(04-10-2015 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 03:25 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:18 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Expand your horizons man...

National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliament(s), should protect the state and its citizens against all kinds of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on.

Most of the eastern seaboard and southern Florida being covered under rising sea water is sort of a crisis.

Fail to see mother nature listed there. How about we let the scientists figure this out and let the government focus on national security threats posed by other nations like those examples in your discussion. I'm a lot more worried about our national security as it relates to other countries than natural processes like weather.

I'm afraid your reading comprehension might need some brushing up.

Not at all. I see a long list of geo-political issues that fall under National Security, but none of natural causes. If you want to expound on the idea and include environmental issues, you would probably have to go as far as to say the environmental issue at hand was deliberately caused by another nation to cause the US harm through agricultural output of force the elimination of an industry like commercial fishing through poisoning of the waters.

Natural acts or non-intentional weather doesn't appear to fall under the blanket of National Security for most people.

Good Lord. Read it again...S L O W E R!

"National Security" means to protect a country's citizens against all kinds of national crises. Major flooding would be a national crises.

The second part details the parts of government that would deal with them. That's why it precedes them with the words "through them"!

Capiche?

You are miserably mis-interpreting it to suit your purpose.

(04-10-2015 03:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 03:25 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:18 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Fail to see mother nature listed there. How about we let the scientists figure this out and let the government focus on national security threats posed by other nations like those examples in your discussion. I'm a lot more worried about our national security as it relates to other countries than natural processes like weather.

I'm afraid your reading comprehension might need some brushing up.

Not at all. I see a long list of geo-political issues that fall under National Security, but none of natural causes. If you want to expound on the idea and include environmental issues, you would probably have to go as far as to say the environmental issue at hand was deliberately caused by another nation to cause the US harm through agricultural output of force the elimination of an industry like commercial fishing through poisoning of the waters.

Natural acts or non-intentional weather doesn't appear to fall under the blanket of National Security for most people.

Good Lord. Read it again...S L O W E R!

"National Security" means to protect a country's citizens against all kinds of national crises. Major flooding would be a national crises.

The second part details the parts of government that would deal with them. That's why it precedes them with the words "through them"!

Capiche?

You are miserably mis-interpreting it to suit your purpose.

Ummm...no...I'm not. National Security = securing the nation. It's not rocket science.

I'm still waiting on you to show us where any leader made Armageddon and/or the Rapture a national security concern.

(04-10-2015 10:01 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Really? Climate Change is more important than any other national security threat we face?

Quote:(CNSNews.com) – Speaking at Howard University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said that climate change is a “primary” national security threat to the United States.

“The Pentagon has already said that climate change is a primary national security threat that we’re going to face, and we are working with the Department of Defense to start preparing for that and mitigating for that,” Obama said. “And a lot of our international policy and national security policy is centered around the very real concerns that that’s going to raise.”

In the same presentation, Obama said that the planet is warming and that this is having an impact on human health.

It's just funny at this point. Maybe he could be convinced that Iran is about to warm the planet

(04-10-2015 09:50 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:01 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Really? Climate Change is more important than any other national security threat we face?

Quote:(CNSNews.com) – Speaking at Howard University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said that climate change is a “primary” national security threat to the United States.

“The Pentagon has already said that climate change is a primary national security threat that we’re going to face, and we are working with the Department of Defense to start preparing for that and mitigating for that,” Obama said. “And a lot of our international policy and national security policy is centered around the very real concerns that that’s going to raise.”

In the same presentation, Obama said that the planet is warming and that this is having an impact on human health.

It's just funny at this point. Maybe he could be convinced that Iran is about to warm the planet

Touche

Once again, I will take Obama and the climate change alarmists more seriously when they quit pretending that wind and solar and biofuels are an answer. Get real about nuclear fission and then come back and talk to me.

(04-11-2015 10:26 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Once again, I will take Obama and the climate change alarmists more seriously when they quit pretending that wind and solar and biofuels are an answer. Get real about nuclear fission and then come back and talk to me.

This is the problem. They have no viable answers. So the approach is to create panic in the hope that a society in panic will agree to do stupid things.

(04-10-2015 04:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I'm still waiting on you to show us where any leader made Armageddon and/or the Rapture a national security concern.

You're going to be waiting awhile then, because I made no such statement. I simply made an analogy to show a failed point attempted by DT.

No, climate change is not a prirmary national security threat. Most logical people know that. However, there is big $$$ in climate change, so there's that.

(04-13-2015 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  No, climate change is not a prirmary national security threat. Most logical people know that. However, there is big $$$ in climate change, so there's that.

(04-11-2015 10:26 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Once again, I will take Obama and the climate change alarmists more seriously when they quit pretending that wind and solar and biofuels are an answer. Get real about nuclear fission and then come back and talk to me.

You're gonna be a long wait for train that's not coming.

(04-10-2015 10:01 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Really? Climate Change is more important than any other national security threat we face?

Quote:(CNSNews.com) – Speaking at Howard University in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, President Barack Obama said that climate change is a “primary” national security threat to the United States.

“The Pentagon has already said that climate change is a primary national security threat that we’re going to face, and we are working with the Department of Defense to start preparing for that and mitigating for that,” Obama said. “And a lot of our international policy and national security policy is centered around the very real concerns that that’s going to raise.”

In the same presentation, Obama said that the planet is warming and that this is having an impact on human health.

As usual he's just fulla shiat.

(04-13-2015 09:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:26 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Once again, I will take Obama and the climate change alarmists more seriously when they quit pretending that wind and solar and biofuels are an answer. Get real about nuclear fission and then come back and talk to me.

You're gonna be a long wait for train that's not coming.

Since Reid's outta here... Yucca Mountain is being revisited.... Once that is settled, we'll be off the Nuclear generation again.

(04-13-2015 09:25 AM)tigertom Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:26 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Once again, I will take Obama and the climate change alarmists more seriously when they quit pretending that wind and solar and biofuels are an answer. Get real about nuclear fission and then come back and talk to me.

You're gonna be a long wait for train that's not coming.

Since Reid's outta here... Yucca Mountain is being revisited.... Once that is settled, we'll be off the Nuclear generation again.

That is one option that would definitely get things moving. But ultimately we don't need to bury it. We need to be allowed to reprocess spent fuel as they still contain fissionable material.

(04-13-2015 09:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  No, climate change is not a prirmary national security threat. Most logical people know that. However, there is big $$$ in climate change, so there's that.

It's a fact. Just look up Al Gore's business dealings.

(04-11-2015 10:26 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Once again, I will take Obama and the climate change alarmists more seriously when they quit pretending that wind and solar and biofuels are an answer. Get real about nuclear fission and then come back and talk to me.

Nuclear fission reactors work just fine and we can rather easily deal with they waste at this point in time. Regulations, not feasibility, are killing the industry. The real break-through will come through nuclear fusion reactors. I'm in my mid thirties and fully expect to see them in my lifetime. Instead of wasting billions on wind and solar, more money needs to be put into fusion experiments. Just a few months ago a lab in California managed to get more energy out of the reaction than was required to start it. Fusion is the future


IMO the real challenge for nuclear fusion will come after the reactors are a reality. For me it is a question of integrating them into power grids at the expense of current power plants. Weaning the world off of petroleum will be difficult when there is a reliable and efficient alternative like self-sustaining nuclear fusion.

(04-10-2015 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  The same president that said global warming touched his life because the warmer temperatures and pollution caused his 4 year old daughters asthma while failing to mention he smoked and she was exposed to second hand smoke.

Please tell me how mother nature is going to pose a threat to our national security?

Expand your horizons man...

National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliament(s), should protect the state and its citizens against all kinds of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on.

Most of the eastern seaboard and southern Florida being covered under rising sea water is sort of a crisis.

Do you know how many times that has happened in the history of the planet? And you are narcissistic and deluded enough to think that man can affect a planet's geology enough to prevent it from happening again? Get ready. It WILL happen again. No amount of carbon taxes and population control will prevent it.

IT IS THE SUN.

It is NOT MAN.

(04-13-2015 12:07 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:44 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  The same president that said global warming touched his life because the warmer temperatures and pollution caused his 4 year old daughters asthma while failing to mention he smoked and she was exposed to second hand smoke.

Please tell me how mother nature is going to pose a threat to our national security?

Expand your horizons man...

National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliament(s), should protect the state and its citizens against all kinds of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on.

Most of the eastern seaboard and southern Florida being covered under rising sea water is sort of a crisis.

Do you know how many times that has happened in the history of the planet? And you are narcissistic and deluded enough to think that man can affect a planet's geology enough to prevent it from happening again? Get ready. It WILL happen again. No amount of carbon taxes and population control will prevent it.

IT IS THE SUN.

It is NOT MAN.

1. I never said it was the cause of man.
2. If we know it's going to happen, we should just attempt nothing? Really? That's how you want your government to work...to try nothing?

(04-13-2015 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  No, climate change is not a prirmary national security threat. Most logical people know that. However, there is big $$$ in climate change, so there's that.

It's a fact. Just look up Al Gore's business dealings.

Right...I forgot Al Gore was a broke homeless man before he invented the internet and made all his money on global warming initiatives.

(04-13-2015 11:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Nuclear fission reactors work just fine and we can rather easily deal with they waste at this point in time. Regulations, not feasibility, are killing the industry. The real break-through will come through nuclear fusion reactors. I'm in my mid thirties and fully expect to see them in my lifetime. Instead of wasting billions on wind and solar, more money needs to be put into fusion experiments. Just a few months ago a lab in California managed to get more energy out of the reaction than was required to start it. Fusion is the future


IMO the real challenge for nuclear fusion will come after the reactors are a reality. For me it is a question of integrating them into power grids at the expense of current power plants. Weaning the world off of petroleum will be difficult when there is a reliable and efficient alternative like self-sustaining nuclear fusion.

Agree with the nuclear reactors. We can build a freaking submarine that runs on a nuclear reactor, why do we need to build multi-billion dollar behemoths to house reactors? You can make the reactors smaller and actually make the structures that house them stronger by doing that. The technology has gotten better and the regulations need to catch up.

But no, let's keep talking about fracking and wind and solar?

I agree that fusion research is worthwhile and we'll get there eventually, but I'm younger than you are and not so confident I'll see them in my lifetime.