Well I guess the entire lies about going green and switching to renewable energy is a big BS used to reduce the dependency of the West from the Eastern oil.
Oil is Still what moves our world. The EV stupid idea is to bevome double dependent: once from Oil as a first energy generator and second from electricity used to charge the damn batteries.
The batteries don't produce nothing they wait to be charged and oil charges them.
Instead of going smart to Hydrogen, we were lied to go electric but the electricity to the batteries still comes from oil.
I saw that on ArsTechnica's website. The Slate pickup. I didn't see where it was being made. I believe it is an American company and the truck is being marketed in the US. Also if it was made in China Trump wouldn't allow it into the US.
Hand crank windows, very interesting. Many people want a basic ride with a basic price, this will meet their needs.
The US government has painted itself into a corner - yet again - by steadily reducing its willingness to put "boots on the ground". Why? Simple: when soldiers go into battle, some of them always get killed or wounded. But US politics cannot tolerate more than single figures of casualties. They can try to hush up or hide the dead and maimed troops, but there are quite sharp limits.
So, no matter how many soldiers, tanks, and guns the USA nominally has, it can't afford to use them.
Just as it can't risk putting its vaunted carriers at risk of being sunk, or its F-35s where they might meet with hostile Russian or Chinese aircraft or missiles that would easily shoot them down.
So the USA is spending more than £1 trillion every year for armed forces that it cannot afford to use.
Of course the question no-one is asking is;'Why don't Americans want to fight?' Clearly because (I think) they recognise there is nothing in it for them, the experience of Korea and Vietnam. The First and especially the Second World Wars were seen as wars to make the world a better place. With the info we have now it becomes harder to make that argument anyway as religion and race are no longer motivators.(the yellow peril etc). Added to which we have all the latest presidents' excuses to avoid going into combat personally. The first George Bush was (I think) the last US prez to actually serve his country in the military in combat. If they don't want to , why would you?
What conditions would cause a modern citizen to want to risk laying down his/her life?
Let's not forget the strange tweets that Pakistani Ministers Khawaja Muhammad Asif (Defense Minister) and Ishaq Dar (Foreign Minister) posted in April, when mediating between Iran and the Outlaw US Empire! See my two articles:
Bottom line - the AVAILABILITY of diesel fuel to supply delivery trucks in DaUS will manifest itself in a few weeks - empty grocery shelves are pretty good motivators for a wake up call!
Let’s postulate that the US could manage to mass 500k in-theatre. The US military “tooth-to-tail ratio” was circa 1:8 in Iraq, closer to 1:5 in Desert Storm, suggesting it might only have 55k to 100k trigger-puller boots on the ground.
Getting them on the ground in Iran would not be like Desert Storm or the later Iraq invasion, where Iraq simply watched the US mass troops in theatre and then roll across flat scrub land; you can be sure the Iranians (600k active, 300k reserve, plus 40k paramilitary with a T3R of circa 1:4) would not hesitate to strike any US assembly points in theatre, and if the US did get them past the mountains into Iran, US trigger-pullers would be outnumbered at least 2:1.
Conventional “wisdom” suggests the attacker should have a 3:1 advantage, though US Army research pooh poohs this for a more sophisticated correlation of forces approach, which we all saw work stunningly well in Affy and Iraq.
Well I guess the entire lies about going green and switching to renewable energy is a big BS used to reduce the dependency of the West from the Eastern oil.
Oil is Still what moves our world. The EV stupid idea is to bevome double dependent: once from Oil as a first energy generator and second from electricity used to charge the damn batteries.
The batteries don't produce nothing they wait to be charged and oil charges them.
Instead of going smart to Hydrogen, we were lied to go electric but the electricity to the batteries still comes from oil.
Stupid and willingly deceiving.
Never buy EV.
I have an EV and charge it (and supply my electricity for my house) from 7200W of PV solar panels. My electric bill runs around $20/month.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it!
You must have seen the Chinese pickup truck - brand new - $25,000!
I saw that on ArsTechnica's website. The Slate pickup. I didn't see where it was being made. I believe it is an American company and the truck is being marketed in the US. Also if it was made in China Trump wouldn't allow it into the US.
Hand crank windows, very interesting. Many people want a basic ride with a basic price, this will meet their needs.
https://arstechnica.com/features/2026/06/we-take-a-ride-in-slates-24950-electric-pickup/
Never say 'Never'!
The US government has painted itself into a corner - yet again - by steadily reducing its willingness to put "boots on the ground". Why? Simple: when soldiers go into battle, some of them always get killed or wounded. But US politics cannot tolerate more than single figures of casualties. They can try to hush up or hide the dead and maimed troops, but there are quite sharp limits.
So, no matter how many soldiers, tanks, and guns the USA nominally has, it can't afford to use them.
Just as it can't risk putting its vaunted carriers at risk of being sunk, or its F-35s where they might meet with hostile Russian or Chinese aircraft or missiles that would easily shoot them down.
So the USA is spending more than £1 trillion every year for armed forces that it cannot afford to use.
Nice.
Of course the question no-one is asking is;'Why don't Americans want to fight?' Clearly because (I think) they recognise there is nothing in it for them, the experience of Korea and Vietnam. The First and especially the Second World Wars were seen as wars to make the world a better place. With the info we have now it becomes harder to make that argument anyway as religion and race are no longer motivators.(the yellow peril etc). Added to which we have all the latest presidents' excuses to avoid going into combat personally. The first George Bush was (I think) the last US prez to actually serve his country in the military in combat. If they don't want to , why would you?
What conditions would cause a modern citizen to want to risk laying down his/her life?
Nice summary of the affairs Mr Welsh - can you convey this to Trump or Burnham?
Pakistan: Hmmm what game are they playing? Quite nervous about this.
Let's not forget the strange tweets that Pakistani Ministers Khawaja Muhammad Asif (Defense Minister) and Ishaq Dar (Foreign Minister) posted in April, when mediating between Iran and the Outlaw US Empire! See my two articles:
- https://geopolitiq.substack.com/i/193773433/other-updates-from-iran-pakistan-and-palestine
- https://geopolitiq.substack.com/p/the-fake-ceasefire-dead-on-arrival
But their futbol team’s not in the finals, so…that…
Bottom line - the AVAILABILITY of diesel fuel to supply delivery trucks in DaUS will manifest itself in a few weeks - empty grocery shelves are pretty good motivators for a wake up call!
Yes, the Azov crowd was 'integrated' into the Ukrainian military too..
Let’s postulate that the US could manage to mass 500k in-theatre. The US military “tooth-to-tail ratio” was circa 1:8 in Iraq, closer to 1:5 in Desert Storm, suggesting it might only have 55k to 100k trigger-puller boots on the ground.
Getting them on the ground in Iran would not be like Desert Storm or the later Iraq invasion, where Iraq simply watched the US mass troops in theatre and then roll across flat scrub land; you can be sure the Iranians (600k active, 300k reserve, plus 40k paramilitary with a T3R of circa 1:4) would not hesitate to strike any US assembly points in theatre, and if the US did get them past the mountains into Iran, US trigger-pullers would be outnumbered at least 2:1.
Conventional “wisdom” suggests the attacker should have a 3:1 advantage, though US Army research pooh poohs this for a more sophisticated correlation of forces approach, which we all saw work stunningly well in Affy and Iraq.