How close do you think we are from a third world war?

[hanelyp]

Whether conflict escalates depends a lot on what prospective aggressors see standing in their way. Weakness is provocative to a bully. One thing that scares me right now is the nation that has done more than any other to keep the peace and contain bullies over the last 60 years, the US, is showing a very weak posture.

[Skipjack]

Last year the US got about 15% of its oil from Saudi Arabia alone and around 20% from the Persian gulf.

Skippy your math and your cherry pick are significantly beneath you.
On average, over the last 30 years, the US got about 10% of its oil from Saudi. And, we don't need it.
On average, over the last 30 years, the US got about 15% of its oil from the Gulf States. And, we don't need it.

Ok, no one said that we had to talk about the past 30 years. I made a (somewhat tongue in cheek) comment about us sending too much money to the Saudis, when you compared the amounts of oil imports between the US and China (which was not even that relevant to the discussion) and you go on and on about how much or little we have imported from the middle east in the past 30 years.
Who the frick cares? Personally, I hope that we wont need to import any oil some time soon and for me every single petrodollar that goes to a Muslim nation is a dollar to much.

[Skipjack]

Whether conflict escalates depends a lot on what prospective aggressors see standing in their way.

I could agree to that to some extent. I think the problem is that the US has been caught in a few very expensive and asymmetric wars that turned out to take a lot longer than anticipated, for comparably little outcome. The whole security nonsense costs a fortune too. Who is supposed to pay for all that? In addition to that, some IMHO bad investments were made in inferior hardware. Maybe the US will learn from this in the future and will employ a less costly and more efficient procurement model than the one used for the littoral combat ships and the F35.
Of course there are large corporate interests and billions in lobbying money behind such projects, so it is likely that this will never change and only get worse as lobbying money keeps climbing to insane amounts. Very soon, the government will just spend taxpayer money on whatever project pays the most generous lobby. I cant say, I find that thought appealing.
Either way, this spending has weakened the ability of the US and the will of the US people to spend more on defense and on keeping bullies in line.

[paperburn1]

True but Saudi dollar are trying to change that,

After the new change in campaign finance laws they have put some real money in our elections

[Skipjack]

In this regard this is relevant:
Tanks with hidden insignia are rolling through Austria eastwards right now. Austria is still neutral, at least on paper. I am upset! That's the sort of shit, my politicians do that makes me angry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB3ltU8 ... e=youtu.be

Also in Rumania:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_NHRDg5gP4

I have to say though that this looks mostly like pioneer equipment, unlike the tanks that went through Austria (those looked like light and infantry tanks).
Did not notice any MBTs or artillery, but the video quality was pretty bad (on purpose?).

[ladajo]

Those are not tanks. You again demonstrate you are lacking depth to discuss with relevance.

Ok, no one said that we had to talk about the past 30 years. I made a (somewhat tongue in cheek) comment about us sending too much money to the Saudis, when you compared the amounts of oil imports between the US and China (which was not even that relevant to the discussion) and you go on and on about how much or little we have imported from the middle east in the past 30 years.

You missed the point again, as you so often do. Simply, I was pointing out to you that the metrics to compare China to the U.S. are unbalanced in media hype and agenda driven articles. A simple comparison between the U.S. and China is oil import levels. And this comparison is skewed enough in its own right, you do not need to consider the dimension of domestic U.S. production. That only drives it another magnitude or more worse for China.
The U.S. has about 300 Million residents. China has about four times that. So for given population, what is the difference between U.S. oil imports (and implied consumption) v. China? Does this not offer an analytical point regarding Chinese economic development and U.S.? Does this not in turn offer an insight into how much the Chinese economy actually matters on the world stage as well as internal drama the Chinese face? Don't you see the relationships?
For income disparity within a country, .4 is the magic number. When a nation is above .4 it portends serious drama for governance. China is above .4, and will only get worse. The are some fairy dust studies that think they may hold the line, but it is too little too late. China is coming apart internally, and the Chinese government knows it. This is why they are spending WAY more on internal security than military, and the recents years of heavy Nationalistic Bent Propaganda and Actions. China is in trouble with internal stability and the government knows it. They are on a slippery slide that they probably will not recover. They do not compare to the U.S., and they do not compete with the U.S. for global economic influence or power. The Chinese economy is vaporware.

Back to oil. You implied the U.S. gets a majority of its oil from the Middle East. I have shown you clearly this is not the case. It is not even close. What we do buy, we do not need. Unbeknowst to you, it has been U.S. policy since the late 70s to buy enough to maintain some influence, but not enough to have any measure of real strategic impact if sourcing stops (either by decision on the U.S. end or circumstance on the ME end). Again, you are out of your depth.

[Skipjack]

Those are not tanks. You again demonstrate you are lacking depth to discuss with relevance.

Uhm, did you actually watch the video? Got tracks, got armor plating, is green. Is a tank, at least by Austrian definition of "Panzer".
I have attached a picture for you, of what I mean. So you don't have to watch the video.
These look like infrantry tanks to me, maybe British "warrior" tanks or some version of Bradleys, though it is hard to say with the quality of the video. The other one looks like a pioneer tank of sorts.

In regards to China, I guess you are an economist too now.

Back to oil. You implied the U.S. gets a majority of its oil from the Middle East.

I never said that, nor did I imply that.

[hanelyp]

For income disparity within a country, .4 is the magic number.

That number doesn't mean anything to me unless I know how its defined. What is 4/10 of what?

[ladajo]

Hanley:

That number doesn't mean anything to me unless I know how its defined. What is 4/10 of what?

Gini Coefficient. But to be fair, it has some interperative limitations and must be considered with other analytical points and comparisons. It is not a fair stand alone metric, but it does raise a flag.

Skippy:

Got tracks, got armor plating, is green.

Let us see, an M113 meets that but is certainly not a tank. A Bradley meets that but is certainly not a tank. The vehicles in the video may meet that, but are certainly not tanks.
If you want to make professional comments, then learn professional level definitions.
For example, I could start calling you a Nazi. After all, you profess German heritage, speak German and you sympathize with German efforts in WWII. You therefore have tracks, armor plating and are green, and must be a Nazi. Seig Hiel!

Sometimes you argue worse than my ten year old.

And for your edification, another degree I have is an Under-Grad B.S. in Business which was heavy in both Micro & Macro Calculus based Economics as well as Calculus based Finance. In addition, for my current work of the last few years, economics does play. Do you remember my comment about elements of national power and you not knowing about them? Go figure, ya know?

[Skipjack]

Skippy:

Got tracks, got armor plating, is green.

Let us see, an M113 meets that but is certainly not a tank. A Bradley meets that but is certainly not a tank. The vehicles in the video may meet that, but are certainly not tanks.

In that case Germans and Americans are clearly handling this differently. In German, the examples you gave are classified as a "Schuetzenpanzer", "Panzer" means tank "Schuetze" means "Sharpshooter", but in this case, it refers to infantry in general. Germans call all armored vehicles "Panzer".

If you want to make professional comments, then learn professional level definitions.
For example, I could start calling you a Nazi. After all, you profess German heritage, speak German and you sympathize with German efforts in WWII. You therefore have tracks, armor plating and are green, and must be a Nazi. Seig Hiel!

I have noticed in the past that you hate Germans and miss no opportunity to make this known. Also your German spelling sucks! If you want to make a stupid pointless comment, at least look up the correct spelling.

And for your edification, another degree I have is an Under-Grad B.S. in Business which was heavy in both Micro & Macro Calculus based Economics as well as Calculus based Finance. In addition, for my current work of the last few years, economics does play. Do you remember my comment about elements of national power and you not knowing about them? Go figure, ya know?

And that does make you more qualified to judge this than economists, who do that for a living? From all I have seen US undergrad degrees are toilet paper.

[Skipjack]

Oh and I figured out that these are most likely CV 90 tanks and Bergepanzer2 armored recovery vehicles. CV90s are used by most Scandinavian countries and Switzerland as well as the Netherlands.
The Bergepanzer2 is a German tank, but has been sold to several other nations, including Norway (which also uses the CV90). This sure gets weirder and weirder.

[paperburn1]

It is called "Tripwire"
You station a small number of your troops in area that may be encroached on. Then when they hit your NATO troops you have justification for action.

[ladajo]

Skippy,
You know, you are absolutely right. I need to lower my expectations in coversations of this nature with you.
You want to call them "Tanks", you go right ahead. Knock yourself out. Just be advised that to anyone that has a clue, it makes you look like a child or a boob.

Thanks for catching the spelling error. To be honest, I knew it was wrong, but couldn't be bothered to fix it. I did not have enough value for the conversation.
As I understand, Panzer in German means either Tank or Armor (as in Armored vehicle). It is not hard coded to mean only, "Tank". It is like saying Truck. A word that covers many vehicles. But, saying "Tank" in a military context in english has specific and direct meaning. An IFV of any flavor is not a Tank in English. It is the difference between a Helicopter being an aircraft, and all aircraft therefore also being helicopters. You are making a stupid argument. Let it go. They are not tanks.

Sieg Heil! Mr. German Tank.

On a seperate note, love Germany, have many friends there, spent time there. You are not German. You are Austrian.

[Skipjack]

Your understanding of the German language is lacking. These are called Schützenpanzer in German, period! Yes "Panzer" also means armor and used to refer to armor worn by Knights. This is where the word Panzer (for tank) has its roots. Armor that is attached to tanks is called "Panzerung".
But I guess you are an expert in the German language now too. A genius military strategist, an economist and an expert in German language. I am impressed.
But lets not take my word for it, lets see what the manufacturer GD Europe says about the ASCOD, which is the Austrian- Spanish equivalent to the CV90:
http://www.gdels.com/deu/businesses/tracked.asp

Der ASCOD gilt als einer der besten Infanterie-Schützenpanzer auf der Welt und kann jeden Waffenturm aufnehmen, der am Markt erhältlich ist.

To explain this again and for the last time: Armored military vehicles are generally referred to as a "Panzer" in the German language. This includes armored infantry vehicles, some armored transport vehicles, light tanks, wheeled armored vehicles like the Austrian Pandur, or the German Spaehpanzer Luchs (both would fall into the category of "Radpanzer"). It also includes armored recovery vehicles (which are called a Bergepanzer). We would even call the armored police vehicles, that some US police departments have "Panzer".
Of course the word "tank" in English could equally refer to a container for fluid (which was the British called it, to conceal what it really was, when they started producing them). But context gives the word its meaning.

Either way, I understand now that English speaking people are seemingly not generally calling an armored military vehicle a "tank". I guess then that the word tank is reserved for MBTs and I guess that whatever falls into the category changes historically? I mean the M2 was called a (light) tank. It was half the weight of the CV90 and the caliber of its main gun was also lower. Yet it was referred to as a "tank" while the CV90 does not qualify. At the same time the CV90-105 is actually referred to as a "light tank". I guess that is because of its larger caliber cannon.
All that makes it a bit difficult to follow for a non native speaker and someone who has not served in an English speaking army. But I guess, it would be equally confusing for you, if some German general promised you a "Panzer" and you received a "Puma", an armored infantry vehicle, while you were expecting a Leopard2

[ladajo]

Skippy,
Yes, you got it.
Tank means non-infantry carrying tracked armored vehicle with a turret mounted gun.
Armor (in English) means exactly (as I said above) the same thing that Panzer means in German.
It even has the same etomology.
Armor can mean any type of armored vehicle. Just like "aircraft" means any thing that flys.
Tank does not mean any type of armored vehicle.

Panzer = Armor. Just like I said above.
The videos you linked did not have any Tanks, it had Armored vehicles, or to be broader, Armor. However, most english speaking military would expect that if you said there was a rail movement of Armor, that it included Tanks. That is why it would normally be nuanced with the word vehicles, as that clues everyone in that their are not Tanks in the Armor.