On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > >> > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > get. > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > -- > SNIPPERMAN, SydneyHey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate.
ultimate semi shortage
Started by ●November 13, 2021
Reply by ●November 18, 20212021-11-18
Reply by ●November 18, 20212021-11-18
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > >> > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > get. > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > Hey Sloman, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs!None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft.> And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail.Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga> Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate.Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 18, 20212021-11-18
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:17:32 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:>On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: >> > >> > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html >> > >> >> > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. >> > > >> > >"China ominously declared..." >> > > >> > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on >> > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of >> > >Australia's promise..." >> > > >> > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each >> > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought >> > >someone who mattered made a statement. >> > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on >> > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't >> > get. >> > >> > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. >> China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. >> >> We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. >> >> Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. >> >> -- >> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney > >Hey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate.Does everyone in Australia still speak Japanese? It's hard to tell. -- Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still; but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was always most valuable when he had lost it.
Reply by ●November 18, 20212021-11-18
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 1:45:35 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:17:32 -0800 (PST), Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > >> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > >> > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > >> > >> > >> > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > >> > > > >> > >"China ominously declared..." > >> > > > >> > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > >> > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > >> > >Australia's promise..." > >> > > > >> > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > >> > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > >> > >someone who mattered made a statement. > >> > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > >> > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > >> > get. > >> > > >> > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > >> > >> China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > >> > >> We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > >> > >> Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > >Hey Sloman, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > > Does everyone in Australia still speak Japanese? It's hard to tell.John Larkin seems to think that the US won WW2 on it own. The Russians actually defeated the German pretty much on their own - the help they got from the rest of the Allies was very welcome, but fell a long way short of being crucial. There was no Japanese attempt to invade Australia. They did invade Papua-New Guinea, and most of the fighting that kicked them out of there was done by Australians, with some assistance from the Americans. What Japan wanted was Indonesian oil, and America put quite a lot of effort into frustrating them there. My mother's brother was a doctor, and spent the later part of war in the Australian army in that area, curing Australian and American servicemen of a whole range of tropical diseases, and an occasional war wound. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 19, 20212021-11-19
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:34:38 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > > >> > > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > > get. > > > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! > > None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft.No, SNIPPERMAN, OZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY - and NEVER had the means to produce the necessary PU.> > And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. > Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal.Right - along with the radioactive fallout. This is, definitely, an even DUMBER idea than your civilian firebombers! God, are you auditioning for the Nobel in DUMBMENSS?> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga > > Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all..Ditto on the DUMBNESS award - OZ couldn't defend itself against Taiwan. If the Chicoms attacked OZ you wimps would be crying on the phone to the US for defense. You better HOPE that we would ANSWER the call!> > -- > SNIPPERMAN, Sydney
Reply by ●November 20, 20212021-11-20
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:47:30 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:34:38 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > > > get. > > > > > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > > > > Hey Sloman, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! > > > > None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft. > > No, Sloman, OZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY - and NEVER had the means to produce the necessary PU.I imagine Flyguy means Plutonium - Pu. He doesn't seem to be aware that Australia has uranium mines and one research nuclear reactor. Plutonium may make a better fission trigger than enriched natural uranium, but if we wanted to put together a few fission triggers for fusion bombs, we could do it. Flyguy seems to be the kind of "technologist" who expects to get his toys delivered neatly packaged and gift-wrapped.> > > And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. > > > > Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal. > > > Right - along with the radioactive fallout. This is, definitely, an even DUMBER idea than your civilian firebombers! God, are you auditioning for the Nobel in DUMBNESS?I'd have to defer to your expertise in any such competition.> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_MaralingaThe radioactive fall-out from the Maralinga tests was a long way from anywhere. My father's sister's husband took a flock pf sheep up to Maralinga to keep track of what the nuclear tests did to them. A well-engineered fusion bomb shouldn't generate much fall-out at all - America had a scheme for using them to dig a new Panama canal, but didn't - in the end - put it into practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare> > > Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > > > Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all.. > > Ditto on the DUMBNESS award - OZ couldn't defend itself against Taiwan. If the Chicoms attacked OZ you wimps would be crying on the phone to the US for defense. You better HOPE that we would ANSWER the call!You really are an idiot. And nobody sane would rely on the US for defense - you might have elected a clown like Donald Trump. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 20, 20212021-11-20
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 8:03:51 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:47:30 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:34:38 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > > > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > > > > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > > > > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > > > > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > > > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! > > > > > > None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft. > > > > No,SNIPPERMAN, OZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY - and NEVER had the means to produce the necessary PU. > > I imagine Flyguy means Plutonium - Pu. He doesn't seem to be aware that Australia has uranium mines and one research nuclear reactor. Plutonium may make a better fission trigger than enriched natural uranium, but if we wanted to put together a few fission triggers for fusion bombs, we could do it.OZ has no capacity to produce Pu (SNIPPERMAN, the master of misspelling, seems obsessed that I type PU instead of Pu!). None. A research reactor IS NOT a production reactor, SNIPPERMAN! Don't you know that? OF COURSE NOT!!> > Flyguy seems to be the kind of "technologist" who expects to get his toys delivered neatly packaged and gift-wrapped.SNIPPERMAN participates in the theater of the absurd - if you want to produce Pu you HAVE to have the facilities to do it. Period.> > > > And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. > > > > > > Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal. > > > > > Right - along with the radioactive fallout. This is, definitely, an even DUMBER idea than your civilian firebombers! God, are you auditioning for the Nobel in DUMBNESS? > > I'd have to defer to your expertise in any such competition.Hey SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the one that proposed such a STUPID idea, not me.> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga > > The radioactive fall-out from the Maralinga tests was a long way from anywhere. My father's sister's husband took a flock pf sheep up to Maralinga to keep track of what the nuclear tests did to them. A well-engineered fusion bomb shouldn't generate much fall-out at all - America had a scheme for using them to dig a new Panama canal, but didn't - in the end - put it into practice.Another total pipe dream from our resident fool, SNIPPERMAN.> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_PlowshareWhich NEVER happened, SNIPPERMAN.> > > > Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > > > > > Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all.. > > > > Ditto on the DUMBNESS award - OZ couldn't defend itself against Taiwan. If the Chicoms attacked OZ you wimps would be crying on the phone to the US for defense. You better HOPE that we would ANSWER the call! > You really are an idiot. And nobody sane would rely on the US for defense - you might have elected a clown like Donald Trump.No, SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the idiot! OZ has less than 100,000 active and reservists vs over FOUR MILLION for the Chicoms. I know you can't do math, but that is FORTY TO ONE! The same goes for the hardware. The ONLY thing protecting OZ is there is nothing worth taking.> > -- > SNIPPERMAN, Sydney
Reply by ●November 20, 20212021-11-20
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:24:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 8:03:51 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:47:30 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:34:38 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > > > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > > > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > > > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > > > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > > > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > > > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > > > > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > > > > > > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > > > > > > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > > > > > > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > > > > > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! > > > > > > > > None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft. > > > > > > No,SNIPPERMAN, OZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY - and NEVER had the means to produce the necessary PU. > > > > I imagine Flyguy means Plutonium - Pu. He doesn't seem to be aware that Australia has uranium mines and one research nuclear reactor. Plutonium may make a better fission trigger than enriched natural uranium, but if we wanted to put together a few fission triggers for fusion bombs, we could do it. > > OZ has no capacity to produce Pu (Sloman, the master of misspelling, seems obsessed that I type PU instead of Pu!).You do make a fuss about typo's, so I wasn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt.> None. A research reactor IS NOT a production reactor, Sloman! Don't you know that? OF COURSE NOT!!It's not designed to produce lots of plutonium, but it can't help but produce some, and if you exposed extra uranium to the neutron flux, it could produce more. And you don't actually need plutonium to trigger a fission-fusion bomb, as I did point out.> > Flyguy seems to be the kind of "technologist" who expects to get his toys delivered neatly packaged and gift-wrapped.> Sloman participates in the theater of the absurd - if you want to produce Pu you HAVE to have the facilities to do it. Period.And they are? I'm the Ph.D chemist, and you clearly know very little about the subject, as you keep on reminding us.> > > > > And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. > > > > > > > > Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal. > > > > > > > Right - along with the radioactive fallout. This is, definitely, an even DUMBER idea than your civilian firebombers! God, are you auditioning for the Nobel in DUMBNESS? > > > > I'd have to defer to your expertise in any such competition. > > Hey Sloman, YOU are the one that proposed such a STUPID idea, not me. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga > > > > The radioactive fall-out from the Maralinga tests was a long way from anywhere. My father's sister's husband took a flock pf sheep up to Maralinga to keep track of what the nuclear tests did to them. A well-engineered fusion bomb shouldn't generate much fall-out at all - America had a scheme for using them to dig a new Panama canal, but didn't - in the end - put it into practice. > > Another total pipe dream from Sloman. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare > > Which NEVER happened, Sloman.There are some 27 somewhat radioactive holes around from when project Plowshare played with the idea. You don't seem to have read the link - and if you did you failed to understand it (which does seem to be something you manage to do quite often).> > > > > Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > > > > > > > Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all.. > > > > > > Ditto on the DUMBNESS award - OZ couldn't defend itself against Taiwan. If the Chicoms attacked OZ you wimps would be crying on the phone to the US for defense. You better HOPE that we would ANSWER the call! > > > You really are an idiot. And nobody sane would rely on the US for defense - you might have elected a clown like Donald Trump. > > No, Sloman, YOU are the idiot! OZ has less than 100,000 active and reservists vs over FOUR MILLION for the Chicoms.They might be difficult to cope with if they all arrived at once. There were quite a few more Japanese than Australians during WW2, but we didn't have too much trouble dealing with those few that made it down to Papua-New Guinea,> I know you can't do math, but that is FORTY TO ONE! The same goes for the hardware. The ONLY thing protecting OZ is there is nothing worth taking.And couple of thousand miles of open sea. As I have pointed out, a couple of hydrogen bombs could ensure that there was even less worth taking. Any fool can toss around large numbers. It takes a totally demented fool like you to confuse all the ground troops in China with the sort of force that they could land in Australia, if they could get that far. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 20, 20212021-11-20
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:51:19 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:24:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 8:03:51 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:47:30 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:34:38 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > > > > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > > > > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > > > > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > > > > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > > > > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > > > > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > > > > > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! > > > > > > > > > > None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft. > > > > > > > > No,SNIPPERMAN, OZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY - and NEVER had the means to produce the necessary PU. > > > > > > I imagine Flyguy means Plutonium - Pu. He doesn't seem to be aware that Australia has uranium mines and one research nuclear reactor. Plutonium may make a better fission trigger than enriched natural uranium, but if we wanted to put together a few fission triggers for fusion bombs, we could do it. > > > > OZ has no capacity to produce Pu (Sloman, the master of misspelling, seems obsessed that I type PU instead of Pu!). > > You do make a fuss about typo's, so I wasn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. > > > None. A research reactor IS NOT a production reactor, Sloman! Don't you know that? OF COURSE NOT!! > > It's not designed to produce lots of plutonium, but it can't help but produce some, and if you exposed extra uranium to the neutron flux, it could produce more. And you don't actually need plutonium to trigger a fission-fusion bomb, as I did point out. > > > Flyguy seems to be the kind of "technologist" who expects to get his toys delivered neatly packaged and gift-wrapped. > > Sloman participates in the theater of the absurd - if you want to produce Pu you HAVE to have the facilities to do it. Period. > > And they are? I'm the Ph.D chemist, and you clearly know very little about the subject, as you keep on reminding us. > > > > > > And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. > > > > > > > > > > Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal. > > > > > > > > > Right - along with the radioactive fallout. This is, definitely, an even DUMBER idea than your civilian firebombers! God, are you auditioning for the Nobel in DUMBNESS? > > > > > > I'd have to defer to your expertise in any such competition. > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the one that proposed such a STUPID idea, not me. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga > > > > > > The radioactive fall-out from the Maralinga tests was a long way from anywhere. My father's sister's husband took a flock pf sheep up to Maralinga to keep track of what the nuclear tests did to them. A well-engineered fusion bomb shouldn't generate much fall-out at all - America had a scheme for using them to dig a new Panama canal, but didn't - in the end - put it into practice. > > > > Another total pipe dream from SNIPPERMAN. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare > > > > Which NEVER happened, SNIPPERMAN. > > There are some 27 somewhat radioactive holes around from when project Plowshare played with the idea. You don't seem to have read the link - and if you did you failed to understand it (which does seem to be something you manage to do quite often). > > > > > > Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > > > > > > > > > Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all.. > > > > > > > > Ditto on the DUMBNESS award - OZ couldn't defend itself against Taiwan. If the Chicoms attacked OZ you wimps would be crying on the phone to the US for defense. You better HOPE that we would ANSWER the call! > > > > > You really are an idiot. And nobody sane would rely on the US for defense - you might have elected a clown like Donald Trump. > > > > No, SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the idiot! OZ has less than 100,000 active and reservists vs over FOUR MILLION for the Chicoms. > > They might be difficult to cope with if they all arrived at once. There were quite a few more Japanese than Australians during WW2, but we didn't have too much trouble dealing with those few that made it down to Papua-New Guinea, > > I know you can't do math, but that is FORTY TO ONE! The same goes for the hardware. The ONLY thing protecting OZ is there is nothing worth taking. > And couple of thousand miles of open sea. As I have pointed out, a couple of hydrogen bombs could ensure that there was even less worth taking. > > Any fool can toss around large numbers. It takes a totally demented fool like you to confuse all the ground troops in China with the sort of force that they could land in Australia, if they could get that far. > . > -- > SNIPPERMAN, SydneyHey SNIPPERMAN, your continued ranting about H bombs shows just how delusional and FOOLISH you are. OZ has no H bombs and no way to acquire them. Period. China would have no difficulty invading OZ IF they had the motivation to do so, which they don't. China has the largest navy in the world, so invading OZ is well within their capabilities. Any additional vessels they would need they can easily produce, just as we did to invade Europe. Defending thousands of miles of coastland is eminently impossible; China would easily acquire a beachhead and begin to move men and material inland. They probably would invade a nearby island first to set up an invasion force. The only deterrent would be the US airpower that would bomb the shit out of them. They know this, which is why they got their collective noses bent out of shape when Lyin' Biden lied (or was senile confused) about our treaty with Taiwan.
Reply by ●November 21, 20212021-11-21
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 2:58:50 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:51:19 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:24:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 8:03:51 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:47:30 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:34:38 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:17:35 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:46:09 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 09:42:54 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 11/13/2021 1:36 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10198037/China-THREATENS-Australia-forces-defend-Taiwan-remarks-Defence-Minister-Peter-Dutton.html > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Imagine if Taiwan is attacked and TSMC stops making chips. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"China ominously declared..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"In explosive comments published in Chinese tabloid The Global Times on > > > > > > > > > >Saturday, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin was blunt in his analysis of > > > > > > > > > >Australia's promise..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So more like just tabloids re-publishing the retarded things each > > > > > > > > > >other's editors say. Got me all excited there for a second I thought > > > > > > > > > >someone who mattered made a statement. > > > > > > > > > We sold a bunch of VME to Australia, to upgrade submarines, and bid on > > > > > > > > > some fiberoptic systems for the Jindalee radar, which job we didn't > > > > > > > > > get. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Australia needs to sell coal to China so they can build up their defenses against China. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > China stopped buying our coal for a while - as well as our barley and wine - as device to bend us to their will. They would have liked to stop buying our iron ore as well, but nobody else had as much as they needed. They've gone back to buying our coal - same problem. The barley and the wine found other markets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We make a lot of money out of selling coal, and the people who collect most of that money have a lot of political power. Like the rest of the fossil carbon industry they couldn't care less about anthropogenic global warming. It's going to take quite a while before they see sense. There are people around in Australia who plan to make a lot of money out of using solar cell generated power to make hydrogen, which we can liquify and load into tankers to ship off to the people who are now buying our coal. The fossil carbon extraction industry isn't going to like that. It could get quite nasty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Military defense against China would be difficult, but why would they bother? There are more valuable assets a lot closer to China, and if we stick a few hydrogen bombs under the natural resources that they might want to go after we can do scorched earth pretty effectively. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, hydrogen bombs? OZ doesn't have ANY H bombs! > > > > > > > > > > > > None that we admit to. It's just physics, and the kind of hydrogen bomb you'd use to make a large iron ore deposit inaccessible is not one you'd drop from an aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > No,SNIPPERMAN, OZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY - and NEVER had the means to produce the necessary PU. > > > > > > > > I imagine Flyguy means Plutonium - Pu. He doesn't seem to be aware that Australia has uranium mines and one research nuclear reactor. Plutonium may make a better fission trigger than enriched natural uranium, but if we wanted to put together a few fission triggers for fusion bombs, we could do it. > > > > > > OZ has no capacity to produce Pu (Sloman, the master of misspelling, seems obsessed that I type PU instead of Pu!). > > > > You do make a fuss about typo's, so I wasn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. > > > > > None. A research reactor IS NOT a production reactor, Sloman! Don't you know that? OF COURSE NOT!! > > > > It's not designed to produce lots of plutonium, but it can't help but produce some, and if you exposed extra uranium to the neutron flux, it could produce more. And you don't actually need plutonium to trigger a fission-fusion bomb, as I did point out. > > > > Flyguy seems to be the kind of "technologist" who expects to get his toys delivered neatly packaged and gift-wrapped. > > > Sloman participates in the theater of the absurd - if you want to produce Pu you HAVE to have the facilities to do it. Period. > > > > And they are? I'm the Ph.D chemist, and you clearly know very little about the subject, as you keep on reminding us. > > > > > > > And even if you did, nuking yourself makes as much sense drinking a cyanide cocktail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Australia is. large, and was used by the UK for testing nuclear weapons in the 1950's. Another couple of radioactive craters wouldn't be a big deal. > > > > > > > > > > > Right - along with the radioactive fallout. This is, definitely, an even DUMBER idea than your civilian firebombers! God, are you auditioning for the Nobel in DUMBNESS? > > > > > > > > I'd have to defer to your expertise in any such competition. > > > > > > Hey SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the one that proposed such a STUPID idea, not me. > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga > > > > > > > > The radioactive fall-out from the Maralinga tests was a long way from anywhere. My father's sister's husband took a flock pf sheep up to Maralinga to keep track of what the nuclear tests did to them. A well-engineered fusion bomb shouldn't generate much fall-out at all - America had a scheme for using them to dig a new Panama canal, but didn't - in the end - put it into practice. > > > > > > Another total pipe dream from SNIPPERMAN. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare > > > > > > Which NEVER happened, SNIPPERMAN. > > > > There are some 27 somewhat radioactive holes around from when project Plowshare played with the idea. You don't seem to have read the link - and if you did you failed to understand it (which does seem to be something you manage to do quite often). > > > > > > > Military defense would be "difficult?" Try IMPOSSIBLE, you dolt! Without the US's help (you know, that defective country that fucks everything up), OZ would be run over by the CHICOMs like a squirrel on an interstate. > > > > > > > > > > > Probably not. Like I said, why would they bother? And your opinion on the subject isn't exactly definitive - you are an idiot, after all.. > > > > > > > > > > Ditto on the DUMBNESS award - OZ couldn't defend itself against Taiwan. If the Chicoms attacked OZ you wimps would be crying on the phone to the US for defense. You better HOPE that we would ANSWER the call! > > > > > > > You really are an idiot. And nobody sane would rely on the US for defense - you might have elected a clown like Donald Trump. > > > > > > No, SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the idiot! OZ has less than 100,000 active and reservists vs over FOUR MILLION for the Chicoms. > > > > They might be difficult to cope with if they all arrived at once. There were quite a few more Japanese than Australians during WW2, but we didn't have too much trouble dealing with those few that made it down to Papua-New Guinea, > > > I know you can't do math, but that is FORTY TO ONE! The same goes for the hardware. The ONLY thing protecting OZ is there is nothing worth taking. > > And couple of thousand miles of open sea. As I have pointed out, a couple of hydrogen bombs could ensure that there was even less worth taking. > > > > Any fool can toss around large numbers. It takes a totally demented fool like you to confuse all the ground troops in China with the sort of force that they could land in Australia, if they could get that far. > > Hey Sloman, your continued ranting about H bombs shows just how delusional and FOOLISH you are. OZ has no H bombs and no way to acquire them. Period.Tom Seim thinks he knows this for a fact. It's one more of his ignorant delusions.> China would have no difficulty invading OZ IF they had the motivation to do so, which they don't. China has the largest navy in the world, so invading OZ is well within their capabilities.That doesn't follow.> Any additional vessels they would need they can easily produce, just as we did to invade Europe. Defending thousands of miles of coastland is eminently impossible; China would easily acquire a beachhead and begin to move men and material inland.They've got to sail across a lot of open ocean to do it. By the same logic Japan would have found it easy to invade Australia in WW2.> They probably would invade a nearby island first to set up an invasion force. The only deterrent would be the US air-power that would bomb the shit out of them.Scarcely the only deterrent. In WW2 submarines were a bigger problem than bombers. Semi-autonomous Cruise missiles going in just above wave-height weren't a problem back then - though the Japanese approximated them with kamikaze attacks, which are rather more expensive.> They know this, which is why they got their collective noses bent out of shape when Joe Biden lied (or was confused) about our treaty with Taiwan.What Tom Seim "knows" is mostly nonsense. What he thinks he thinks he "knows" about what China "knows" is even more widely divorced from reality. He's a tolerably reliable source of Trump generated propaganda, but doesn't really understand what he is recycling. After that it is all senile gibbering. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
