Gwythian Prins is quite right to express his concerns about the impact of Net Zero on the U.K.’s national security in a piece published the other day on this site, ‘Net Zero Threatens National Security‘.
I’ve been racking my brains to think of a time in human history when a kingdom or state consciously chose to retro-equip its army with inferior technology or compromise its capability by seeking to introduce unreliable equipment. And I can’t think of one – what can I think of is all those who lost because they didn’t keep up.
Back in the middle of the 16th century BC, northern ancient Egypt was controlled by a group called the ‘shepherd kings’ or Hyksos. They’d invaded from what is now Syria and pushed back native rulers, establishing their own regime. They’d achieved this with one very simple tactic: they had chariots.
Now, the Hyksos chariots were a bit cumbersome and seem to have had four warriors in them. But when the Egyptians didn’t have chariots, the Hyksos behemoths were cutting edge.
When an Egyptian leader called Ahmose materialised on a cometh-the-moment, cometh-the-man basis, he didn’t try to push the Hyksos out with slower and more cumbersome chariots. Indeed, the Egyptians didn’t have any chariots.
So they started making chariots. And what’s more, they made their chariots smaller, lighter and faster so that they could fight a Bronze Age Blitzkrieg war. Ahmose led these vehicles into battle and, just like Heinz Guderian’s Blitzkrieg war of 1940, he pulverised the Hyksos whose chariots had become obsolete in an instant.
The blistering Ahmose established the 18th Dynasty, reunified Egypt and ushered in its greatest line of kings who presided over an unprecedented era of wealth, power, and – most important of all – national security.
One of the last of the kings of that dynasty was Tutankhamun in the late 14th century BC, whose tomb was famously found almost intact in 1922. On his body was an iron dagger, made of iron from a meteorite. At this time this spectacularly hard metal, which cut through bronze like a wire through cheese, was beyond the wit of man to smelt. Only a king could own one.
Within a few centuries the secret of the high temperatures needed had been discovered and humanity, for good or ill, entered the Iron Age. No-one went to war with a Bronze Age sword after that unless he wanted to lose or be conquered. The Roman Empire was an Iron Age state.
When the Romans went to war against the Carthaginians in the First Punic War (264-241 BC) they were not a naval power, even though the Carthaginians were. The Romans used a wrecked Carthaginian ship as a template and built their own, adding improvements in the form of the corvus boarding ramp. Yes, it was trial and error, but they won their first engagement with the Carthaginians in the Battle of Mylae in 260 BC because their ships were better.
It was a long and hard struggle with catastrophes along the way, but Rome won that war, and the next two wars against Carthage and ended up as the most powerful naval force in the Mediterranean.
There are so many other stories like this that I could go on for hours. The principle is always the same and the dynamic is the process of technological development, which at its fastest is and always has been driven by warfare. The unavoidable fact that it is impossible to stand still or diminish the effectiveness of a nation’s armed forces without making that nation a sitting duck for a more ambitious nation’s greed.
Yes, of course arms reduction treaties can and do exist, and they’ve been a mechanism for trying to inhibit the recklessness of unrestrained militarisation by encouraging mutual compliance in stepping back. They can and do work – up to a point. But there has never been a situation where everyone is prepared to play ball at the same time.
In the world of realpolitik there is simply no conceivable possibility of any serious nation unilaterally trying to cripple its capacity either to manufacture the raw materials or the hardware with which to defend itself, and expecting to survive. Extraordinarily though, that is quite literally what seems to be happening in Britain today.
There is no future for Net Zero in warfare, the armed forces or manufacturing. We cannot defend ourselves with electric tanks made of papier-maché steel, to use them as a metaphor for any other aspect of military technology.
We can’t have a situation in which during a war our factories are at the mercy of windpower generated by turbines in the middle of a sea beyond us to defend in a meaningful way or can’t function at full bore simply because it’s a cloudy day. Nor can we depend on an energy source that isn’t up to the job, however much of it we have, just as in the same way the Bronze Age fizzled out in the face of iron.
It might be better for all of us if we were all susceptible to such limiting factors, but the world doesn’t work like that. The ‘enemy’, whomever that turns out to be and whenever that is, will kit itself out with whatever will make it most likely that it wins and seizes what it wants, whether that is territory or resources or just power. And if that means the enemy goes to war with faster, more reliable and more powerful equipment then that’s exactly what its troops will have to hand.
Look at how the Germans spent years preparing themselves for 1939. That they ended up losing isn’t the point. In 1939-40 they were streets ahead of other European countries, which is why their advance was terrifyingly fast. They lost in 1945 because by then the Allies (which means the U.S.) had poured unlimited resources into record-breaking technological development and manufacturing capability on an unprecedented scale. The Germans probably had some of the best equipment, but they couldn’t produce it in sufficient quantities, despite resorting to synthetic oil. And that’s just as important as the equipment itself. The Tiger tank might have been as good as ten Shermans, but the Allies had eleven Shermans.
It may be an unpalatable aspect of human society, but if there’s anything that history tells you, it is what people are like. And in a world of nation states, you must be in a position to defend yourself. I hope beyond anything else there isn’t going to be a war, but one of the best ways of making sure there is one is to make yourself look like a pushover.
Cyber assaults are all too likely in the future. That’s a whole other story too, but it won’t change the fact that if we ever need to pull ourselves together and fight back then we’ll have to kiss Net Zero goodbye on the spot. The only question now is whether it’s already too late.
Here’s hoping we don’t have to find out the hard way.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Solar powered tanks no?
…with solar powered night-vision equipment.
Reggie Perrin was ahead of his time. Bottomless ashtrays anyone?
‘Night-time” solar is in the earliest stages of development…….By leveraging our knowledge of how to design and optimise solar cells and borrowing materials from the existing mid-infrared photodetector community, we hope for rapid progress towards delivering the dream of solar power at night.’
Dr Michael Nielsen 30 June 2023
He was listening to the Irishmen Paddy and Mick who wanted to fly to the sun at night so they would not get burned.
I love these ideas, because they follow the thinking of the modern electric vehicle brigade. The immense lack of any knowledge of science and engineering is so obvious that even a small child would not be confused. The latest thing is of course the wonderful electric buses in London! So green that three burned completely last week because the batteries failed. The heat from these warmed London by an unmeasurably small amount, but the heavy metal pollution was probably more than all the traffic in the city for a year!
Wind-powered tanks are far superior because wind frequently blows when the sun doesn’t shine!
But if we apply wind theory to sunshine we could say categorically that the sun is always shining somewhere.
Solar powered politicians? Oh no they already have a power source —-Wind
‘One of the last of the kings of that dynasty was Tutankhamun in the late 14th century BC’
Do keep up Guy!
Under the New Chronology, King Tut was a contemporary of King David, some 300 years later. You’ll be telling us Rameses the Great was Yul Brynner next.
‘….the Allies (which means the U.S.)’
We should certainly not understate the role of this country in winning WW2.
Amongst many other major contributions, British escorted convoys, with much British materiel, enabled the Russian victories in the east, acknowledged by Stalin.
The RR Merlin permitted the P 51 Mustang to establish air superiority over Germany.
Alanbrooke’s North Africa/Italian strategy contributed, in major part, to the success of the invasion of Normandy and eventual defeat of Germany thereafter.
Slim gave the Japanese a good stuffing at Imphal, Kohima and elsewhere, shattering the illusion of Japanese military prowess and securing India’s borders.
Slim was also the man who said to Churchill, after the great man had expounded at some length on his party’s chances at the imminent election, “Well, prime minister, I know one thing. My army won’t be voting for you.”
One can only imagine what Alanbrooke and Slim, Britain’s two greatest commanders of the twentieth century, would have said about the common cold coronavirus panic, ‘nut zero’ and the state of this country’s armed forces today.
And Britain’s not anywhere near the industrial capacity it had in 1939 to 45. We are a tiny little pimple of a manufacturing nation now. And thanks to nuts zero communist destruction, we have no primary steel manufacturing capability. The decline of our IQ has made it into poltics.
An island nation does not need any tanks to defend itself.
It ideally needs a proper coast guard/Navy and coastal defences, one (cheap aka land based) nuclear warhead and a foreign office and diplomatic service worth that name.
The UK at the moment has only (too much of) one those 3, and that’ll already be sufficient for it never, ever being attacked.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear…….
The tank is simply a protected mobile direct fire weapon.
Any defence will require direct fire weapons and mobile protected direct fire weapons are a great deal more useful than immobile direct fire weapons.
Those nuclear warheads didn’t seem to protect the Falklands all that well…….
The German army of 1939 was actually pretty poorly equipped, mostly with Panzer I and Panzer II tanks which were originally only supposed to be used for training. The more capable Panzer III (tank destroyer) and Panzer IV (infrantry support tank) weren’t yet available in numbers, that’s why the Wehrmacht used pretty much all foreign tanks it could get its hands on. Conscription was reintroduced in 1935 in Germany, active service lasted for two years. This means in 1939, only three generations of fully-trained reservists were available. No higher officer which had served during world war I (probably all of them) could have believed this to be sufficient to fight another major European war.
There’s something seriously fishy about the official history of the start of the second world war.
The best equipment in the world could not have saved Gamelin’s 1940 plan.
‘….. he was unable to meet the actual German main effort in the area of Sedan, as the superior enemy concentration of force at the right time and place, coupled with a high operational tempo, shredded the Allied long war strategy and revealed Gamelin’s campaign plan as a paper tiger.’
‘With no serious consideration of contingency plans, Gamelin had gambled everything on a German most likely course of action that pleased his political masters but proved to be nothing more than his own wishful illusion. In the end, the Allied plan did not survive first contact with the enemy.’
A list of the stellar German High Command shows how it was that Manstein’s brilliant plan was also brilliantly executed:
Army Group A: Von Rundstedt (COS von Manstein)
XIX Panzerkorps: Guderian
VII Panzer Division: Rommel
Army Group A had 1753 Panzer III and Panzer IV, many of them handed over from Army Group B conducting a diversionary operation in the low countries.
The aborted 1938 Oster coup might have prevented the whole thing but for the no hoper, Chamberlain; a politician ahead of his time. He would have found himself very much at home in a twenty first century British government.
‘In September 1938, Europe stood on the brink of war. For months, Hitler had been demanding the cession of the Sudetenland, the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia. Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had dramatically taken his first-ever trip by air for a personal summit to resolve the crisis with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Here the two men agreed on a timetable for the peaceful transfer of the disputed lands to the Reich. Then, a week later, Hitler abruptly upped his demands. The British Cabinet balked, the fleet was mobilized, and in London trenches were dug in public parks, gas masks distributed and anti-aircraft guns erected. “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is,” lamented Chamberlain in a legendary radio broadcast, that such preparations were necessary “because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Even as Chamberlain spoke, a small group of men was being secretly sequestered in various apartments close to Hitler’s Chancellery on the Wilhelmstrasse. At dawn the next morning — Sept. 28 — the conspirators assembled at Army headquarters and were given arms, ammunition and hand grenades. War was expected at any moment. When it happened, their mission was to attack the Chancellery, overpower Hitler’s SS bodyguard and arrest the Fuhrer. They were also to provoke an incident and make sure that Hitler was killed. Top army leaders had arranged for troops outside the capital to march into the city in support of the coup.
All was ready when sensational news arrived. Hitler had backed down and agreed to a four-power conference in Munich proposed by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. In London, the House of Commons cheered, and the nation breathed a sigh of relief. It was a stunning victory for diplomacy — although not for the Czechs — but within a year, it had proven to be the hollow sham that such fierce critics as Churchill predicted.
To the conspirators in Berlin, news of the Munich conference came as a crushing blow. The war they were convinced would bring disaster to Germany and thus justify their coup had dissolved like the snow in spring. There was nothing to do but stand down and wait for the next chance for action. The rest is the history we all know………’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2003/08/10/what-might-have-been/1295835a-c632-4c77-87f1-bb9a66dc9476/
Assuming numbers from Wikipedia are correct, mass production of Panzer III started with model F in 1939. Until then, only 65 of models A – E had been built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III
Healy, Mark, Ed. Prigent, John &. Panzerwaffe: The Campaigns in the West 1940. Vol. 1 refers.
‘The Germans were well trained and well equipped. Army Group A contained 1,753 tanks mostly heavy Panzer III and Panzer IVs. German forces consisted of the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Panzer Divisions. In total, Guderian mustered some sixty thousand men, twenty-two thousand vehicles, 771 tanks and 141 artillery pieces. He could also call upon 1,470 aircraft. The French in the Sedan sector really did not stand a chance.’
There’s already an error in this text: Panzer III was a medium tank, not a heavy tank. The Germans didn’t really have heavy tanks before they built them in response to encountering Russian heavy tanks. The way Panzer III and IV are mentioned in this text is also odd: III was tank destroyer armed with a 37mm ATG. IV was an infantry support tank armed with a short-barrelled howitzer for use against unarmored targets. There’s no reason why both would be used together. The Germans also fielded significant numbers of Panzer 38(t), a Czech design similar to the German Panzer III but with the advantage that it had already reached mass production stage before the war commenced.
While Wikipedia is a questionable source in all politically contented areas and this is obviously one, I still consider it vastly more trustworthy than a British author of popular history books targetted at an English audience.
The Mark Healey reference is one of the Wikipedia references for the Sedan text.
They are not described as ‘heavy tanks’ simply heavy in comparison to the lighter types.
‘For the offensive, the (German High Command) gave Army Group A the most powerful concentration of German armour and motorised forces. Although Army Group B was allocated 808 tanks, over 1⁄4 of the total German tanks, they were largely light tanks such as the Panzer I and Panzer II, as opposed to the Panzer III and Panzer IV. The heavier tanks were handed over to Army Group A as it required the best machines to conduct the critical operation at Sedan. Army Group A contained 1,753 tanks of the heavier types.’
According to the Wikipedia page on the battle of Sedan¹, it involved the 1st, 2nd and 10th Panzer division with a total of 746 tanks. 409 of these were (54.8%) Panzer I, Panzer II or originally Czech Panzer 35(t). Only 215 (28.8%) where Panzer III. That’s not consistent with the production numbers on the Panzer III page but consistent with my original text.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)
‘….expected weights for a given tank type vary over time; a medium tank of 1939 could weigh less than a light tank of 1945.
While originally based on weight, the light, medium, and heavy classifications expanded based on tactical use.’
Army Group A had three armies and a panzergruppe.
The panzergruppe had three army corps, of which only one, XIX corps, was commanded by Guderian.
XIX corps comprised 1st, 2nd and 10th panzer divisions.
XIX corps comprised 771 tanks.
Army Group A comprised 1,753 tanks, mainly of the heavier types.
We need to remember though that this article really isn’t about tanks. —–It is about Green absurdity, something you Germans know all about with your 40,000 silly wind turbines and your ridiculously high electricity bills. We seem to be following you down that silly path.
Yes. But lying about history works by inserting subordinate clauses into texts which are supposedly about other topics. The majority of German soldiers going to war in France where hastily trained infantrymen equipped with old-fashioned weapons (bolt-action carbines) and relying on horse-drawn carriages for supplies. The majority of German tanks where outdated light types loosley modelled on the WWI-era French Renault FT which were armed with rifle-caliber machine guns and armour-protected against infantry and machine fire only. 36% of the more modern ones where infantry support tanks equipped with a cannon only suitable to combat field fortifications (short-barrelled 2.95″ howitzer). Even the ones supposed to be used to fight other tanks (Panzer III) where armed with a technically obsolete light ATG (1.5″) which was useless against more heavily armoured tanks like the French Char B1 or the British Matilda tanks.
I’ve never seen a remotely convincing explanation of why the British government gave that moronic commitment to go to war for Poland.
Chamberlain thought, in concert with France, it would deter.
‘For Sir Alexander Cadogan, FO Permanent Under-Secretary, by 20 March 1939 Chamberlain had ‘reached the cross-roads’. Poland ‘set up a signpost’ for the Prime Minister, despite his desire for peace, his reluctance to trust the Russians and doubts about American willingness to abandon neutrality. Giving a public guarantee would end the ‘agonising doubts and indecisions’ that had beset him in his efforts to secure the appeasement of Europe. ‘The die is now cast and Hitler may bomb us. But I think we’ve done right.’
France would have guaranteed the borders of Czechoslovakia.
A total shambles…..
Not a convincing explanation because it doesn’t involve British interests..
Hey, keep it civil.
This also needs to be considered in the light of the following: The invasion of Poland was a joint German – Russian operation and ended with the 4th partition of Poland, this time, between Germany and Russia. After the war, Poland became a Russian-occupied communist satellite state for decades.
But the answers is obviously rather simple (speculative, though): The western allied powers didn’t give a hoot about Poland except insofar it was useful for permanently weakening Germany. After the second world war, it wasn’t really useful for that anymore as Russia had essentially reconquered it (and driven all Germans out of the area). A neat and perfectly working replacement.
I recently finished reading Peter Hitchens’ The Phoney Victory.
Among other things, he argues the promise to Poland was used as a pretext for us to go to war based on an essentially irrational, idealistic, nostalgic impulse. A war we were unequipped to fight. The hubris of a dying empire.
He claims that the romantic mythology of plucky Britain taking on evil is a sham.and we probably bumped Poland into war by giving them false confidence.
Off topic for this thread, but he also argued that our government knowingly aimed to kill civilians by systematic area bombing since we were too inaccurate to target infrastructure. Bomber Harris was authorised by Churchill and the cabinet.
It’s hard to summarise a book in a few paragraphs but it seemed to me well argued with plenty of first hand material. I’m inclined to believe much of what he says.
Quite interesting, for me, to look at contemporary writing on this subject.
‘Probably, in Hitler’s own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed of the two. But Russia’s turn will come when England is out of the picture—that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it.’
‘Suppose that Hitler’s programme could be put into effect. What he envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of ‘living room’ (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts)’
‘Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is a good slogan, but at this moment ‘Better an end with horror than a horror without end’ is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.’
https://bookmarks.reviews/george-orwells-1940-review-of-mein-kampf/
I don’t believe Orwell bought in to any notion of ‘the hubris of a dying empire’.
Contemporary thought had no doubt that Britain was, itself, facing a German onslaught….and the guarantee to Poland was simply a bluff that failed.
Had Russia not signed a pact with Germany in 1939, once again, a military coup in Germany might or might not (who can say) have been out of the question.
I’m in agreement with Nearhorburian on your use of copy/paste in conversations. I’d far prefer your voice to a wall of text.
Yes this can be a pain in the neck sometimes unless you are only including a few quotes that depend on accuracy. I prefer to use my own words and to give my own opinion.
‘Probably, in Hitler’s own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards.
That’s obviously a direct contradiction of the actual text, but great men don’t care about puny details like that. In Mein Kampf, Hitler sets out two options for a future European war, go against Russia while being allied with England or go against England while being allied with Russia, the former being strongly preferred as there was nothing useful to gain from the second choice. He didn’t believe in the value of colonies in Africa and Asia, but wanted to conquer land in the east for future settlements by Germans.
Can you please comment on Blitzed by Norman Ohler? I found it fascinating and accept that they were probably all off their heads one way or another. (All sides I mean).
I don’t know the book. But what we nowadays know as war on drugs and everything associated with it didn’t exist prior to the end of the second world war (except maybe in the USA, don’t know). This was just stuff people would buy in a pharmacy/ drugstore when they wanted to have it and could afford it. Open Cocaine usage was absolutely common-place. Judging from a review I mostly read, this books seems to be an attempt to retrofit our bizarre prejudices about forbidden substances and the people who use them onto a period where they didn’t yet exist.
But they had Rommel.
“It’s what people are like….” true enough. But we have moved into, what, 5th generation warfare? We no longer even know who the enemy is, but it’s not who the media make it out to be. You need weapons to control populations who don’t even realise they are war, that way they don’t know how to fight back. So maybe governments just play sustainability games as part of procurement and don’t really care if it works or not. Someone else is in charge now.
Quite often the enemy is right here. The “Enemy Within”
They talk about environmentally friendly bullet casings and how their use can help protect natural habitats. You just executed a dude by shooting him in the head but that’s okay because you used a biodegradable munition. This is the nature of the monstrous and radical evil of our time. Any understanding of the nature of warfare and energy makes the idea of a ‘green’ war laughable. It isn’t war if you’re thinking about trifles like that.
RW’s comment about wind powered tanks made me think of this
The Convert-a-Car | Wacky Races Wiki | Fandom
I think it’s quite apposite for the times in which we live
About the Convert-a-Car
The Convert-a-Car is the number 3 car. It is a wagon/plane/boat-shaped car equipped with a multitude of gadgets and which can change into just about anything that moves.
Among the things his car has transformed into are a motorcycle, a jetpack, a flying carpet on wheels, a forklift, an arrow, a bicycle built for two, a bowling ball, a basketball, a blimp, a rocket and even an exact duplicate of the Slag Brothers driving the Bouldermobile (when the real Slag Brothers saw this, they cheered their doubles on![1]).
Twenty years ago I was told to be ashamed about having erections so I stopped having erections. These days you need to feel really about yourself is you dare so much as fart, You see how they have tightened their grip bit by bit. First of all they rob you of your cock, castrate you. Then they wait a few years until you become pliable.
It has already happened look at how the sexes talk to each other these days.They’ve been at it since 1914 and it has gotten ever more sophisticated. We don’t really understand what it is like to be faced by a fierce and determined enemy because we have moved so far away from our own assurity and sense of reality. I would be very cautious about entering into conflict. You can’t just pretend that your country is held together by some ineffable thing. Russian intelligence says that the people of the UK cannot help themselves against the empire and they need some sort of outside interference,
You won’t be war-ready in five years time or ten years time We had the saving grace of being an island but that has been breached. The British population in 5 years time will be very different from what it is now and that will be because of direct orders from the overlords. They have almost completed the job. So you need to have a a complete appraisal of the facts, When did you sign your own death warrant? I don’t know but there is always room and time for circumspection. I don’t know if it is too late but I would say that it likely is.
Yes my lads we not only have the best tanks but we have the most carbon efficient tanks and therefore God will bestow a special grace upon us. And then reality appears and you are blown to kingdom come. Would you trust a succubus on your chest? So why would you trust anyone who talked about zapping your energy?
It will be the same afterwards. Most people saying they never saw it coming and can you please help them. We have betrayed our own humanity and we will receive no mercy in the time to come.
Tanks are primarily offensive weapons. They are overkill in a defensive situation, where mobile artillery and guided weapons are of more use. the attrition in armour on both sides in Ukraine has shown just how vulnerable tanks can be to drones and mines.
The Russians have shown the relative ease with which an electricity grid can be disrupted. So an army of electric tanks will need new support divisions equipped with deisel generators to recharge the tanks.
Now here’s an idea, why not mount a deisel generator in a tank to power the electric motors directly, and cut out the tons of internal batteries that would be needed to power the darned things.
Good article. And, along with this problem, the promoting of ethnically advantaged people and womyn, over competent white males, Britain’s armed forces are now a joke. The airforce I joined in 1982 was a shadow of its 1960s self, but it was light years ahead of the woke shambles that is the RAF today. Real men, with moustaches, twstoerone, toxic masculinity (which made times in the bar great fun), and a strong desire for female company, inhabited the RAF. Females in the WRAF were beginning to infest more male appropriate roles, so the rot had started a bit.
Britain is finished until a MAN of steel arises snd has about 10 clear years in power to fix this country’s terrible problems. Otherwise Britain is the small, timid boy in the playground who is going to become the target of all the bullies.
Shameful politicians should be tried and jailed for their crimes. That, for me, includes digging up the dead ones and firing their remains into space – a la Charles II and Cromwell’s body.
Your Eco Socialist question starts now———How many things that are classed as Green are better and cheaper than their alternative? —tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock ———–Sorry your time is up ———The correct answer is “There are none”
Decarbonise and bring social justice. Does this mean we will fight wars where no one ever gets hurt? A kind of “Sustainable” war where there are no winners. We all get to win the war and have memorial services for the dead and wounded that are still alive and have no injuries. A kind of poppy day for the heroes who are still living next door. ——–If you think this is absurd you ain’t seen nuthin yet when it comes to everything Green
I have just done a quick “back of the envelope” design for an electric tank. I assume we cannot allow lesser performance so we need a 2000HP electric motor, and as a diesel tank can operate for at least 12 hours without a refuel we need a battery with a capacity of about 1000 times an electric car. This battery will weigh about 500 Tons, so will have to go in a trailer, behind the tank, which will now only be able to move at walking pace due to the weight. It will not be armoured because we cannot afford the weight! This follows exactly the description of a looser product!