell recently pointed out, the era of cheap labor in China is over. Wages are growing about 12% a year (in real terms). As a result, China is losing its competitiveness in labor costs to other emerging economies. That puts at risk the low-end, labor-intensive, export-oriented manufacturing (apparel, shoes, electronics) that has created countless jobs and jumpstarted China’s rapid growth. Just like the U.S. has lost factories to lower-wage economies like China, China is already seeing neighbors like Vietnam eat into its dominance in these types of industries.


Such an outcome was an inevitable result of China’s economic advancement. But if that advancement is to continue, the Chinese economy is going to have to move “up the value chain” into higher-tech, more innovative industries. This is exactly what the U.S. needs to do to maintain its competitive edge. Yet that’s a tough leap to make. Building factories where people stitch together blue jeans or build iPhones is easy. China doesn’t require either the technology or design and marketing expertise to generate exports. But to compete in more technologically advanced industries, Chinese firms will have to innovate, improve quality and create brands – just like American companies. If not, China could get stuck in a “middle-income trap,” in which it is more and more difficult to raise the welfare of the middle class – another challenge the U.S. is experiencing today.


Secondly, China is contending with the fallout from fiscal irresponsibility. As Washington is consumed by negotiations over America’s massive national debt, the Chinese are in the process of getting a handle on their own sovereign debt problem. As Roya Wolverson detailed in this space recently, China’s government debt relative to its GDP has escalated alarmingly in recent years. An audit revealed that local governments, which legally aren’t supposed to be able to take on debt at all, have managed nevertheless to amass liabilities equivalent to some 30% of GDP. It is not clear that the Chinese government has a full grasp of how big its debt burden actually is. Premier Wen Jiabao says that the country’s national debt is manageable, which could well be the case. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem that could plague the economy.


And, much like the U.S., repairing national finances comes with major political risks. As politicians in Washington haggle over what to do with middle-class entitlement programs like Medicare, the Chinese are in the process of expanding a much-needed social safety net (improving healthcare, for example) that will continue to put pressure on China’s budget.


Third, China’s overall debt level is on the rise. Just as the U.S. built up an excessive mountain of debt before the financial crisis (mainly among consumers), China today seems to be making the same mistake. A recent report by rating agency Fitch outlined that debt continues to rise precipitously in China, despite government efforts to slow credit expansion. Here are the scary figures:

Fitch estimates that total net new financing in China could reach 38% of GDP in 2011, down from an average of 42% of GDP in 2009-2010 but still well above the pre-global crisis average of 22%. Fitch estimates that by end-2011 total financing/GDP could reach 185%, up 61pp from 2007. Increases of similar magnitude have been seen elsewhere in the years leading up to banking stress, underscoring the agency’s cautious outlook on the Chinese banking sector.


It is difficult to determine with any certainty at what point debt levels become dangerous. But economic expansions driven by expanding debt inevitably come to some kind of bad end, especially for the financial system. I don’t see how China can avoid much higher levels of bad loans at its banks. Or the country could run into something even more destabilizing, like a banking crisis. And at some point, China could be looking at a growth-suppressing process of deleveraging, which the U.S. is suffering through now.


Fourth, China is becoming heavily dependent on its property market for growth. Any American can tell you the dangers inherent in that. Though it is difficult to determine if China’s housing market is in a bubble (prices have started to soften in some cities), the construction of houses is the major engine of Chinese growth. Here’s how UBS economist Jonathan Anderson explained it in a very smart recent study:

Real estate and housing construction pervade the entire mainland growth model. They are the most important determinant of commodity demand, a very big marginal driver of China’s external surpluses, and indeed a crucial key to real understanding of household balance sheets, saving and investment behavior and the debate around Chinese rebalancing. In other words (and with only the mildest exaggeration), from a macroeconomic perspective if you don’t understand Chinese property, you probably don’t understand China.


The mainland gross investment share of its own economy has risen dramatically over the past decade, to a stunning 47% or 48% of GDP as of last year on an estimated basis; this is an absolute record for any economy of significant size in the post-war era, and almost single-handedly explains China’s explosive real growth over the same period…The biggest contributor to the trend increase in the investment ratio has been property construction, which rose from 6% of GDP on average during the 1990s to more than 13% of GDP last year when measured on an annual completions basis… And when we talk about property construction what we really mean is residential housing construction;…housing accounted for nearly 75% of total building completions last year. While it’s not a mistake to say that China is an investment-led economy, it is arguably more correct to call it a “housing-led” economy.


And much like the American housing bust sent shockwaves through the global economy, a downturn in China’s property market could do the same. Anderson proclaimed that China’s property industry is “The Most Important Sector in the Universe.” The property sector in China is a primary source of demand for all sorts of things the country buys from the world – like iron ore – as well as a big part of consumer spending. New homeowners loading up their new apartments with furniture and appliances are a key factor behind increases in Chinese consumer spending. So a slowdown of China’s property sector would not only slow down the entire economy – and thus act as a drag on global growth – it would also ripple through global supply chains and suppress business for all kinds of commodities and products.


How Beijing deals with these very American-style challenges in coming years will determine the course of China’s economy. Will China collapse into crisis, as the U.S. has? Who knows. In some ways, China might be better equipped to tackle these problems. For example, its authoritarian government could prove more efficient in controlling its debt level (though there is no guarantee). But China’s corporate sector lags American companies in the kind of skills and expertise necessary to innovate and stay ahead of low-cost competition. And China’s policymakers clearly have some tough decisions to make to decrease the economy’s reliance on the housing market for growth and control rising debt. So far, they don’t seem either able or willing to tackle these issues head on, a problem Washington has had again and again. If China’s leaders don’t learn from the U.S. experience – something they don’t appear to be doing – they could end up facing an American future.


Michael Schuman is a correspondent at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @MichaelSchuman You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.



you ever really wonder why usa went into libyia ???????

Gee, lets see, because it was asked and since it was a NATO run operation and the U.S. is a part of NATO it would be right for the U.S. to be involved.

But even though I clearly pointed out that it was a NATO run operation you still want and need to portray it as being all U.S. or at least U.S. led.

Why is that? It's like what you tried to pull with the Korean War, totally ignoring that it was U.N. Forces made up of many nations military forces from around the world, but you attempted to make it sound like an American war and an American defeat, even though neither side was either defeated or victorious.


its pretty simple libyia started selling oil in euro usa worried that if other countries start as well our american ass wipe paper dollar already at 53 cents borrowed on it will plunder usa needs there currency to be world currency for oil this is one thing you need is oil just check out 90.00 dollar a barrel in euro compared to 90 a barrel in usa you will understand shortly lol what the big picture tells you
Sure ... that makes total sense. But did you know that, to date, in each and every single case of a Middle Eastern oil producing nation where there was a hostile change of government oil production never reached it's level prior to the regime change? Did you know that? Iraq might become the first to meet or exceed pre-regime change levels due to the number of oilfields planned to be drilled in the Western portion of the nation. But to use one nation as an example, one being mentioned often in this thread, Iran has never pumped as much oil since the overthrow of the Shah. It has never gotten back to the pre-revolutionary days capabilities.

So, I guess the U.S. logic was this. Humm.. oil from Libya will cost us more if we don't get involved and help the Libyan people overthrow their tyrannical despot dictator so we will help them overthrow the dictator and if history holds true and Libyan oil production never reaches or exceeds the pre-regime change levels the cost of oil will go up because the supply will drop but the demand will keep rising and we'd be much better off paying higher prices that way than how we will pay higher prices if we do not help a nation's people free themselves, while doing our duty to NATO.



And to be honest usa is at the mercy of china iran and russia cause anyone of these countries can in a moments notice crash your economy to prehistoric timesure it will hurt them a bit cause they have your currency paper as a I O U but dont forget just a matter of time before they bounce back up

If you believe it would be that simple for them to; "bounce back up," well, you are a fool. If the U.s. economy totally collapsed there would be a worldwide depression that would make The Great Depression look like a day at Disneyland by comparison. It would start a domino-like effect of collapsing national economies and even if a miracle happened and China and Russia did not also totally collapse, they would suffer greatly for years because other nations would be to poor to do business with them ... and then their total collapse would catch up to them.




cause they have export sales unlike usa
That's right, they have exports and the U.S. doesn't. I guess you chose to totally ignore what I previously said about U.S. exports, using 2010 numbers since at the time I did not see any for 2011.


As U.S. Exports Soar, It’s Not All Soybeans

By FLOYD NORRIS

Published: February 11, 2011






AMERICAN exports of goods rose 21 percent in 2010 to $1.28 trillion, as the world trading system shook off the effects of the financial crisis, according to figures released on Friday.




Multimedia


Graphic
U.S. Exports





It was the sharpest rise in American exports since 1988, and it enabled the United States to pass Germany and again become the world’s second-largest exporter, behind China. The margin between the United States and Germany was only $16 million, a difference of just 1.2 percent, and could vanish as preliminary figures are revised.


But assuming the difference holds, it was the first time since 2002 that United States exports exceeded those of Germany when both were measured in dollars. A major reason for that was the weakness of the euro during the year as Europe was forced to bail out first Greece and then Ireland. Germany’s exports rose 18 percent when measured in euros, but just 13 percent in dollars.
Both countries fell further behind China, whose export volume rose 31 percent, to $1.58 trillion.


The increase in American exports came as manufacturing employment in the United States rose by 0.9 percent in 2010, the first annual increase since 1997. But the level of exports remained slightly below the amount recorded in 2008, before the financial crisis took hold.


The accompanying charts show the trends over the last decade in overall exports and within the manufacturing sector, whose importance has slipped but which still provided 74 percent of the country’s exports in 2010.


The sharpest decline in exports came in the category of computers and electronic products. In 2000, that sector accounted for a quarter of all manufactured exports. By 2010, its share was barely more than one-eighth.
To some extent that may reflect the decline in prices for computers. Since the figures are in current dollars, a constant volume would show up as a decline in prices. But it also probably reflects a trend toward moving computer assembly operations overseas, particularly to China.


Exports of chemical products rose particularly rapidly during the decade. In the charts, the chemical products are combined with products based on petroleum, coal, plastics and rubber. That sector’s exports rose at a compound annual rate of 9.5 percent during the decade.


The textile industry has been in decline for decades, but exports of fabric and clothing still amounted to $15.9 billion in 2010.


The export of agricultural products, including fish and lumber, rose 18 percent during the year to $65.7 billion. Exports of processed food, beverages and cigarettes, which are included in the manufacturing industry, were up 17 percent to $56.2 billion.


The figures belie a popular image of the United States as no longer making products, and being largely dependent on food exports. The total of agriculture-related exports in 2010, $122 billion, is less than the value of exports of either chemical or transportation products.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/business/economy/12charts.html

But those Chinese exports just keep climbing, don't they?


China 2011 trade surplus shrinks as demand weakens



By Allison Jackson (AFP) – 15 hours ago



BEIJING — China's trade surplus shrank in 2011 as import and export growth slowed sharply, official data showed Tuesday, after domestic tightening measures and global economic turmoil hit consumption.


The figures add to mounting evidence the economy is slowing and will ratchet up pressure on Beijing to further loosen policies to prevent the world's second-largest economy from suffering a painful hard landing.


The 2011 trade surplus -- flagged by Commerce Minister Chen Deming last week -- narrowed to $155.14 billion from $181.51 billion in 2010, the customs agency said in a statement, reflecting the turmoil in Europe and the United States.

Exports rose 20.3 percent to $1.899 trillion in 2011, compared with an increase of 31.3 percent in the previous year, while imports climbed 24.9 percent to $1.743 trillion, much slower than the 38.8 percent growth in 2010.


Analysts expected export growth to halve this year from 2011 as European woes and a sluggish US economy drag Chinese economic expansion below nine percent for the first time in more than a decade.


Weakening demand for exports will "provide further drag on the Chinese economy at least through the first half of the year," said IHS Global Insight analysts Alistair Thornton and Ren Xianfang.


Moody's economist Alaistair Chan said the slowdown in imports would push policymakers to cut the reserve requirement ratio -- the portion of deposits banks must set aside -- several times in the first half to spur lending.


Gross domestic product growth could ease to 8.5 percent in 2012, a senior government researcher said last month, which would be the slowest pace since 2001 when the economy expanded 8.3 percent.


But it would still be within the official annual target of 7-8 percent, a level seen as necessary to create enough jobs to keep a lid on social unrest in the country of more than 1.3 billion people.


Chinese shares closed up 2.69 percent, or 59.85 points, at 2,285.74 as reports that the country's top securities regulator had pledged reforms aimed at the market overshadowed the figures.


Despite the grim outlook, Beijing is likely to remain under pressure for a stronger currency -- a constant bugbear for China's trade partners who argue the yuan is too cheap and gives domestic exporters an unfair trade advantage.


Other data released by customs on Tuesday showed December's trade surplus widened to $16.52 billion from $14.5 billion in November, while year-on-year growth in exports and imports slowed.


Exports rose 13.4 percent to $174.72 billion, compared with a rise of 13.8 percent in November.


The figure suggested overseas demand was softening but "has not collapsed", said IHS Global Insight.


Imports increased 11.8 percent to $158.2 billion compared with a 22.1 percent rise in the previous month, signalling that tight restrictions on bank lending and the property market had hurt domestic consumption.


Bank of America-Merrill Lynch economist Lu Ting said December imports also may have been hurt by the earlier than usual Lunar New Year holiday, which falls in January this year.


Factories may have cut back production as migrant workers returned home to celebrate the important holiday, also known as Spring Festival, with their families, he said.


In November, China cut the amount of money banks must hold in reserve for the first time in three years to spur lending and counter the turmoil overseas, but policymakers appear to have ruled out any major stimulus packages.


Senior Chinese leaders have repeatedly vowed to maintain a "prudent monetary policy and proactive fiscal policy" in 2012, suggesting they will move cautiously to open credit valves to avoid reigniting inflation.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gYlgLknaECf16U9dZKlJAqayEnEw?docId=CNG.77d4ca5bd8abd64f2796bdea5add04eb.1b1
The Chinese economy is still growing at an acceptable pace, but it is not growing like in the past and it is losing manufacturing jobs to lower wage nations like Vietnam. Communist or not, in some ways it is following in the footsteps of the U.S. and it's economy is showing it.



just keep shaking your portfolio hoping somehow its going to get bigger never going to happen
I am not concerned about my portfolio. I am roughly a month away from turning 58-years old. My stocks were transferred from growth stocks to income producing/dividend paying stocks shortly before I retired so I would have an income. Unless there is an absolute total economic collapse, I've got it made in the shade. Even if that were to happen I have enough in gold that it would take care of me for what relatively few years I have left, especially if there would be a total collapse it's value would skyrocket.



USA is like a Farmer but one thing how can you farm with out machinery
here take a look at the latest news one day usa they will not allow the straight to close litterally stated it will attack what a strange change of events going on now huh
I need a magic decoder ring so I can decipher what the heck you are attempting to say.


The latest statements are certain to ramp up tensions with the U.S. and its allies, which are trying to increase pressure on Iran to punish it for its disputed nuclear program.
For the moment, however, U.S. officials are seeking stronger diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran rather than increasing threats of military action. A number of experts say Iran is unlikely to close the strait because that could hurt Iran as much as the West.
In an interview broadcast Sunday, U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb. Panetta reiterated U.S. concerns about a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.
"We have common cause here" with Israel, he said. "And the better approach is for us to work together."
Panetta's remarks on CBS' "Face the Nation" reflect the Obama administration's long-held view that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to create the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step.
Uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh, OK. That's pretty much the exact same thing I previously posted, which make me think that either you do not read my messages and instead just randomly reply with whatever it is you want to say, or that you suffer from short term memory loss.

Either way it was said that Iran has made threats and the U.S. said that it has taken steps to be able to deal with it and re-open the Straits if closed. I also posted Iranian statements where Iran has already backed up on it's threat to close the Straits.

Iran realized that it's bluff did not fool the U.S. and that if they attempted to carry out their hollow threat that they would pay a fearsome price, including the destabilization of their nation and an almost certain regime change. Sine Iran knew it's threat to be hollow and would never accept the risks that would go along with carrying them out Iran is now attempting to save face and trying to gracefully back out of it's hollow threats rather than looking like a loud-mouthed coward.




The Kayhan newspaper, which is close to Iran's ruling clerics, said Tehran has begun injecting uranium gas into sophisticated centrifuges at the Fordo facility near the holy city of Qom.
"Kayhan received reports yesterday that show Iran has begun uranium enrichment at the Fordo facility amid heightened foreign enemy threats," the newspaper said in a front-page report. Kayhan's manager is a representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on all important matters of state.
Iran's nuclear chief, Fereidoun Abbasi, said Saturday that his country will "soon" begin enrichment at Fordo. It was impossible to immediately reconcile the two reports.
Iran has a major uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in central Iran, where nearly 8,000 centrifuges are operating. Tehran began enrichment at Natanz in 2006.
Nouri said Iran's leadership has made a strategic decision to close the Strait of Hormuz should its exports be blocked. One-sixth of the world's oil flows to market through the strait, which is jointly controlled by Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
President Barack Obama approved new sanctions against Iran a week ago, targeting the central bank and its ability to sell petroleum abroad. The U.S. has delayed implementing the sanctions for at least six months, worried about sending the price of oil higher at a time when the global economy is struggling. But the new sanctions nevertheless prompted a series of threats from Iranian officials about closing the Strait of Hormuz.
The newspaper paraphrased Nouri as saying that a 10-day naval drill that ended Jan. 3 was preparation for such a closure. The Guard, which is Iran's most powerful military force and which has its own naval arm, has planned more sea manoeuvres for February.
Khamenei "determined a new strategy for the armed forces, by which any threat from enemies will be responded to with threats," Nouri said.
The U.S. and Israel have said that all options remain open, including military action, should Iran continue with its enrichment program.
Late Sunday, Iran's intelligence minister said several people have been arrested on suspicion of spying for the U.S. and plotting to disrupt Iran's parliamentary elections this year. He gave no further details.
Tehran says it needs the nuclear program to produce fuel for future reactors and medical radioisotopes needed for cancer patients.
The country has been enriching uranium to less than 5 per cent for years, but it began to further enrich part of its uranium stockpile to nearly 20 per cent as of February 2010, saying it needs the higher grade material to produce fuel for a Tehran reactor that makes medical radioisotopes for cancer patients. Weapons-grade uranium is usually about 90 per cent enriched.
Iran says the higher enrichment activities — to nearly 20 per cent — will be carried out at Fordo. These operations are of particular concern to the West because uranium at 20 per cent enrichment can be converted much more quickly for use in a nuclear warhead than uranium enriched to only 3.5 per cent.
Built next to a military complex, Fordo was long kept secret and was only acknowledged by Iran after it was identified by Western intelligence agencies in September 2009.
The facility is a hardened tunnel and is protected by air defence missile batteries and the Revolutionary Guard. The site is located about 20 miles (32 kilometres) north of Qom, the religious nerve centre of Iran's ruling system.
"The Fordo facility, like Natanz, has been designed and built underground. The enemy doesn't have the ability to damage it," the semiofficial Mehr news agency quoted nuclear chief Abbasi as saying Sunday.

Yep ... that's more of what I previously posted. It's amazing how your perception of the same information is so incredibly skewed by your inane personal beliefs of the world and the powers that be in the world.

PS: start cleaning up your mess in your back yard

P.S. Get a paper route or deliver pizzas for a while so you can save up and buy a clue so maybe, just maybe you will then be at least slightly capable of seeing, understanding and accepting reality.
 

Brick Top

New Member
hey brick wheres NASA now
I already gave you the basics of what NASA is now doing. But read this and learn more.


What's Next For NASA?

07.01.11


"As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I'm here to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success -- and failure is not an option."
Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator
National Press Club, July 1, 2011

› View Speech Video | › Speech Text (82 KB PDF)

The end of the space shuttle program does not mean the end of NASA, or even of NASA sending humans into space. NASA has a robust program of exploration, technology development and scientific research that will last for years to come. Here is what's next for NASA:

Artist's concept of the new Space Launch System rocket launching with the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. Credit: NASA
› View Full Size

The International Space Station in May 2011. Credit: NASA
› View Full Size

The Research Flight Deck is being used to develop safer and more efficient cockpit technologies. Credit: NASA
› View Full Size

The Juno mission will arrive at Jupiter in 2016. Credit: NASA
› View Full Size Exploration
NASA is designing and building the capabilities to send humans to explore the solar system, working toward a goal of landing humans on Mars. We will build the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, based on the design for the Orion capsule, with a capacity to take four astronauts on 21-day missions.

NASA is also moving forward with the development of the Space Launch System -- an advanced heavy-lift launch vehicle that will provide an entirely new national capability for human exploration beyond Earth's orbit. The SLS rocket will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, which will include shuttle engines for the core stage and the J-2X engine for the upper stage.

We are developing the technologies we will need for human exploration of the solar system, including solar electric propulsion, refueling depots in orbit, radiation protection and high-reliability life support systems.

International Space Station
The International Space Station is the centerpiece of our human spaceflight activities in low Earth orbit. The ISS is fully staffed with a crew of six, and American astronauts will continue to live and work there in space 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Part of the U.S. portion of the station has been designated as a national laboratory, and NASA is committed to using this unique resource for scientific research.

The ISS is a test bed for exploration technologies such as autonomous refueling of spacecraft, advanced life support systems and human/robotic interfaces. Commercial companies are well on their way to providing cargo and crew flights to the ISS, allowing NASA to focus its attention on the next steps into our solar system.

Aeronautics
NASA is researching ways to design and build aircraft that are safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible. We are also working to create traffic management systems that are safer, more efficient and more flexible. We are developing technologies that improve routing during flights and enable aircraft to climb to and descend from their cruising altitude without interruption.

We believe it is possible to build an aircraft that uses less fuel, gives off fewer emissions, and is quieter, and we are working on the technologies to create that aircraft. NASA is also part of the government team that is working to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, to be in place by the year 2025. We will continue to validate new, complex aircraft and air traffic control systems to ensure that they meet extremely high safety levels.

Science
NASA is conducting an unprecedented array of missions that will seek new knowledge and understanding of Earth, the solar system and the universe. NASA has observatories in Earth orbit and deep space, spacecraft visiting the moon and other planetary bodies, and robotic landers, rovers, and sample return missions. NASA's science vision encompasses questions as practical as hurricane formation, as enticing as the prospect of lunar resources, and as profound as the origin of the Universe.

Learn more about:

  • The Dawn spacecraft's visit to the large asteroid Vesta to help us understand the earliest chapter of our solar system's history.
  • Juno's mission to Jupiter, arriving in July 2016 to investigate the gas giant's origins, structure, and atmosphere.
  • The GRAIL mission to study the moon's gravity field and determine the structure of the lunar interior.
  • The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project, a critical first step in building a next-generation Earth-monitoring satellite system.
  • The Mars Science Laboratory named Curiosity, looking for evidence of microbial life on the red planet.
  • The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array's search for black holes, mapping of supernova explosions, and study of the most extreme active galaxies.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html

Then there is this.


New Launch System to Rival Saturn V
09.16.11


The Space Launch System and MPCV are designed to take astronauts to an asteroid, the moon and Mars, though no destinations have been settled on yet. Artist concept of future destinations. (NASA)
› View larger image
The Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida would again be called on to stack a rocket for astronauts. The landmark is one of many facilities and machines at Kennedy built to handle massive launchers. Another is the crawler-transporter, seen in this emerging from the VAB. Photo credit: NASA/Frankie Martin
› View larger image
The Space Launch System as it is expected to look standing on the launch pad. It will be manufactured using modern techniques and include the latest technological inovations. NASA/Artist concept.
› View larger image

The Space Launch System will use Space Shuttle Main Engines on its core stage and solid-fueled boosters during its first launch, though those may be replaced for later launches. NASA/Artist concept
› View larger image

NASA will build a rocket larger and more powerful than even the massive Saturn V moon rockets under a plan unveiled Sept. 14 to take astronauts farther into space than ever before.

The Space Launch System, or SLS, will take astronauts into deep space on missions to asteroids, the moon or Mars.

"We are dreaming big," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said. "We're investing in technologies to live and work in space and it sets the stage for visiting asteroids and Mars."

Just like its Saturn V predecessor, the SLS heavy-lift rocket will launch from NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Kennedy's main work during the SLS development will center on designing ground support equipment for the test flights and then the operational missions.

The unique facilities at Kennedy are expected to be used for SLS, too. In addition to the landmark Vehicle Assembly Building, which stacked the Saturn V for launch, Kennedy has processing areas and clean rooms that can support spacecraft of all sorts. The crawler-transporters and the 355-foot-tall mobile launcher, or ML, also are available to support a rocket at the launch pad.

“Kennedy Space Center received exciting news, as NASA announced the design for the most powerful American rocket since the Saturn V took astronauts to the moon -- the Space Launch System,” said Bob Cabana, Kennedy Space Center director. “Kennedy’s role continues to be significant and central to shaping the next era of space exploration as we provide infrastructure, facilities capabilities, and skills that are essential to our nation’s success. Significant progress has already been made at Kennedy implementing upgrades to Launch Pad 39B that will ensure our readiness to support the SLS architecture. We will continue to modify other existing launch and processing facilities as we transform Kennedy to the multi-user launch complex of the future.”

The rocket will be built around a core stage the same diameter as a space shuttle external tank and powered by three space shuttle main engines, with later flights using five SSMEs. Five-segment solid rocket boosters will be mounted to the side of the tank for additional power, although liquid-fueled boosters could be incorporated on later flights after an industry competition.

"We can tell you we have the capability with this for some pretty exciting missions," said Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations."I think it's fair to call this the most powerful rocket ever built.”

The upper stage will be powered by the J-2X engine and the astronauts will fly inside a large capsule spacecraft called the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The J-2X engine and Orion have been in different stages of development while the SSMEs have been proven during 30 years of space shuttle missions.

"We have very little engine development to do," Gerstenmaier said. Gerstenmaier said the new rocket's designers focused on using existing technology in the rocket in many areas so it can be built using modern, more efficient manufacturing techniques.

"This is being designed and built in a new, modern way," Gerstenmaier said. "We'll probably build the tank vertically instead of horizontally."

The design also is intended to be modular so it can be tailored to different mission needs without requiring one-of-a-kind, and more expensive, components. NASA envisions two basic sizes for the SLS. One would lift 70 metric tons into space, about three times more than a shuttle. A larger version, complete with a 10-meter payload fairing or nose cone, would lift 130 metric tons into space, a larger payload than any other rocket.

"We think this rocket, when we put it out there, will be very attractive to other users," Gerstenmaier said, noting the rocket could be used to launch huge satellites or other cargo without astronauts on board.

Compared to the Saturn V rocket that carried astronauts to the moon from 1968 – 1972, the SLS would produce 10 percent more thrust when configured to launch 70 metric tons into space. The larger version, will boast 20 percent more thrust than the Saturn.

The large version of the SLS also will be 40 feet taller than a Saturn V, coming in at about 400 feet.

The schedule calls for a test flight in 2017 with the upper stage of a Delta IV rocket, then a flight with astronauts on board in 2021 with the J-2X-powered upper stage. The rocket and spacecraft could conduct a mission to an asteroid taking place potentially in 2025.

Gerstenmaier said, "Yes, it takes a long time, but when we're finished we'll be capable of going to space like no other nation."

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/slsannouncement_Kennedy.html

A bit more from another source. You can even watch a short CGI video showing what the new rocket will look like and even watch a CGI blastoff.


Future NASA rocket to be most powerful ever built (Update)

September 14, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
Enlarge
This artist concept provided by NASA shows the launch of the rocket design, called the Space Launch System. The design for NASA's newest behemoth of a rocket harkens back to the giant workhorse liquid rockets that propelled men to the moon. But this time the destinations will be much farther and the rocket even more powerful. (AP Photo/NASA)
To soar far away from Earth and even beyond the moon, NASA has dreamed up the world's most powerful rocket, a behemoth that borrows from the workhorse liquid rockets that sent Apollo missions into space four decades ago.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and several members of Congress joined Wednesday in unveiling the Obama administration's much-delayed general plans for its rocket design, called the Space Launch System. The multibillion-dollar program will carry astronauts in a capsule on top, but the first mission would be 10 years off if all goes as planned. Unmanned test launches are expected from Cape Canaveral, Fla., in six years.
Calling it the "largest, most powerful rocket built," NASA's exploration and operations chief, William Gerstenmaier, said the rocket will be tough to construct. But when NASA does it "we'll have a capability to go beyond low-Earth orbit like no other nation does here on Earth," he said in a telephone briefing Wednesday.

Even the smallest early prototype of the rocket will have 10 percent more thrust than the Saturn V that propelled Apollo astronauts to the moon. When it is built to its fuller size, it will be 20 percent more powerful, Gerstenmaier said.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., noted the economic challenges the nation faces even as NASA maps plans for a rocket system some estimate at $35 billion.
"Will it be tough times going forward? Of course it is," Nelson said in a separate news conference. "We are in an era in which we have to do more with less - all across the board - and the competition for the available dollars will be fierce. But what we have here now are the realistic costs" verified by independent experts.
Nelson puts the cost of the program at about $18 billion over the next five years. But that estimate is mostly for development and design through the first test flight in 2017, and doesn't include production of later rockets, Gerstenmaier said. Gerstenmaier wouldn't give a total estimate, but a knowledgeable administration source has put it about almost double that.
The size, shape and heavier reliance on liquid fuel as opposed to solid rocket boosters is much closer to Apollo than the recently retired space shuttles, which were winged, reusable ships that sat on top of a giant liquid fuel tank, with twin solid rocket boosters providing most of the power. It's also a shift in emphasis from the moon-based, solid-rocket-oriented plans proposed by the George W. Bush administration.


Enlarge
This artist's conception released by NASA shows the Space Launch System -- an advanced heavy-lift launch vehicle that will provide an entirely new national capability for human exploration beyond Earth's orbit.
"It's back to the future with a reliable liquid technology," said Stanford University professor Scott Hubbard, a former NASA senior manager who was on the board that investigated the 2003 space shuttle Columbia accident. NASA figures it will be building and launching about one rocket a year for about 15 years or more in the 2020s and 2030s, according to senior administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make the announcement. The idea is to launch its first unmanned test flight in 2017 with the first crew flying in 2021 and astronauts heading to a nearby asteroid in 2025, the officials said. From there, NASA hopes to send the rocket and astronauts to Mars - at first just to circle, but then later landing on the Red Planet - in the 2030s.
At first, the rockets will be able to carry into space 77 to 110 tons, which would include the six-person Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle capsule and more. Eventually it will be able to carry 143 tons into space, maybe even 165 tons, the officials said. By comparison, the long-dormant Saturn V booster that sent men to the moon was able to lift 130 tons.
The plans dwarf the rumbling liftoff power of the space shuttle, which could haul just 27 tons. The biggest current unmanned rocket can carry about 25 tons.
The plans elicited an amazed "good grief" from Hubbard, who said it would limit how often they could be built or launched. Unlike the reusable shuttle, these rockets are mostly one-and-done, with new ones built for every launch.
Some of the design elements, the deadline and the requirement for such a rocket were dictated by Congress.
While the recently retired space shuttle's main engines were fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, it was primarily powered into orbit by solid rockets. Solid rocket boosters were designed to be cheaper, but a booster flaw caused the fatal space shuttle Challenger accident in 1986. The biggest drawback was that solid rockets can't be stopped once they are lit; liquid ones can.
The new plan is to use a giant rocket powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Apollo, Gemini and Mercury flew into space on liquid rockets, and liquids fuel most of the world's unmanned commercial rockets. Russia's Soyuz rocket is liquid fueled too.
During its initial test flights the rocket will use five solid rocket boosters designed for the shuttle strapped on its outside and will have shuttle main engines powering it on the inside. But soon after that the solid rocket boosters will be replaced with new boosters that should have new technology and may be either liquid or solid, the officials said
The key financial part of this arrangement is that NASA hopes to save money by turning over the launching of astronauts to the International Space Station, which orbits the Earth, to private companies and just rent spaces for astronauts like a giant taxi service. NASA would then spend the money on leaving Earth's orbit and the Earth-moon system.
Hubbard worries that NASA has a history of spending far more than initially proposed - the space shuttle cost about twice what it was supposed to - and this new rocket system will drain money from other NASA missions.

©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-nasa-unveils-giant-rocket.html



Now honestly, tell me true, do those things really seem like something that a closed down space program would be doing?

Just admit it. You are either totally ignorant or else for some sick reason you suffer from some desperate need to attempt to make the U.S. look bad in any and every way imaginable, including lying and claiming that the U.S. space program, NASA, has been shut down and is no longer active in any way and will never be returning to space.
 

fenderburn84

Well-Known Member
Rainbo are you special? I'm not being mean but honestly are you? To say we did nothing for France you must be, as we the us had to come in not once but twice and save them. The brits did respectable job in WWl as the bef was a strong force of equally strong men. Even in WWll the british alone were not enough, nor were the Russians, so America had to come in and save them. And just a little fun fact, if it were not for the fighting on the western front the Germans would have captured all of Russia, the main thing that stopped them was lack of supplies in both material and men, wich were being diverted to the western front.
 

fenderburn84

Well-Known Member
Oh and bricktop I just ordered marine through the library, my pm's are acting odd I can't seem to respond. But thank you for the suggestions I look forward to an interesting read.
 

Brick Top

New Member
lmao you mention that north korea was russian pilots you also forgot china pilots to thats what allies do unlike usa as they sttod on side lines and watch germany take over france what you guys do there ????? fck all france was your allies and you did shit only britain went in there tank god huh as to damage the french ship fleet that was number 1 fleet on the seas then ???? oh god could only tell you if germans got a hold of them what they had planned for usa

You have no idea how much I wish you had at least a basic grasp of the English language.

I apologize for having left out Chinese pilots in the Korean War. But I guess that wasn't as large an omission as the SIXTEEN ENTIRE NATIONS you excluded from your comments about the Korean War. Oh, and that doesn't count the additional FOUR U.N. nations that did not supply fighting troops but supplied field hospitals AND the ONE MORE NATION, that was not even a member of the U.N. at the time that also supplied field hospitals. That totals TWENTY ONE ENTIRE NATIONS YOU TOTALLY MISSED when you commented on the Korean War.


When you mentioned how the U.S. did not stop Nazi Germany from taking over France, and I will add that Nazi Germany also took over a number other nations prior to the U.S. becoming engaged in the war, you yet once again show your complete and utter ignorance of the era and the U.S. military of the era.

First off, after the horrors of WWI the American public believed in isolationism. They believed the Pacific and the Atlantic were more than enough to keep the U.S. safe and that the nation should not become involved in foreign wars and that the nation should only have a defensive force military. There was a very powerful feeling that the U.S. should not become involved until December 7th, 1941 when the Imperial Japanese attacked the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Then the mood changed and the citizens were fully behind the war effort.

Second is that when WWI began the U.S. was not anywhere near prepared to go to war. At the beginning of WWII the U.S. military was ranked 17th in the world, one number below Romania. It numbered only 190,000 soldiers. When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majors—a middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonel—was nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. It would grow to 8.3 million by 1944, a 44-fold increase.

The military budget had been slashed after WWI and there were shortages of everything. There was such a shortage of ammunition of every type that everyone from a rifleman to artilleryman to antiaircraft gunner went years without firing a single practice round. The crews that manned the coastal artillery hadn't even test fired their big guns for over 20-years.

Weapons of every type were in short supply and most were outdated and inferior to what would be needed to fight the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. There were very few tanks, and they were obsolete. There was a shortage of parts for them so even training new crews on obsolete tanks was difficult General Patton came from a wealthy family and he personally ordered and paid for spare parts to try to keep at least most of the obsolete tanks under his command operational.

New recruits and draftees initially trained with fake machine guns made of wood with broomstick barrels and anti-tank gunners would also use fake weapons that hurled bags of flour at trucks that had TANK written on the side of them because there were not enough operational tanks to be used to train gun crews with.

The standard anti-tank weapon was a puny 37mm weapon that was later nicknamed "The Door Knocker" because when it saw combat it's rounds had a nasty habit of just bouncing off the thick skin of German tanks and letting the tank crew know you were around, because you just knocked on it's door. It was soon replaced with a 57mm model, but compared to the German's 88mm, it was still understrength.

Every aircraft in the U.S. Army Air Corps was obsolete compared to both the Nazi and Imperial Japanese aircraft and would not have stood a snowballs chance in Hell in the skies with ME109's and FW190's and Zeros. Trying would have been suicide.

The Army still had a number of cavalry units, horse mounted soldiers. When the world saw what happened when the brave Poles made cavalry charges against Nazi Panzers everyone knew the days of the cavalry were over. They were slaughtered. Most U.S. cavalry troops ended up in the new tank corps.

The Navy was almost nonexistent. Few capital ships existed, and most of those that did were old coal fired obsolete highly outgunned ships compared to the enemy they would fight. The Destroyer Fleet was made up of old slow under-gunned "four stackers" from WWI. There were few submarines and they were in such terrible condition they were not safe to go deeper than around 100 to 150 feet or the leaks would overwhelm the pumps. There were only a few small aircraft carriers. Those of the type that served in the war were yet a thing of the future for the U.S. Navy. The originals were like the USS Langley, a Proteus-class collier, was converted to an aircraft carrier and commissioned in 1922. The USS Langley's flight deck was 523 feet long, top speed was 14 knots, had a crew of 410 and an air group of 30 aircraft. Now compare that to the types of aircraft carriers that fought the war. Flight deck, 862 feet, top speed, 32.7 knots, crew, 2,682 men, air group, 91 aircraft.

The standard Marine and infantryman's weapon was a M1903 Springfield 30-06. That is as in designed in 1903, an old bolt action design rifle. When the Marines went ashore on Guadalcanal they were still armed with the M1903 Springfield. The M1 Garand rifle, semiautomatic 30-06, was designed in 1936, but due to lack of military funding few had been manufactured and distributed to different units.

The U.S. lacked transport shipping, and lacking escort vessels crossing the Atlantic would have been extremely risky and many troop ships would have ended up on the bottom, along with many other types of ships because from 1939 until the beginning of 1943 the German U-boats ruled the Atlantic.

The Boeing 299, later to be designated B-17 once purchased by the U.S. Army Air Corps wasn't purchased until 1939 and then between July 1939 and March 1940 they were only purchased in batches of five at a time. In July 1940 an order was placed for 512 B-17s.

But soon it was realized that the original design needed a major redesign and all the early models were not combat worthy. The aircraft got it's name, The Flying Fortress, because they were designed for coastal defense. As I mentioned the military was designed for homeland defense only, and poorly at that. They were like long range artillery that would go out and bomb/sink enemy ships coming to invade the U.S. At that time the battleship was queen of every navy, aircraft carriers were a new novelty and not a part of fleets, so the "Flying Fortress" had no need to be able to defend itself against enemy aircraft since none existed that could cross the Atlantic or the Pacific. But in the skies with ME109's FW190's and Zeros the B-17 would have to be able to fight off attacking fighter aircraft much of the time because there were no long range fighter aircraft to protect them to and from their targets. So the aircraft had to be redesigned and have as many gun positions as possible added and new higher horsepower engines had to replace the original engines, so it was almost as if the first year and a half to two years of B-17's never existed. Over 12,000 B-17's were built.

Almost 4,000 B-29's Super Fortresses were built.

Over 8,600 B-24 Liberators were built

Then there were B-25's and B-26's that also needed to be built.

And of course for all those 'B' aircraft, as in bombers, different size, weight and type munitions had to be designed and built.

For fighter aircraft there was the F4F Wildcat, F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, P-47 Thunderboldt, P-38 Lightning, P-51 Mustang and roughly another dozen, some specialized variants of others. All had to be designed and built.

The M4 Sherman tank was not approved by the Army until April 1941, over 50,000 had to be built by the end of the war.

The M26 Pershing tank, the American 'heavy tank' did not see combat until early 1945. Only 4,550 were built but as the war went on it was clear that the M4 Sherman tank, a 'medium tank' was greatly outclassed by the German Tiger tanks and something that stood a chance of going toe to toe with them was needed.

All those things are barely scratching the surface of why the U.S. was incapable of coming to the aid of France, or any other European nation, or any other nation for that fact, that it did.


When you say the French were an ally of the U.S., well, they could have been a better ally when U.S. troops invaded North Africa, Operation Torch. Our ally, if you remember, surrendered ti the Germans and then helped the Germans. When the troops of Operation Torch went ashore on French North Africa, in particular the French-held territories of Algeria and Morocco the French ships and shore batteries fired on the invading Americans. It was the Allied hope that the French would welcome the U.S. as liberators and not fight for the Germans and try to keep the landings from being a success.

The French coastal batteries contained four 194-millimeter guns, four 138-millimeter guns, three 100-millimeter guns, and two 75-millimeter guns; the incomplete battleship Jean Bart, acting as a stationary gun platform, added four 380-millimeter guns mounted in one turret to the defensive armament along with one light cruiser, seven destroyers and a number of lesser ships. Among the first Americans ashore were officers with jeeps who sped to the locations of the French positions under a white flag and asked if the French would fight against the U.S. invasion. The answer was they would. The Americans tried to convince the French to not resist the invasion, but our noble ally, the one you say we failed to help even though we were virtually helpless at the time ourselves, would not listen and the fired on the ships and the landing beaches and U.S. forces had to fight our ally and silence their guns.

I bet you knew all about that, didnt you? That's why you thought France was the perfect nation to use to try to make the U.S. look bad .... as you so desperately continue to attempt to do, but utterly fail at each and every time.

What you said, how; "the french ship fleet that was number 1 fleet on the seas" when France was invaded. Well, you are keeping a perfect score, you have been wrong 100% of the time. In 1940, the French fleet was the fourth largest naval force in the world after Britain, the United States and Japan. The French Fleet was made up of 7 battleships, 19 cruisers, 71 destroyers and 76 submarines. The French Fleet was not that much more powerful than the Italian Fleet in 1940, and in some ships the Italians outnumbered the French. The Italians had 4 battleships (3 fewer than the French), 7 heavy cruisers and 14 light cruisers (totaling 21 cruisers, 2 more than the French, though the breakdown of French ships I have does not designate between heavy or light cruisers), 119 submarines (43 more submarines than the French had), 120 destroyers (49 more destroyers than the French had). The only clear edge the French had was in battleships and possibly also in cruisers depending on how many were heavy or light cruisers.

Regardless, when France was occupied it had the 4th largest navy in the world, it was not; "number 1 fleet on the seas" as you so incredibly inaccurately claimed it to be.

Tell me, do you honestly believe the pure crap that you spew or do you just make it up as you go along and hope that you will sound believable and that no one will know that you are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey?
 

Brick Top

New Member
Oh and bricktop I just ordered marine through the library, my pm's are acting odd I can't seem to respond. But thank you for the suggestions I look forward to an interesting read.

What you will read will be the true definition of what "The Old Breed" Marine was. That was a good first choice. "Chesty" was an amazing individual. Enjoy.
 

Brick Top

New Member
thats what allies do unlike usa as they sttod on side lines and watch germany take over france what you guys do there ????? fck all france was your allies and you did shit
One other little interesting tidbit about our great French ally was something that occurred well after the war, something that showed the true degree of French gratitude to the U.S. for liberating them not only once, but twice.


DeGaulle

In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France.

Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!"

That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.

So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ U.S. soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.

DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.
That's the French for you.

The next time they need the U.S. I think we should leave them to their fate because they still will not be grateful even if we save them again.
 

Brick Top

New Member
will usa ever get out of debt

Not in my lifetime, but possibly in the distant future if the madness of the government spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave ends very soon.



you talk on this site like a guru you talk science on growing yet not one single grow you have posted lmao one begins to wonder huh ???

You might wonder, what with your Jan. 2012 join date and all. You haven't been here long enough to read one of the many messages I have posted asking why I do not post pictures of what I grow.

I have answered it more than enough times and I have decided that every time another busloads of you newbies unloads here it is not like I am obligated to repeat myself again and again and again and again. If just because I stopped posting pictures several years back that means you would rather listen to and believe those here who when giving advice it is pure opinion or belief or myth or misconception or a half truth or a total inaccuracy or an urban legend or old hippie folklore that listen to someone who tells it the way it is, it's no skin off my nose. It won't be my plants and yield and quality that suffers because of it.


maybe i bring dizzle frost in here he might clarify a few things lmao

Evidently you know how devastatingly I have proven you to be wrong about almost everything you have said so now you are thinking about calling in reinforcements, calling your guy to get your back, or better yet, for you, he takes over and you get to call crawl off like a mortally wounded animal hoping to be able to find a safe quiet place to hide and die.

If that were not the need there would be no reason for you to even consider getting yourself a babysitter to look after you and protect you, or to hope to be able to find someone, anyone, who would step in just long enough to take a pounding or three for you, and by doing so give you your much needed chance to escape, so you can crawl out with your tail between your legs as quickly and as quietly as possible.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Russian invaded Germany and took East Berlin before the Americans made it to the fight, love the way the US always thinks it's the major power winning all the time.

Nice win in Iraq btw ;)
 

Brick Top

New Member
Russian invaded Germany and took East Berlin before the Americans made it to the fight, love the way the US always thinks it's the major power winning all the time.

Nice win in Iraq btw ;)

Another person lacking in historical facts. There was a decision made as to if the Russians took Berlin or if U.S. and or British forces took Berlin before any got all that close. Between political considerations and the knowledge that it would be a very costly, as in casualties, battle a decision was made as to how far the Western front would go and Russia got to take everything up to that line. It let Russia appear to be the hero in the war, which they pretty much were, and letting them pay the price of such high casualties rather than you paying them.

It was not a lost race sort of situation like you made it sound.
 

Gyroscope

Well-Known Member
I saw on the nightly news that Irans top scientist working on their enrichment program was assassinated today. Two guys on a motorcycle slipped up on him and his bodyguard in broad daylight and placed a magnetic bomb on their car killing them both. Iran is blaming Israel and the USA for it. Hillary Clinton says we did not have anything to do with it. Another one bites the dust !!
 

dtp5150

Well-Known Member
Yep I read that earlier. Seriously thats what they do?! Magnetic bombs from a motorcycle? Shit we are so fucked. Maybe I'm glad I didn't become a scientist.
 
Top