AnimeSuki Forums

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2013-02-28, 01:03

You still haven't solved the issue that for a given amount of funding, solar panels on Earth is still more economical than some Space installation. There is no reason to do things the hard way unless we had to. Earth energy collectors are cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper to transfer energy to where it is needed. You are trying to invent teleportation before we mastered flight.

Dr. Casey · 2013-02-28, 01:12

Spoiler:

I hope that many of the posts made in this thread can be added to this list some day.

Ithekro · 2013-02-28, 01:18

Well if some a bunch of rich folk are trying to set up a Asteroid mining company and another is trying to send a couple to Mars in the next five years, than the seeds could be set for inventing an industry up there rather than down here.

One of the struggling things has been seeing profit in the stars. Such a large scale project would be such an endevour. Sure you could do it cheaper on Earth, but grand scale projects can attract people to them. Setting up solar panels on houses does not generally draw much attention to itself, nor is it for sure able to cover the amount of area of the planet's surface required for the majority of the Human race's energy needs in the long term. Plus getting all the stuff to work in orbit would basically set up an interplanetary economy (at least as far as mining operations, depending on were one needs to go to find the metals needed in the amounts needed). The manufacture would be either in orbit, or in a low gravity enviroment (Lunar factories most likely if the materials can be fabricated in such conditions without having to drag them down to Earth just to send them back up again). Plus their would need to be an infrustructure and companies to do repair work on the Array. There is profit to be had once the ball is rolling, though it will take a good deal of time for the investors to get their money back (much like any of the Private Space ventures in the last decade).

DonQuigleone · 2013-02-28, 05:38

@Nuclear fuel being limited.

I interviewed with a Nuclear consultancy once. According to them, Nuclear Fuel is effectively limitless.

While you might read there's only "80 years of uranium left", that's only at current prices. If prices went up only a small amount, you'd see a large increase in viable reserves.

Furthermore, the price of Uranium, compared to other electricity generation, is only a small fraction of the cost to run a Nuclear facility (~9%).

Finally, if push came to shove, we could just build Breeder Reactors, which don't ever really "run out" of fuel. However, the Nuclear Engineers I spoke to didn't think the process was worth it at current prices. If things change in the future, we could easily see the mass of spent fuel rods going into reprocessing plants.

SaintessHeart · 2013-02-28, 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well if some a bunch of rich folk are trying to set up a Asteroid mining company and another is trying to send a couple to Mars in the next five years, than the seeds could be set for inventing an industry up there rather than down here.

One of the struggling things has been seeing profit in the stars. Such a large scale project would be such an endevour. Sure you could do it cheaper on Earth, but grand scale projects can attract people to them. Setting up solar panels on houses does not generally draw much attention to itself, nor is it for sure able to cover the amount of area of the planet's surface required for the majority of the Human race's energy needs in the long term. Plus getting all the stuff to work in orbit would basically set up an interplanetary economy (at least as far as mining operations, depending on were one needs to go to find the metals needed in the amounts needed). The manufacture would be either in orbit, or in a low gravity enviroment (Lunar factories most likely if the materials can be fabricated in such conditions without having to drag them down to Earth just to send them back up again). Plus their would need to be an infrustructure and companies to do repair work on the Array. There is profit to be had once the ball is rolling, though it will take a good deal of time for the investors to get their money back (much like any of the Private Space ventures in the last decade).

You know who we can convince?

The military industrial complex. As long as there is war in space, there is profit for it. And there will be technological advancement and fantastic amount of power around the world.

The Soviet Union kept building tanks while the Americans kept building satellites during the Cold War - look who had the edge in the end?

Think of the endless strategic possibilities of a colony drop as compared to an ICBM! And the Psycommu system! And NEWTYPES!

ganbaru · 2013-02-28, 07:55

Analysis: Cuts unlikely to deliver promised budget savings
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91R08A20130228

Quote:

On paper, there's one thing to like about the ugly spending cuts due to kick in on Friday: $85 billion in budget savings at a time when Washington continues to bleed red ink.

In reality, the so-called "sequester" is likely to yield less than half that much in the short term.

In part, that has to do with the complex way the government handles its money. But it also reflects the probability that the spending cuts will hurt the economy, which in turn will lower tax revenue and drive up the costs of social safety-net programs like unemployment insurance.

Kaijo · 2013-02-28, 09:31

I see there is still some misunderstanding of what ratios are, so let me toss out an analogy.

Watching anime kills 1 person out of a hundred per hour of anime watched. So, if you had a hundred people watching anime in particular hour, odds are about 1 person will die. Whether suffering a coronary from sitting still for so long, or a bookcase calls on them, or a meteor comes through the roof and hits you... cause of death doesn't matter.

Climbing a particular mountain kills 10 people per hour spent climbing, out of every 100. Again, cause of death doesn't matter. So, if you had a hundred people climbing this mountain for an hour, about 10 of them will die. There could be some variation, ie, maybe 8 people or 13 people will die in reality. But on average, 10 will die.

It doesn't matter if you scale up the number of people watching anime or climbing the mountain. It doesn't matter if you shrink them. The ratios stay the same. You can have a million people watching anime, and still only 1 person every hundred per hour, will die on average.

Regardless of what you like, watching anime is, and always will be, safer than climbing a particular mountain.

As of January 18, 2013 in 31 countries 437 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 372 GW are in operation and 68 plants with an installed capacity of 65 GW are in 15 countries under construction. That is a lot of nuclear power, and yet the ratio remains the same. And this doesn't count the nuke reactors on ships and subs, but those numbers are reflected in the 0.04.

If we powered our world solely with nukes, only 4 people would die for every 3,600 that would have died if we powered our world solely with oil instead.

tl/dr: whether we have 10 nuke plans or 10,000, the ratio of power to death is still 0.04. The number of actual people killed goes up,

DonQuigleone · 2013-02-28, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

If we powered our world solely with nukes, only 4 people would die for every 3,600 that would have died if we powered our world solely with oil instead.

Something to bear in mind is that your numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story.

For instance, most Coal plants are in developing nations, most Nuclear Plants are in highly developed nations, with Oil being found everywhere. Developing countries tend to have much more lax health and safety laws then developed nations, if you were instead to just compare these industries within the USA, you might find a much smaller difference.

Furthermore, the Nuclear industry is the most tightly regulated industry in the entire world. Consequently there's a lot more oversight over health and safety then in Coal. The safety you speak might be more as a result of more or less regulation in those industries.

Finally, if we speak of armed conflict, then any mineral resource has the potential to be fought over with many deaths. Just as many wars go on today over Oil, there are also many wars going on over Uranium. And if the world switched to Nuclear Power in a big way, those wars would become similar in scale to those fought over Oil.

What is needed is an energy production regime that uses every possible sourge of energy available to us., We need renewables, clean fossil fuels (Carbon Capture?), and Nuclear. The more variety we have, the more robust our energy regime will be. And Robust it must be, because without a stable supply of energy our world would crumble.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2013-02-28, 10:55

The point is we really should be using nuclear more than we are currently. It isn't logic that prevents more nuclear plants; it's the fiction that somehow coal and oil plants are "better".

I full on expect multiple power sources. But only nuclear is labelled as inherently evil by those who have no idea what they are talking about.

Kaijo · 2013-02-28, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Something to bear in mind is that your numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story.

For instance, most Coal plants are in developing nations, most Nuclear Plants are in highly developed nations, with Oil being found everywhere. Developing countries tend to have much more lax health and safety laws then developed nations, if you were instead to just compare these industries within the USA, you might find a much smaller difference.

There is some truth there, with coal in the US dropping to 15. But as you can see, coal still kills many more. The link I pointed to awhile back has more information that answers your assertions.

Quote:

Finally, if we speak of armed conflict, then any mineral resource has the potential to be fought over with many deaths. Just as many wars go on today over Oil, there are also many wars going on over Uranium. And if the world switched to Nuclear Power in a big way, those wars would become similar in scale to those fought over Oil.

False Equivalence. The reason we fight those wars, is because we needed a LOT of oil, and the vast majority was in the middle east. No one fights wars over coal, because it is everywhere. No one fights over uranium, because you only need a small fraction of it and it is everywhere. We'll be fighting wars over drinking water long before that.

DonQuigleone · 2013-02-28, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

False Equivalence. The reason we fight those wars, is because we needed a LOT of oil, and the vast majority was in the middle east. No one fights wars over coal, because it is everywhere. No one fights over uranium, because you only need a small fraction of it and it is everywhere. We'll be fighting wars over drinking water long before that.

There are a few countries that produce most of the world's Uranium ore. The two big ones are Australia and Canada, but you also have Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Namibia and Niger. None of those latter countries are particularly stable, and if Uranium became a lot more valuable, they could be major conflict hotspots.

It's the same for Oil. The Oil that's found in the US or Russia, or even Saudi Arabia (3 of the largest Oil producing countries) is not where the Oil sparked conflicts occur. It's in the countries with smaller reserves, but that are much more unstable.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2013-02-28, 11:50

Here in Australia we have half the world's uranium. If your country want to buy some, you just had to ask. No need to go to some war torn hellhole.

Small nations are only digging their own deposits because they are banned from buying from us.

There is no uranium shortage, we are sitting on our reserves because there isn't that many people to sell it to. As I said, people are treating nuclear power like it is somehow evil. There are even those who are dumb enough to think Japan doesn't have nuclear power because Japan was anti-nuclear weapons. Logic doesn't work against pure stupidity.

willx · 2013-02-28, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Here in Australia we have half the world's uranium. If your country want to buy some, you just had to ask. No need to go to some war torn hellhole.

Uranium isn't uranium if I didn't have to pry it from the cold dead hands of some sort of indigenous population. Then again, both Canada and Australia, the main places where uranium is present .. have done a lot of prying already..

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2013-02-28, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by willx

Uranium isn't uranium if I didn't have to pry it from the cold dead hands of some sort of indigenous population. Then again, both Canada and Australia, the main places where uranium is present .. have done a lot of prying already..

The uranium mines here are of course, on known indigenous lands. But it doesn't cost very much to pay off the traditional land owners if we need to. We are just having trouble marketing the stuff; we tried to sell to India, but there was complaint that they would make nukes out of them. Frankly since India is already a nuclear power it shouldn't matter anymore. But oh well.

mangamuscle · 2013-02-28, 13:55

Someone should invest in developing a working thorium reactor, you can't produce weapon grade uranium or plutonium with it and does not produce dangerous waste. That should be mankinds short-term energy goal. Well, india is building one, but I am sure that if developed countries were also at it we could get them in less than five years.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2013-02-28, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Someone should invest in developing a working thorium reactor, you can't produce weapon grade uranium or plutonium with it and does not produce dangerous waste. That should be mankinds short-term energy goal. Well, india is building one, but I am sure that if developed countries were also at it we could get them in less than five years.

Why should it matter if plutonium gets made?

I mention it previously, that since I no longer trust America with nuclear weapons, I don't see the point of restricting nuclear proliferation anymore. Right now all the restrictions are not designed to make the world safer, but to make sure America can invade other people easier.

Nuclear power exists. Deal with it.

mangamuscle · 2013-02-28, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Nuclear power exists. Deal with it.

I feel like I have been confused with Barack Obama or some other very influential fellow. Nope, it is not me who makes the rules, as you have pointed out, Australia will not sell uranium to India (or China) for so called "fears of nuclear proliferation". It is irrelevant whether this a gimmick or a clear and present danger, the USA and EU will not change their stance and developing countries will not build nuclear reactors unless they can secure secure the fuel first. So in the meantime they continue to burn coal and oil. But Thorium would be the answer, not only it is more common than Uranium (and therefore cheaper), as I said it does not produces dangerous radioactive waste (which even today can be an environmental hazard).

Kaijo · 2013-02-28, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Why should it matter if plutonium gets made?

I mention it previously, that since I no longer trust America with nuclear weapons, I don't see the point of restricting nuclear proliferation anymore. Right now all the restrictions are not designed to make the world safer, but to make sure America can invade other people easier.

Nuclear power exists. Deal with it.

I'm more gung-ho for nuclear power than most, but... this is still a concern. Iran has a history of supplying militants. It wouldn't take much to supply a group with a weapon and detonate it in Israel or the US. MAD only works if both sides are vulnerable. Al Qaeda and other groups have no centralized country to hit.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2013-02-28, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'm more gung-ho for nuclear power than most, but... this is still a concern. Iran has a history of supplying militants. It wouldn't take much to supply a group with a weapon and detonate it in Israel or the US. MAD only works if both sides are vulnerable. Al Qaeda and other groups have no centralized country to hit.

And? A bigger concern is Pakistan where they are far more militant, far more unstable, and has nuclear weapons.

You know what's the difference between Iran and Pakistan? America can't invade Pakistan. Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Enough with the excuses, nobody is buying it.

Unless you advocate turning Pakistan into a crater, no point wasting words on why you think Iran should be put down.

Ithekro · 2013-02-28, 18:44

Technically we already invaded Pakistan and got away with it. We just didn't have a need to topple its government.

2013-02-28, 01:03	Link #441
Vallen Chaos Valiant Logician and Romantic Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Within my mind Age: 43	You still haven't solved the issue that for a given amount of funding, solar panels on Earth is still more economical than some Space installation. There is no reason to do things the hard way unless we had to. Earth energy collectors are cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper to transfer energy to where it is needed. You are trying to invent teleportation before we mastered flight. __________________

2013-02-28, 01:12	Link #442
Dr. Casey Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tennessee Age: 36	Spoiler: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943. "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons." -- Popular Mechanics, 1949 "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." -- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957. "But what...is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981, but believed to be an urban legend. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876. "The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." -- Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876. "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s. "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." -- Lee DeForest, inventor. "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible." -- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" -- H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927. "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." -- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With the Wind." "A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies. "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962. "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899. "So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" -- Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer. "If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." -- Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads. "It will be years -- not in my time -- before a woman will become Prime Minister." -- Margaret Thatcher, 1974. "I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." -- Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869. "With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the U.S. market." -- Business Week, August 2, 1968. "That Professor Goddard with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react--to say that would be absurd. Of course, he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." -- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work. The remark was retracted in the July 17, 1969 issue. "You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training." -- Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolvable" problem by inventing Nautilus. "Ours has been the first, and doubtless to be the last, to visit this profitless locality." -- Lt. Joseph Ives, after visiting the Grand Canyon in 1861. "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." -- Workers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859. "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929. "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932. "The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project. "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre. "There will never be a bigger plane built." -- A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Attributed to Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899, but known to be an urban legend. "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872. "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873. I hope that many of the posts made in this thread can be added to this list some day.

2013-02-28, 01:18	Link #443
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Well if some a bunch of rich folk are trying to set up a Asteroid mining company and another is trying to send a couple to Mars in the next five years, than the seeds could be set for inventing an industry up there rather than down here. One of the struggling things has been seeing profit in the stars. Such a large scale project would be such an endevour. Sure you could do it cheaper on Earth, but grand scale projects can attract people to them. Setting up solar panels on houses does not generally draw much attention to itself, nor is it for sure able to cover the amount of area of the planet's surface required for the majority of the Human race's energy needs in the long term. Plus getting all the stuff to work in orbit would basically set up an interplanetary economy (at least as far as mining operations, depending on were one needs to go to find the metals needed in the amounts needed). The manufacture would be either in orbit, or in a low gravity enviroment (Lunar factories most likely if the materials can be fabricated in such conditions without having to drag them down to Earth just to send them back up again). Plus their would need to be an infrustructure and companies to do repair work on the Array. There is profit to be had once the ball is rolling, though it will take a good deal of time for the investors to get their money back (much like any of the Private Space ventures in the last decade). __________________ Last edited by Ithekro; 2013-02-28 at 01:31.

2013-02-28, 10:55	Link #449
Vallen Chaos Valiant Logician and Romantic Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Within my mind Age: 43	The point is we really should be using nuclear more than we are currently. It isn't logic that prevents more nuclear plants; it's the fiction that somehow coal and oil plants are "better". I full on expect multiple power sources. But only nuclear is labelled as inherently evil by those who have no idea what they are talking about. __________________

2013-02-28, 11:50	Link #452
Vallen Chaos Valiant Logician and Romantic Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Within my mind Age: 43	Here in Australia we have half the world's uranium. If your country want to buy some, you just had to ask. No need to go to some war torn hellhole. Small nations are only digging their own deposits because they are banned from buying from us. There is no uranium shortage, we are sitting on our reserves because there isn't that many people to sell it to. As I said, people are treating nuclear power like it is somehow evil. There are even those who are dumb enough to think Japan doesn't have nuclear power because Japan was anti-nuclear weapons. Logic doesn't work against pure stupidity. __________________

2013-02-28, 05:38	Link #444
DonQuigleone Knight Errant Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Dublin, Ireland Age: 35	@Nuclear fuel being limited. I interviewed with a Nuclear consultancy once. According to them, Nuclear Fuel is effectively limitless. While you might read there's only "80 years of uranium left", that's only at current prices. If prices went up only a small amount, you'd see a large increase in viable reserves. Furthermore, the price of Uranium, compared to other electricity generation, is only a small fraction of the cost to run a Nuclear facility (~9%). Finally, if push came to shove, we could just build Breeder Reactors, which don't ever really "run out" of fuel. However, the Nuclear Engineers I spoke to didn't think the process was worth it at current prices. If things change in the future, we could easily see the mass of spent fuel rods going into reprocessing plants.

2013-02-28, 09:31	Link #447
Kaijo Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.	I see there is still some misunderstanding of what ratios are, so let me toss out an analogy. Watching anime kills 1 person out of a hundred per hour of anime watched. So, if you had a hundred people watching anime in particular hour, odds are about 1 person will die. Whether suffering a coronary from sitting still for so long, or a bookcase calls on them, or a meteor comes through the roof and hits you... cause of death doesn't matter. Climbing a particular mountain kills 10 people per hour spent climbing, out of every 100. Again, cause of death doesn't matter. So, if you had a hundred people climbing this mountain for an hour, about 10 of them will die. There could be some variation, ie, maybe 8 people or 13 people will die in reality. But on average, 10 will die. It doesn't matter if you scale up the number of people watching anime or climbing the mountain. It doesn't matter if you shrink them. The ratios stay the same. You can have a million people watching anime, and still only 1 person every hundred per hour, will die on average. Regardless of what you like, watching anime is, and always will be, safer than climbing a particular mountain. As of January 18, 2013 in 31 countries 437 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 372 GW are in operation and 68 plants with an installed capacity of 65 GW are in 15 countries under construction. That is a lot of nuclear power, and yet the ratio remains the same. And this doesn't count the nuke reactors on ships and subs, but those numbers are reflected in the 0.04. If we powered our world solely with nukes, only 4 people would die for every 3,600 that would have died if we powered our world solely with oil instead. tl/dr: whether we have 10 nuke plans or 10,000, the ratio of power to death is still 0.04. The number of actual people killed goes up,

2013-02-28, 13:55	Link #455
mangamuscle formerly ogon bat Join Date: May 2011 Location: Mexico Age: 53	Someone should invest in developing a working thorium reactor, you can't produce weapon grade uranium or plutonium with it and does not produce dangerous waste. That should be mankinds short-term energy goal. Well, india is building one, but I am sure that if developed countries were also at it we could get them in less than five years.

2013-02-28, 18:44	Link #460
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Technically we already invaded Pakistan and got away with it. We just didn't have a need to topple its government. __________________