How did Isreal get a nuclear weapon? Did they conceal their actions and lie to the USA about it? Why is that ok?
Over the next few weeks, keep your eyes on the Middle East
- Thread starter HunterPKP
- Start date
That’s debatable and a broader discussion on the Overton window and whether or not affiliation with corporate dems really qualifies as left in the political sense but all of that is beyond the scope of this thread since I was just commenting sarcastically in lieu of the common dismissals here.
You do technically have some latitude on use of those funds depending on a few factors. Generally, moreso when assets frozen belong to individuals or non-state orgs.
- Students have to be taught reading comprehension first.
- State standards (depending where) are not always built on depth but more so on breadth of information/facts in particular Social Studies. When I was teaching secondary school, gen ed history classes were still primarily two sections. Pre-Renaissance and Post. Funny thing about post Renaissance, it is still going.
- There is only so much a teacher can undo if the echo chamber at home, social media, and the school bus is contradicting things taught/learned in the classroom.
Nothing of this changes your point. Just a tangent in the middle of a thread on the Middle East.
The lack of information given out by the government on actual damages suffered is amazing. I’m going to link a video that I believe to be pretty accurate about the satellite imagery. I don’t necessarily agree with some of the statements made by the reporter. But , people were asking for some information. I, personally do feel like it’s not going well, this video is a week old. The government has since shutdown the open source satellite imagery used in the report.
I have been extremely concerned about this. I was posting to the main board and got told I was a retard.
France helped with the construction of dimona, but Israel completed after the split with France. Israel was by that point the more advanced nation on that front. Plus, dimona was “upfitted” multiple times after the split. It was the UK, Norway, and - to a lesser extent - Argentina.
Not sure where this fits into the various conflicting narratives, but you can't convince me that we didn't want them to have it.
You do understand that battle damage is immensely valuable to the enemy and that as such in general all battle damage assessment is classified by default?
I do realize that, and I also strongly believe that China gave them the coordinates for the targets, and gave them damage assessments, that didn’t depend on open source satellite imagery. I also believe that we have evacuated these bases and dispersed the soldiers into local hotels, thus explaining the random highrise hotel targets.
JFK surely didn’t - his friction with Israel is well documented. LBJ and other government officials on the other hand…
From what I can find we did not want them to have it and they deceived us. Possibly even stole us government secrets. But somehow they are an ally. Maybe Iran just needs to start paying off our politicians.
Russia/China are giving Iran updated info, they don’t need to use commercial satellites. This information is being suppressed so that Americans will not get upset.
Don't you think Trump's own language is not helping matters? Declaring premature victory, not laying out clear objective to the american people?
I like the WSJ a lot - but NEVER the opinion articles.
pretty wild development. guy was 100% MAGA (to the point of being an election denier) but just resigned.
Renewable capacity exceeded fossil fuel capacity in China for the first time in late 2025/early 2026. US isn't likely to pass that threshold until sometime in the early/mid 2030s. A lot has been written about how much China depends on Iranian oil but the current geopolitical climate is only going to increase the rate of the transition to renewable energy. China is already lapping the world in EV production which exploded post-covid as well.
Climate change aside, I'm surprised a similar movement hasn't happened in the US based simply on the national security implications of having large oil fields that are only economically viable when oil is $90+ a barrel. But I think bigger picture, China is willing to deal with some short-term pain and avoid getting involved with Iran and let the US (fail to) deal with it.
If I have to choose between setting national energy policy based on wisdom from China or Tommy Norris, Tommy Norris will win everytime.
Serious response. Questions I would have
- What % of military resources still require oil? Trucks, Ships, Jets, etc. Not for just fuel, but lubricants and parts
- What other resources/end products does the Peoples Republic require oil/petroleum?
I had to google who Tommy Norris is, but I laughed once I figured it out.
So as it stands today, you can't totally remove oil from the global supply lines. Like you said, the military needs a lot of it but even civilian applications like air travel and shipping require oil and will likely need it for the foreseeable future. You've also got oil-derived industries like plastics and fertilizer, as well as other chemical precursors, which rely on oil. The flip side is nearly half of the oil consumption in the US is through gasoline. Likewise roughly 80% (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3) of domestic energy production is by burning fossil fuels. These areas represent the most readily targetable by renewable energy sources. Once you factor in the price of fuel along with other associated costs, it's already cheaper to use alternative energies like nuclear or hydro as opposed to LNG or coal (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html).
Then there's the fact that while the US is a net exporter of oil, most of the oil produced in the US is light shale oil whereas our refineries are optimized to refine heavy grade crude. Additionally, these refineries are primarily located in California, Texas, and Louisiana. Thinking from a strictly geopolitical and national security lens, having critical industry that's 1) heavily concentrated in a few geographic areas and 2) dependent on factors external to the US for cheap, secure, and steady access for inputs is a significant risk. And that's before even considering that a lot of oil production in the US only becomes economically viable once oil is already expensive, which doesn't do much to help prices for the average consumer. You take solar and wind energy generation which is only going to become cheaper and more efficient as time goes on and spread it out across the country, you're lessening the risk that a single event can significantly effect domestic energy production and prices. Hurricane Harvey caused as much problems as it did because the Houston metro area refines 15% of US oil on any given day. Galveston is another major refinery and petrochemical hub, and has also been hit by recent natural disasters.
In short you're offloading risks by spreading them out across the country, since there's not a single place in the US that can't generate at least one of wind, solar, or geothermal energy. You'd also be creating new jobs and industries in rural communities that are in sore need of them, since that's likely where the biggest wind or solar farms are going to be. And you'll be making needed improvements to the nation's infrastructure since 1) they're in sore need of upgrades in the first place and 2) modernized infrastructure will make the energy transportation more efficient, saving money in the long run. Just as an example, SC ranks 21st in the US for energy production and is a net exporter thanks to the amount of nuclear energy the state produces. The state is SOL if it really wanted to increase this since it's not like we're sitting on massive untapped oil reserves. Investing in wind and solar capacity would create jobs in areas that need them and make money for citizens and the state while lowering energy costs for consumers in the state and region.
The timing of the war with Iran isn't great for China, but the long term consequences aren't as bad as they would have been 20 years ago and will only drive their domestic policy to further decrease their dependence on foreign energy imports. The country is rapidly adopting EVs which is going to diminish the amount of oil they do export which has to go to domestic gasoline consumption and they're becoming less dependent on oil/coal/LNG for domestic energy production as well. The reality is that in another 20 years or so the Gulf States/Middle East could become largely irrelevant on the global stage because global oil consumption is only going to go down as cheaper, better alternatives emerge and states won't be dependent on the Middle East for their energy needs. It's why the Gulf States in particular are massively investing in logistics hubs and green energy production to ensure their countries can remain economically viable moving forward. NEOM in Saudi Arabia gets a lot of the headlines but Masdar City in the UAE is a similar project with a more realistic scope that's likely indicative of what the future holds for the region.
TLDR ChatGPT Version for those whom reading is hard:
Your argument is broadly this:
• Oil cannot be fully eliminated in the near–medium term (military, aviation, shipping, petrochemicals, fertilizers).
• The biggest opportunity for transition is:
• gasoline (transport)
• electricity generation (currently fossil-heavy)
• Renewables + nuclear are increasingly cost-competitive and scalable.
• U.S. oil system has structural vulnerabilities:
• refinery mismatch (light vs heavy crude)
• geographic concentration (Gulf Coast)
• Distributed energy (solar/wind/etc.) reduces systemic risk and improves resilience.
• Energy transition has economic upside (jobs, infrastructure, rural growth).
• Geopolitically, declining oil dependence weakens Middle East leverage over time.
• China and Gulf states are already adapting to this shift.
Overall: Your logic is coherent, mostly accurate, and strategically sound.
chatgpt.com
Your argument is broadly this:
• Oil cannot be fully eliminated in the near–medium term (military, aviation, shipping, petrochemicals, fertilizers).
• The biggest opportunity for transition is:
• gasoline (transport)
• electricity generation (currently fossil-heavy)
• Renewables + nuclear are increasingly cost-competitive and scalable.
• U.S. oil system has structural vulnerabilities:
• refinery mismatch (light vs heavy crude)
• geographic concentration (Gulf Coast)
• Distributed energy (solar/wind/etc.) reduces systemic risk and improves resilience.
• Energy transition has economic upside (jobs, infrastructure, rural growth).
• Geopolitically, declining oil dependence weakens Middle East leverage over time.
• China and Gulf states are already adapting to this shift.
Overall: Your logic is coherent, mostly accurate, and strategically sound.Oil Dependency and Alternatives
ChatGPT helps you get answers, find inspiration, and be more productive.
Someone was claiming that the US has been hiding battle damage via delaying commercial satellite imagery. You maid a point about operational security. My point was that Russia/China already know about the damage so the only reason the US would “hide it” is for the American public
They definitely did that and stole the uranium from us. But they get to do whatever they want. Genocide a people for example
This is exactly why the reflexive backlash against Biden’s energy policies, EV credits, CHIPS act, etc was decidedly not “America First”. Over the last 18 months we’ve managed to totally squander excellent energy and strategic positioning. We have a major principal-agent issue in our government where decisions are often made based on immediate return on investment for private rent seekers and not on the long term benefit of the working and tax paying public.
I was never against the CHIPS act. EV credits to me were not smart. We need to focus more on building out EV infrastructure vs trying to get people in cars.
We definitely need more infrastructure but there were substantial (30% up to $100k per charger) credits available for charging infrastructure. The idea was to push both adoption and infrastructure investment concurrently and sprint to the 2030 targets.
My counter argument would be if the demand is there the money will follow. The infrastructure will not come without the demand. EV credits would/could put more cars on the road. More cars would create more demand where private money will be more than happy to invest.
Not saying you're wrong, just a another way to look at the issue.
i don't want to trigger any of the bad bunny safespace folks in here, but this is objectively hilarious 
I leased one this past year right before the tax credits/incentives expired. First car I’ve ever leased. Audi A6 Sportback.
charging has been the least of my worries here in Charleston. I usually charge once every 7-10 days. 20-30 minutes either before work or at lunch.
We have a diesel for road trips. Maybe I’ll post a formal review in another thread.
Eh. He’s a Tulsi guy who primaried a Republican incumbent for a Congressional seat on behalf of Trump, defeated her, but then lost the general election and the GOP still hasn’t gotten that seat back. He’s basically another one of the ideological contrarians who glommed onto Trump who are getting the full Trump experience right now. This is exactly the kind of thing you’d expect from one of these people.
Last edited:
It’s always been basically an open secret. They always say they don’t have one, but everybody assumes they do.
Last edited: