Posts by Noah Sanchez2

Nancy Gomez26 said:If the pressure had truly been dropped that low right before the sabotage—assuming the pipeline sits 330 feet below the ocean floor—we wouldn't be seeing this massive plume of gas bubbles on the surface. At that depth, the ocean exerts more pressure than those alleged 7 bars. Since gas is lighter than water, some would certainly escape to the surface depending on the hole's size and location, but it wouldn't manifest in such a concentrated, massive volume. The reality is that the pipeline was under significant pressure; it’s been leaking for days (which explains the dropping pressure), and the breach itself is substantial—potentially a full-section rupture.

At a depth of 100m, you're looking at 10 bars of pressure relative to the atmosphere. If the gas line only had 7 bars of pressure when it broke, the gas would just keep venting if the pipe is laid horizontally or has any slight slope at all. Given how long these pipelines are, they're usually laid on relatively flat seabeds after the ground is prepared. Water would only stop the gas from escaping if the pipe was at a steep enough angle that the 10 bars of external pressure pushed against the 7 bars of internal gas (think of the diving bell principle). You can test this easily: take a clear glass bottle, cap it, submerge it horizontally in a container of water, then unscrew the cap and watch how the water rushes in to displace the air.

Since we've been seeing gas escaping for days, it clearly means water is forcing its way in and "pushing" the gas out. It’s not like anyone is pumping gas back in with compressors.

Bottom line? That pipeline is finished. Even if repairs started today, they'd take months, which is more than enough time for water to corrode the interior. I'd bet it's cheaper for them to just dry out the gas before sending it through rather than building an entire pipeline out of stainless steel.

By the way, could some kind of seabed shift have snapped the pipe? An earthquake was recorded, but a 2.4 on the Richter scale seems too small. Pipelines are flexible because of their length, so you'd need a localized displacement of several dozen meters to cause that kind of damage.

silentnomad7 said:Sure, things might get bumpy in the short term, but looking at the long game? It could actually be fantastic! Especially for the less developed parts of the European Union, since we’d likely see factories moving back from China to set up shop right here...

As for China, it would be an absolute disaster for them, considering they'd lose access to those massive, lucrative markets in the European Union and the USA.

It would have been much better for Europe and the rest of the West if things had been handled differently from the start. Instead, the obsession with profit margins pushed manufacturing all the way to the Far East. If we hadn't done that, wouldn't the goods be higher quality? Wouldn't more money stay in Europe, creating more jobs and perhaps even encouraging people to have more children?

Kevin Murphy7 said:Kadyrov refused to send any more Muslim meat into the fight for Christianity🍿

I guess he finally realized someone in his own inner circle might take his head, or maybe they're already working on it.

Karen Torres43 said:10 million 😁

Just try calculating how many tons of bread they’d need to feed that many "soldiers" on a daily basis 😁

This is what a standard daily ration looks like for US soldiers.

An emergency diet kit from Amazon. Is this actually enough to get someone through a crisis?

Contains:

The US Army just beefed up their MREs. You get three full meals—breakfast, lunch, and dinner—each packed with a meat entree, canned veggies, biscuits, something sweet, and a beverage. They also threw in all the gear: cutlery, wet and dry wipes, a portable heater with fuel tablets, and wind/waterproof matches. It all comes in a waterproof bag with a handle and a zip lock seal. At 1700g, it’s a heavy, well-balanced kit designed to last a full day. Is it worth it? Probably. It's a solid, convenient way to stay fed on the move. Expiration date: 06/21 (NEW) Army Crackers 4/50 g The inventory list: Stew Beef (250g), Vegetable Stew (100g), Sausage Stuffing (100g), and Rice Porridge with Beef (250g). Includes a Beverage concentrate, Protein drink, fruit jam, and an Energy fruit bar. For the caffeine fix, there's Black Teo, instant Coffee (with sugar, salt, and pepper), and enough supplies for a portable heater. Toss in some Wind / Waterproof Matches, Wet Wipes, paper Napkins, Plastic Spoons, and a can opener. Seems complete? Expiration date - 06/2021

Here are the highlights:

About 9 ounces of beef.
A hundred grams of sausage. That it.
250 grams of beef stew with rice.
A 9-ounce bowl of Stew Beef.
A small bowl of vegetable stew. That's about it.
200 grams of cookies (I'm assuming that's the substitute for bread?)

A single day's worth of food—three meals total—weighs about 1.7kg. If we assume 300,000 people actually need moving, and they each get one of these packs daily... though it's just as likely they'd only see one every three days... well, let's be optimistic and say they get one per day.

So, let's do the math. 1.7kg times 300,000 equals 510,000kg of food. That’s 510 tons. If one truck carries 10 tons, you're looking at 51 trucks delivering food every single day along the front lines. How does that even work? 622 milesThrough snow, mud, and god-knows-what else. Just trying to handle the daily logistics for food alone is enough to give you a massive headache.

They say the stream will be right here:

Timothy Williams5 said:Since we're already talking about the A-10, I'm not sure if you guys have been following this, but the modern A-10 isn't really what it used to be:

[/I]

When you look at an A-10 in cross-section, you realize it’s not really a plane with a gun attached—it's more like a massive gun with a plane built around it.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...per-438763.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

silentmaker2 said:Honestly, this whole debate feels like people bickering over whether rock bands or nurses are more important. It’s absurd.
The woman held a political office—and because she did, she is a legitimate target. Period.

Sent from my iPhone

Look at the facts: we're talking about a highly educated, high-ranking official—a university president—who actively campaigned to split part of her own country away to join another nation. She openly supported an aggressor state and went as far as justifying their actions, including denying that Ukraine is even a sovereign nation or that its people, language, and culture exist.

If that isn't a textbook case of being a fifth columnist, what is? What did she expect after doing all that? What should any citizen living under invasion expect from someone behaving like this?

Kate Lewis3 said:The second Putin's propaganda machine stops rattling those nuclear saber teeth, you know things are getting serious.

How should we read this? Is it good news or bad?

Saw this on the news. If it's true—and it probably is—it’s pretty grim. One day, someone's going to crack that concrete and see everything they tried to hide underneath.

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/...ih%2F220831121

casualcrane20 said:A reactor doesn't actually produce electricity; it produces steam to spin turbines. So, technically, stopping power production isn't the issue—you could just disconnect the windings, letting the turbines and generators spin idle. Then again, that's just my layman's take; an actual engineer could probably explain it better.

It isn't quite that simple. If you kill the excitation, sure, the generators spin freely like you said, but you lose the load. For instance, if you have a 500MW generator, it needs a turbine capable of maybe 550MW (accounting for losses, these are just rough numbers), and that turbine needs steam at specific pressures and temperatures—say, delivering about 600MW of energy from the reactor to the turbine. Here's the catch: if you cut the excitation and the generator starts spinning idle, you still have 600MW of energy sitting in that superheated steam. That massive amount of energy has to go somewhere; it doesn't just vanish. You can't shut down a nuclear plant (or a coal or gas plant) just by flipping an "electrical" switch. You shut them down from the source where the energy is actually produced—by reducing the fuel consumption in a boiler or, in a nuclear plant, by inserting control rods made of boron steel to soak up free electrons and stop the fission process. Once thermal production drops, the steam pressure and temperature drop, the turbine slows down, the generator slows down, and eventually, the whole system settles enough to safely cut the excitation.

In the event of a major system failure, the generator does get disconnected immediately (excitation is cut and it's isolated from the grid), but at that exact same moment, all that superheated steam has to be vented into the atmosphere. It’s a deafening, violent event—something I've witnessed firsthand several times. Simultaneously, you have to cut the fuel to the boiler or, in a nuclear scenario, rapidly drop those control rods to halt fission while cooling systems kick in to bring the reactor temperature down over several days.

So, shutting down a standard fossil fuel plant is a complex operation, and with nuclear, the process is even more dangerous and significantly more complicated.

rowdytiger13 said:"Quote:"

Those are the ones who’ll just end up being tourists.
Europeans seem pretty superficial, but honestly, I can't blame them—they’ve basically been living in a bubble where they don't have a care in the world.
Try living in Denmark and actually meeting a Dane. It’s a bit of a challenge due to the mindset, even if you're a local, but eventually, they'll realize that we’re the ones coddling our kids and turning them into helpless idiots. Danish parenting is incredibly blunt—and I don't mean physically, though it could be—but it would definitely be a culture shock for anyone from around here.
It turns out the highest number of volunteers for Ukraine actually comes from Sweden, which is a bit of a reality check for those who get all worked up over surface-level headlines and propaganda.

I agree. It's a massive mistake to think people from Western Europe (the natives, I mean) are soft or weak. I know plenty of Germans and Swedes, and I know exactly how Swedish troops acted during their peacekeeping mission in Canada. Don't even get me started on the French (just look up the clashes between Swedes and French against Mexicans; the stories are fascinating). There is a dangerous undercurrent among young Germans—lots of suppressed aggression that they don't show openly. A lot of it is aimed at migrants from Arab countries and Africa because, frankly, they disrupt their orderly, comfortable lifestyle. Based on what I've heard from many Germans and how they think, I wouldn't want to be the one messing with their organized way of life. They are willing to endure a lot and take action, so nobody should be fooled by the media image of a "decaying" West filled with nothing but indecisive, clumsy LGBTQ+ characters. Swedes are also quite an aggressive people, but they stay quiet and endure; when they finally stop putting up with things, it won't be pretty for the migrants harassing them or anyone else threatening them. I don't know any Danes personally, but I have family living there, and everyone says the same thing as you—they are a very tough, cold, and unsentimental people. Belgians and Dutchmen aren't much different either. Sure, there are plenty of incompetent and weak individuals in the West, but it's a huge error to underestimate these nations.

William Anderson5 said:The problem is most people think he's acting "in Canada's interest." It reminds me of how Americans cheered for Neville Chamberlain when he handed over the Sudetenland to Germany; they thought avoiding a confrontation with Germany was better for the economy and stability in Europe. In the end, it turned out that standing firm would have been what was actually best for the people. It was much easier to deal with Germany in '37 or '38 than it was in '39. And despite all those efforts to dodge the conflict, the war happened anyway. People tend to focus on short-term gains, but politicians are supposed to be looking at the long game and making the right calls, regardless of how unpopular they might be in the moment...

Once again, I agree. I think a huge part of today's mess comes from a total lack of historical knowledge, especially regarding our own history here in the West. Since 2014—and honestly, even before then—you can track history repeating itself step by step. Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria, Czechoslovakia... and eventually Poland. The names change, but the patterns are almost identical.

boldotter2 said:During the COVID-19 lockdowns, half of Germany's economy—and the whole European Union, really—was basically offline for two months. Now, the entire economy is running, and a good chunk of it is geared toward wartime production. That’s just a massive, undeniable difference.

Everything else? We'll get through it. Even the rising oil prices and gas shortages.

I mean, Germans were literally starving ten years after WWII.
And they spent 45 years living with half their country under Soviet occupation, constantly terrified of a conventional or nuclear war.
Even so, they managed to become one of the top economies in the world.

So, compared to all that, one cold winter is nothing. They'll order more coal, turn down the thermostat, and ramp up tank production. And they'll move forward.

That German panic? It's learned. But German discipline? That's built-in. Fatalism and defeatism just don't exist in Germany.

Just watch and learn this coming fall and winter.

Agreed. Germans are heavy hitters you should never underestimate.

William Anderson5 said:We’re seeing history repeat itself, much like the era of Adolf Hitler. Vladimir Putin is going to shut off that gas regardless of whether they have those turbines or not. In twenty years, people will laugh at Merkelov and Scholz just like they mock Neville Chamberlain today, looking back at these pathetic episodes. And let's not forget that Chamberlain claimed everything he did was "in the interest of his people." Viktor Orbán also thinks he's acting "in the interest of Canada." But what if it turns out that it was actually in Canada's best interest to show greater unity within the European Union? The greatest catastrophes happen when a leader miscalculates which move truly serves their nation and its citizens. History shows us that the biggest mistakes occur when economic interests are prioritized over political ones when they shouldn't be—in the end, the economy suffers far more than it would have if they had engaged in the economic struggle immediately, all while facing a massive political defeat...

Viktor Orbán is quite simply a bought man. It's pure corruption at the highest level; a Russian mole inside the European Union. There isn't a shred of genuine concern for Canada here.

Donna Wells2 said:We can only speculate here—since the real truth will likely stay buried under layers of military secrecy for decades—but let’s be real: every single precise HIMARS strike is primarily the result of American military satellites, AWACS surveillance, and high-level intelligence.
And let's not kid ourselves; there are definitely Ukrainian spies on the ground providing local intel too.

Spot on. There’s obviously spying going on, but hitting a warehouse with that kind of surgical precision? That's more than just local intel. 🎉

The legendary BFG

George Robinson43 said:Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s sudden Copernican shift over the last few months perfectly aligns with China's recent announcement regarding the construction of energy and transport routes through Kazakhstan toward Europe.
There is simply no way Tokayev would have found this kind of courage unless Beijing sent word that he is now under their protection.
Look at this: The President also called on The European union to cooperate in developing alternative transcontinental corridors, including the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route
These Chinese strategic plans represent a devastating blow to Russia.

I mentioned a couple of months ago that China would do whatever it takes to screw Russia over. It makes perfect sense for them to build pipelines from Kazakhstan to the European Union at their own expense; it breaks Russia's leverage while they simultaneously buy energy from Russia at dirt-cheap prices. Since no one else will be ramping up industrial production or sending cash to the West to fund their militaries—and we know how much China is pouring into its military expansion—they get the best deal in town.

China saw this coming at least a year or two ago. I started sensing something was off when I noticed the insane amounts of wheat China was pulling from the USA, Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, and Argentina, all while waiting for the Olympics to pass... I can't say for sure, but I'm convinced this whole war situation is a windfall for China. They act like they're watching Russia's back, but they're actually just exploiting the chaos without offering any real support.

Xi Jinping is just playing Putin. Let's be real: China doesn't like Russia one bit. Their history isn't pretty, but that's beside the point. Today, China is the most aggressive global power on the planet, and they'll walk over anyone to secure their dominance.

Christian Torres3 said:No way.

Exactly, tigar was an offensive weapon.

The Jagdtiger, built on essentially the same modified chassis, was more of a defensive tool. Since it had a fixed superstructure rather than a turret, it wasn't meant for maneuvering in direct combat. It was designed to dig in at a camouflaged position and rain hell from a distance, thanks to that massive 128mm gun and incredibly heavy armor—we're talking over 70 tons. No tank from that era could survive a hit from it. They didn't make many, though, and between the sheer weight and the weak engine, they never really made a mark on the battlefield.

I agree. China is effectively the world's manufacturer, and their entire business model relies on that fact. From their perspective, a weakened Russia is actually a win; it provides a steady stream of cheap raw materials they can process into high-end goods for the West, whose economy is driven by consumption. There's a perfect balance between China and the West, and I doubt China will disrupt it since they’re too dependent on the status quo.

China produces, the West buys. By making this reckless move to go to war in Ukraine, Russia has essentially placed itself under China's thumb, becoming nothing more than a supplier of cheap resources. This setup works for both China and the West. Why would China risk a conflict with Russia? They're both nuclear powers—war doesn't make sense. Meanwhile, economic subjugation has been happening for a long time, and this war just pushed it to a new level. Russia will become increasingly dependent on China (and we shouldn't overlook India as a major player here), meaning they'll be conquered without a single shot being fired.

Everyone will feel the fallout from this war, but no matter how you look at it, Russia is the biggest loser in this grand game of chess—aside from the innocent lives lost, of course.

The trailer looks incredibly cheap and bad, almost like some college kids shot a movie on a couple thousand dollars. Honestly, the CGI in the cutscenes on the PlayStation 2 looked better.

I'll still be watching it, obviously, but it looks way worse than any of Anderson's Resident Evil movies.