M
22 Sept. No petrol day
- Thread starter flyingdutch
- Start date
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-09-21, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>
>> OK. But I really don't think you can dictate to people what they spend
>> their money on. Or what size house they live in. Or how much they can eat.
>> That was meant to be my point.
>>
>
> Ok then, this seems to be the point of contention. Should people be allowed
> to extravagantly consume resources, whether that be fuel, food, living
> space, carbon fibre bicycles, arable land or Tim TamsT at orders of
> magnitude beyond their reasonable needs and to the detriment of others
> around them?
<snip>
Geez, are we all going to have to buy you a red at the next goat we'll
be at (I doubt I'll be there this Friday)?
What /I/ want, is for the real cost of *everything* to be built into
everything you do (with incentives perhaps for things that will be in
good for everyone in the long term, or otherwise needed for society --
hence the things currently subsidised like health and education should
not fit under this system). Triple bottom line economics for
consumers.
Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
SUV won't be afforable.
Sure, my bike will become a hell of a lot more expensive too, but I
think I can afford that, for the sake of our long term future.
--
TimC
I'm sorry, but all questions must be in the form of a question.
-- pieceoftheuniverse in RHOD
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>
>> OK. But I really don't think you can dictate to people what they spend
>> their money on. Or what size house they live in. Or how much they can eat.
>> That was meant to be my point.
>>
>
> Ok then, this seems to be the point of contention. Should people be allowed
> to extravagantly consume resources, whether that be fuel, food, living
> space, carbon fibre bicycles, arable land or Tim TamsT at orders of
> magnitude beyond their reasonable needs and to the detriment of others
> around them?
<snip>
Geez, are we all going to have to buy you a red at the next goat we'll
be at (I doubt I'll be there this Friday)?
What /I/ want, is for the real cost of *everything* to be built into
everything you do (with incentives perhaps for things that will be in
good for everyone in the long term, or otherwise needed for society --
hence the things currently subsidised like health and education should
not fit under this system). Triple bottom line economics for
consumers.
Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
SUV won't be afforable.
Sure, my bike will become a hell of a lot more expensive too, but I
think I can afford that, for the sake of our long term future.
--
TimC
I'm sorry, but all questions must be in the form of a question.
-- pieceoftheuniverse in RHOD
I liked that compressed air car on Beyond Tomorrow last night. Just runs off a large tank with mega compressed air (something like 30 bar). Range of 200kms untill re-pump required [not sure if my floor pump would be any good for that].
I wanted to buy some fuel today, but rode in as normal instead.
I wanted to buy some fuel today, but rode in as normal instead.
S
Stuart Lamble
Guest
On 2005-09-22, Marx SS <[email protected]> wrote:
> I liked that -compressed air - car on Beyond Tomorrow last night. Just
> runs off a large tank with mega compressed air (something like 30 bar).
> Range of 200kms untill re-pump required [not sure if my floor pump would
> be any good for that].
A quick google says:
30 bar == 435.11 psi
Considering that the typical bike pump can get you up to around about
150 psi (give or take), I doubt it.
As an aside, scuba divers carry tanks with air at around 200-300 bar.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
> I liked that -compressed air - car on Beyond Tomorrow last night. Just
> runs off a large tank with mega compressed air (something like 30 bar).
> Range of 200kms untill re-pump required [not sure if my floor pump would
> be any good for that].
A quick google says:
30 bar == 435.11 psi
Considering that the typical bike pump can get you up to around about
150 psi (give or take), I doubt it.
As an aside, scuba divers carry tanks with air at around 200-300 bar.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
D
dave
Guest
Marty wrote:
> So has anyone bought petrol today?
>
> Marty
No motorcycle still sitting with empty tank.
> So has anyone bought petrol today?
>
> Marty
No motorcycle still sitting with empty tank.
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-09-22, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2005-09-22, Marx SS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I liked that -compressed air - car on Beyond Tomorrow last night. Just
>> runs off a large tank with mega compressed air (something like 30 bar).
>> Range of 200kms untill re-pump required [not sure if my floor pump would
>> be any good for that].
>
> A quick google says:
>
> 30 bar == 435.11 psi
Mmmmm, rupturable.
--
TimC
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely
charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but
up and down are forever." - The Laws of Physics
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2005-09-22, Marx SS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I liked that -compressed air - car on Beyond Tomorrow last night. Just
>> runs off a large tank with mega compressed air (something like 30 bar).
>> Range of 200kms untill re-pump required [not sure if my floor pump would
>> be any good for that].
>
> A quick google says:
>
> 30 bar == 435.11 psi
Mmmmm, rupturable.
--
TimC
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely
charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but
up and down are forever." - The Laws of Physics
Marx SS said:
Well, I filled up today. But then given that it's our little Corolla, I haven't filled it in about a month, and I filled with the 'greenish' ethanol blended fuel that's just started being sold around the corner I'm not feeling too guilty about it.
That car was awesome last night! Both the urban version which could be compressed at home for a couple of bucks, and the hybrid version which on a single tank could drive across Australia. Brilliant stuff...
R
Resound
Guest
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dtmeister wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wasn't - it was originally a question. I said forward him the link
>> and see which bits he relates to.
>
> Hmm, I inferred a judgement on your part.
>
>> You seem hung up on money. It's not about the $$ cost. I'd have the
>> same question if he was moving from his current sensible car to a
>> $3000 1980's Landcruiser.
>
> OK.
>
>> A 4WD bought to tool around suburbia generally burns more fuel than
>> the average car, damages the roads more than an average car, is more
>> likely to kill the occupants of an average car without offering much
>> if any more protection to the passengers in an accident.
>
> I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two
> regulation size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child
> stroller (it folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a
> week's shopping, does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You
> really can't do this in a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At
> the time of buying the C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a
> RAV4, the one my wife now has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite
> cramped in the front for the passenger. Two is out of the question, it
> would make the vehicle unsafe to drive.
>
>> But of course, it's his choice, I'm just of the opinion that it's one
>> of the more selfish choices that some are making these days - and as
>> a society we are at least beginning to question them.
>
> And so we should. Maybe one day we will begin to question the amount of
> money we spend on armament.
>
> Theo
>
Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country, we're
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
system for its armed forces and very little else.
news:[email protected]...
> dtmeister wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wasn't - it was originally a question. I said forward him the link
>> and see which bits he relates to.
>
> Hmm, I inferred a judgement on your part.
>
>> You seem hung up on money. It's not about the $$ cost. I'd have the
>> same question if he was moving from his current sensible car to a
>> $3000 1980's Landcruiser.
>
> OK.
>
>> A 4WD bought to tool around suburbia generally burns more fuel than
>> the average car, damages the roads more than an average car, is more
>> likely to kill the occupants of an average car without offering much
>> if any more protection to the passengers in an accident.
>
> I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two
> regulation size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child
> stroller (it folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a
> week's shopping, does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You
> really can't do this in a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At
> the time of buying the C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a
> RAV4, the one my wife now has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite
> cramped in the front for the passenger. Two is out of the question, it
> would make the vehicle unsafe to drive.
>
>> But of course, it's his choice, I'm just of the opinion that it's one
>> of the more selfish choices that some are making these days - and as
>> a society we are at least beginning to question them.
>
> And so we should. Maybe one day we will begin to question the amount of
> money we spend on armament.
>
> Theo
>
Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country, we're
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
system for its armed forces and very little else.
R
Resound
Guest
"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So has anyone bought petrol today?
>
> Marty
About as much as I usually do
news:[email protected]...
> So has anyone bought petrol today?
>
> Marty
About as much as I usually do
So has anyone bought petrol today?
Marty
I've looked and looked, but my bike doesn't seem to have a petrol tank.
Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
SUV won't be afforable.
And resumably the 1800 kg non-SUV will be just (or almost) as expensive.
Pat
Marty
I've looked and looked, but my bike doesn't seem to have a petrol tank.
Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
SUV won't be afforable.
And resumably the 1800 kg non-SUV will be just (or almost) as expensive.
Pat
Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country, we're
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
system for its armed forces and very little else.
I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System has been in full swing for over 50 years.
Pat
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
system for its armed forces and very little else.
I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System has been in full swing for over 50 years.
Pat
E
Euan
Guest
>>>>> "Stuart" == Stuart Lamble <[email protected]> writes:
Stuart> On 2005-09-22, Marx SS
Stuart> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I liked that -compressed air - car on Beyond Tomorrow last
>> night. Just runs off a large tank with mega compressed air
>> (something like 30 bar). Range of 200kms untill re-pump required
>> [not sure if my floor pump would be any good for that].
Stuart> A quick google says:
Stuart> 30 bar == 435.11 psi
Stuart> Considering that the typical bike pump can get you up to
Stuart> around about 150 psi (give or take), I doubt it.
Stuart> As an aside, scuba divers carry tanks with air at around
Stuart> 200-300 bar.
I saw it too, thought it was 300 bar. That tanks are made of carbon
fibre so that in the event of an accident they'll split rather than
shatter with lots of shrapnel.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
Stuart> On 2005-09-22, Marx SS
Stuart> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I liked that -compressed air - car on Beyond Tomorrow last
>> night. Just runs off a large tank with mega compressed air
>> (something like 30 bar). Range of 200kms untill re-pump required
>> [not sure if my floor pump would be any good for that].
Stuart> A quick google says:
Stuart> 30 bar == 435.11 psi
Stuart> Considering that the typical bike pump can get you up to
Stuart> around about 150 psi (give or take), I doubt it.
Stuart> As an aside, scuba divers carry tanks with air at around
Stuart> 200-300 bar.
I saw it too, thought it was 300 bar. That tanks are made of carbon
fibre so that in the event of an accident they'll split rather than
shatter with lots of shrapnel.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
D
dtmeister
Guest
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two regulation
> size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child stroller (it
> folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a week's shopping,
> does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You really can't do this in
> a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At the time of buying the
> C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a RAV4, the one my wife now
> has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite cramped in the front for
> the passenger. Two is out of the question, it would make the vehicle unsafe
> to drive.
OK. But I'd suggest something like a Volvo wagon. You get all the
renowned safety, which isn't at the expense of others on the road,
plus the room.
Maybe a tad dull looking though.
--
..dt
1996 Diamond Back 'Expert Tg' Roadie (7spd DT shifters, favourite bike!)
2004 Trek 2300 Roadie (9spd Ultegra)
2003 DiamondBack 'Criterium' Roadie (8spd Sora, rain bike)
>
> I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two regulation
> size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child stroller (it
> folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a week's shopping,
> does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You really can't do this in
> a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At the time of buying the
> C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a RAV4, the one my wife now
> has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite cramped in the front for
> the passenger. Two is out of the question, it would make the vehicle unsafe
> to drive.
OK. But I'd suggest something like a Volvo wagon. You get all the
renowned safety, which isn't at the expense of others on the road,
plus the room.
Maybe a tad dull looking though.
--
..dt
1996 Diamond Back 'Expert Tg' Roadie (7spd DT shifters, favourite bike!)
2004 Trek 2300 Roadie (9spd Ultegra)
2003 DiamondBack 'Criterium' Roadie (8spd Sora, rain bike)
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-09-22, vaudegiant (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC:
>> Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
>> sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
>> water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
>> SUV won't be afforable.
>
> And resumably the 1800 kg non-SUV will be just (or almost) as
> expensive.
I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
wheels.
--
TimC
I've told them and told them: Temporal anomalies are different from
spatial anomalies. But the kittens know better. They laugh at my
feeble attempts to fool them. -- barbara in ARK
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC:
>> Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
>> sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
>> water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
>> SUV won't be afforable.
>
> And resumably the 1800 kg non-SUV will be just (or almost) as
> expensive.
I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
wheels.
--
TimC
I've told them and told them: Temporal anomalies are different from
spatial anomalies. But the kittens know better. They laugh at my
feeble attempts to fool them. -- barbara in ARK
R
Resound
Guest
"vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country,
> we're
> quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
> wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a
> support
> system for its armed forces and very little else.
>
>
> I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System
> has been in full swing for over 50 years.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
> --
> vaudegiant
>
Oh yeah, that much I realise. It's a matter of degree though. Towards the
end, the percentage of GDP that the Soviets were throwing into military
spending just to try to keep up with the US was staggering.
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country,
> we're
> quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
> wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a
> support
> system for its armed forces and very little else.
>
>
> I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System
> has been in full swing for over 50 years.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
> --
> vaudegiant
>
Oh yeah, that much I realise. It's a matter of degree though. Towards the
end, the percentage of GDP that the Soviets were throwing into military
spending just to try to keep up with the US was staggering.
S
Stuart Lamble
Guest
On 2005-09-22, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
> wheels.
So you have a massive dislike for trains, busses, and trams, then?
At least I can understand a massive dislike for aircraft. 24 hours plus
inside a damn metal tube, flying Toronto-Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney-
Melbourne did that for me.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
> I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
> wheels.
So you have a massive dislike for trains, busses, and trams, then?
At least I can understand a massive dislike for aircraft. 24 hours plus
inside a damn metal tube, flying Toronto-Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney-
Melbourne did that for me.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-09-22, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2005-09-22, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
>> wheels.
>
> So you have a massive dislike for trains, busses, and trams, then?
D'oh! I thought I got all the corner cases.
--
TimC
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@# Error: Missing Carrier Signal
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2005-09-22, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
>> wheels.
>
> So you have a massive dislike for trains, busses, and trams, then?
D'oh! I thought I got all the corner cases.
--
TimC
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@# Error: Missing Carrier Signal
D
dave
Guest
Resound wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>dtmeister wrote:
>>
>>>Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I wasn't - it was originally a question. I said forward him the link
>>>and see which bits he relates to.
>>
>>Hmm, I inferred a judgement on your part.
>>
>>
>>>You seem hung up on money. It's not about the $$ cost. I'd have the
>>>same question if he was moving from his current sensible car to a
>>>$3000 1980's Landcruiser.
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>
>>>A 4WD bought to tool around suburbia generally burns more fuel than
>>>the average car, damages the roads more than an average car, is more
>>>likely to kill the occupants of an average car without offering much
>>>if any more protection to the passengers in an accident.
>>
>>I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two
>>regulation size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child
>>stroller (it folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a
>>week's shopping, does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You
>>really can't do this in a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At
>>the time of buying the C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a
>>RAV4, the one my wife now has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite
>>cramped in the front for the passenger. Two is out of the question, it
>>would make the vehicle unsafe to drive.
>>
>>
>>>But of course, it's his choice, I'm just of the opinion that it's one
>>>of the more selfish choices that some are making these days - and as
>>>a society we are at least beginning to question them.
>>
>>And so we should. Maybe one day we will begin to question the amount of
>>money we spend on armament.
>>
>>Theo
>>
>
> Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country, we're
> quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
> wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
> system for its armed forces and very little else.
>
>
Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.
Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.
Very OT btw. Sorry for rant
> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>dtmeister wrote:
>>
>>>Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I wasn't - it was originally a question. I said forward him the link
>>>and see which bits he relates to.
>>
>>Hmm, I inferred a judgement on your part.
>>
>>
>>>You seem hung up on money. It's not about the $$ cost. I'd have the
>>>same question if he was moving from his current sensible car to a
>>>$3000 1980's Landcruiser.
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>
>>>A 4WD bought to tool around suburbia generally burns more fuel than
>>>the average car, damages the roads more than an average car, is more
>>>likely to kill the occupants of an average car without offering much
>>>if any more protection to the passengers in an accident.
>>
>>I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two
>>regulation size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child
>>stroller (it folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a
>>week's shopping, does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You
>>really can't do this in a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At
>>the time of buying the C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a
>>RAV4, the one my wife now has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite
>>cramped in the front for the passenger. Two is out of the question, it
>>would make the vehicle unsafe to drive.
>>
>>
>>>But of course, it's his choice, I'm just of the opinion that it's one
>>>of the more selfish choices that some are making these days - and as
>>>a society we are at least beginning to question them.
>>
>>And so we should. Maybe one day we will begin to question the amount of
>>money we spend on armament.
>>
>>Theo
>>
>
> Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country, we're
> quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
> wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
> system for its armed forces and very little else.
>
>
Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.
Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.
Very OT btw. Sorry for rant
D
dave
Guest
Resound wrote:
> "vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country,
>>we're
>>quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
>>wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a
>>support
>>system for its armed forces and very little else.
>>
>>
>>I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System
>>has been in full swing for over 50 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>>--
>>vaudegiant
>>
>
> Oh yeah, that much I realise. It's a matter of degree though. Towards the
> end, the percentage of GDP that the Soviets were throwing into military
> spending just to try to keep up with the US was staggering.
>
>
As I recall at the end it was running at about 120%
> "vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country,
>>we're
>>quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
>>wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a
>>support
>>system for its armed forces and very little else.
>>
>>
>>I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System
>>has been in full swing for over 50 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>>--
>>vaudegiant
>>
>
> Oh yeah, that much I realise. It's a matter of degree though. Towards the
> end, the percentage of GDP that the Soviets were throwing into military
> spending just to try to keep up with the US was staggering.
>
>
As I recall at the end it was running at about 120%
T
TimC
Guest
On 2005-09-22, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
> Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
> and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
> no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
> is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
> rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.
>
> Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
> of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
> the same radios.
>
> Very OT btw. Sorry for rant
Are you dave or Kathy? I think you're Kathy
--
TimC
"We must use Tim as a tool, not as a couch." -- J F Kennedy
--screwtape on RHOD
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
> Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
> and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
> no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
> is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
> rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.
>
> Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
> of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
> the same radios.
>
> Very OT btw. Sorry for rant
Are you dave or Kathy? I think you're Kathy
--
TimC
"We must use Tim as a tool, not as a couch." -- J F Kennedy
--screwtape on RHOD
