State of the Union Address TONIGHT

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Hart
Well, it looks like we'll be ousting Saddam soon. All in all, it was a decent speech. Not a great one, in pretty much followed the domestic and war rhetoric, but very good.

Well Bush blew alot of smoke about domestic issues and plans to help resolve them. To soften up the senate and congress. But you know how that goes. It seems one the largest goals of Bush's term is the Iraq/weapons controversy. I did like the portions of his address spoke on the North Korea and Iraq issue however.

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
The best alternative is probably going to be fuel cell (read hydrogen). Present motor technology will work (especially rotary) and hydrogen gives good power. HOWEVER, the safe carrying of hydrogen is a real problem. The fuel cell is the answer, but so far it doesnt quite work. It's close tho. Now the next problem is the infrastructure needed to deliver hydrogen to customers safely. The problem will take billions to solve and years.

Originally by George W. Bush in last night's State of the Union Address

Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step, and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about, not through endless lawsuits or command and control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car — producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom — so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation — to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Looks like George W. agrees with you Mark.

The ONLY problem with this proposal is that where's the demand? I mean it's great he's going to have people study this (beats the mating habits of potatos), but who wants a hydrogen powered car? Seriously?

Until there is a demand for these kinda cars (and not from the fringes of the population) we're not going to see them on the showroom floor.

It's great they're gonna do this but where the heck is the demand for 'em?

[Sanis Prent]

Wait for the gas price to increase. Then you'll see demand.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Taylor, the reason people will want hydrogen is two fold

1) Once production ramps up, they will be only a bit more expensive

2) Cant use petrol when there's none left

The point is, you have to do something Now. Hydrogen has several advantages -

a) Is availible in huge quantities
b) Light
c) Transportable (Now we have the technology
d) Isnt a pipedream, such cars exist NOW
e) Runs using internal combustion, meaning hydrogen cars can be made desireable on a modified existing platform. So you can have your SUV and not pollute.
f) Costs are projected to drop to the point where hydrogen cars are as cheap as existing technology.
g) Is being pushed by car makers and petrol distributors like Shell (who senses an opportunity)

Hydrogen has a few problems however, that are being worked on

a) Takes energy to crack water to Oxygen and hydrogen. Electricity. Better hope you have clean energy source for that, else you cancel out hydrogen's clean burning
b) Hydrogen is highly explosive, much moreso than petrol. Petrol burns mainly in accidents if it catches alight, a catasrophic explosion is very rare. Hydrogen however.... it just explodes.
c) Transport and delivery - no infrastructure is set up. However, note whom I said is interested in hydrogen technology. c) is not goign to be a real problem in the end I think. Just will take time.

Fuel cells / hydrogen to me is an idea whose time is coming. The technology exists to allow it, the need is there and the uses are a plethora. I would not be surprised to see fuel cell cars in showrooms by the end of the decade.

[Darren Caerdeth]

I found it interesting, in regards to Bush's standing about Iraq, the way people think about the war. This isnt just on this forum, or even limited to the internet, but people I know in real life. Alot of people seem to think that Iraq stands half a chance against the American military. First off, most of Iraq's military are composed of people who have been forced in. His soldiers are treated poorly, and the punishment for failure is death. Back in '91, it was extremely common for Iraqi soldiers to surrender to America on site. Opting for the life of a prisoner, where no one is trying to kill you, and you have three guaranteed meals a day, over the life of an Iraqi Soldier, where food isnt guaranteed, your life is constantly in danger, and your boss will shoot you if you survive a losing battle.

The differences in terrain and such shouldnt be a factor in this war. When America was set to attack afganistan, comments were made about the terrain. Something about the rocky mountianous terrain would be very difficult for our soldiers to navigate, giving Al Queda the upper hand. At the same time these comments were being made, it was somewhere in Kentucky I think, a special army unit was running through drills. The special unit? A mountain unit, trained specifically for fighting in mountainous regions. This unit had been in training before the war on terror was even a prospect.

The only real difference in this war from '91 is the fact that in 91, America's focus wasnt on taking Hussein out of power. We were just there to cripple his military, if I recall correctly. I may not be Bush's biggest fan, but I firmly believe that he wont make the mistake his pops made in 91. And the fact that hes more trigger happy helps this theory along even more...

Now that that's over with....

Im gonna be really wary about this whole hydrogen fuel cell deal, as Hydrogen is an extremely combustible gas. The prospect of more power is a plus, but that stuff blows up alot quicker than gasoline.

[imported_Eve]

You don't watch the state of the union because you don't like the prez's voice? Oh man... because THAT'S a good reason to not care.

The speech was excellent. I think he adaquately explained his cause for concern over Iraq. You have tons of missing chemical weapons, and you don't think that's enough evidence that Iraq hasn't or isn't disarming?!?! Lord.

We don't need to rally troops for a war. We just need a good looking arabic woman. She can seduce Sadaam and stick him with a poison needle. Quick, easy, quiet, and worse case senario, you lose one woman (if she is caught). Find a citizen Iraqi. Offer to support her family for a century. Cheaper than gathering troops, ships, planes, etc. Less Iraqis AND Americans die as well. It's an all around good and efficient plan, and I'm sure many women would happily volunteer to ice Sadaam.

[Taylor Millard]

I'm not saying it's a bad idea at all, Marcus. Let's see if we can get something that works.

I'm only asking where is the demand for it. In the US...where is the demand? Can automakers create cars that people want to own?

If they can't, then this investment means nothing and it's not going to work.

[imported_Terran Starek]

(sits back and enjoys the political discussion immensely)

[ReaperFett]

What was the point of colour TVs? Black and WHite did it's job. Same situation with petrol

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
What was the point of colour TVs? Black and WHite did it's job. Same situation with petrol

Colour TV offered tangible improvements over B/W. A Feul cell car does not offer tangible improvements except in two areas -

a) Non polluting

b) (and this answers Taylor I might add) you need oil to run a normal car. Instead of thousands of litres, youn now only need a few (lubrication). Plus, you cany run a petrol car if oil is run out. Not likely we are goign to run out of water to make hydrogen!

[imported_Terran Starek]

I think it will be crazy if it all becomes a very marketable reality. I mean--what of the massive water wars that could come? People literally killing each other for control of seas/water deposits for FUEL??

[Dirjj Mordrai]

The difference between '91 and the potential war on Iraq is because it will be fought on Iraqi territory with a large contigent of US ground forces commitment necessary to push Saddam and his army out. The schematics and rules are now much more different with more intricacies involved such as street to street fighting. It involves surrending some of our military might in order to largely prevent civilian casualties. This is not solely going to be fought in abandoned cities or in the mountains (like Desert Storm or Aghanistan). Saddam Hussein is going to take advantage of this by commiting his forces amongst or near populated cities and towns. Saddam should know better than to confront the US might in the dunes and scrublands. I would think he learned his lesson in '91 and military analyst also seem to think so.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

In other words, this isn't going to be a turkey shoot like '91 or Afghanistan. The Iraqi's are going to force us work harder with compromised decisiveness.

[Sanis Prent]

The majority of the Gulf War was fought in Iraqi territory as well.

As for urban combat...we're just as good as out in the open.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Yes, I am not questioning our abilities at urban warfare but we will have large populations of civilians to consider this time around Prent. It is suspected he is going to utilize whole cities and town as human shields. Meaning alot more house to house mop-up action, risking more US troop lives.

[Silus Xilarian]

I saw a demonstration on TV once, where a satellite guided missile was shot into the front seat of a car.

Unless Saddam is literally using human shields (IE Strapping orphans to his back) I dont think we'll have that much problem getting around the whole populated city thing

[Sene Unty]

Originally posted by Eve
You don't watch the state of the union because you don't like the prez's voice? Oh man... because THAT'S a good reason to not care.

Yes, but it is not that I don't care. Beyond simply hating the man's voice, I despise the very look of him. I still do not consider him to be my president, so when he speaks, I make it a point not to listen.

[imported_Terran Starek]

And it is the consitution and provisions of this country that give you the freedom to say that.

But, whether you consider him the president or not doesn't change the fact that he is. And though I am not a huge Bush fan, I found his speech to be fairly enlightening. He has an administration backing him that is pretty solid for a group of Republicans (heh), and that shows in the fact that while he may not be the most eloquent speaker, he has some strong agenda items and a few views I can agree with that make up for some mispronunciation.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Silus Xilarian
I saw a demonstration on TV once, where a satellite guided missile was shot into the front seat of a car.

Unless Saddam is literally using human shields (IE Strapping orphans to his back) I dont think we'll have that much problem getting around the whole populated city thing

Yeah, our satellite technology and smart missiles are incredible. But we still have to account for the sheer destructiveness of explosive and incendiary devices initiated amongst a populated area. A cruise missile is not a itty-bitty handgrenade. Saddam wants to slam the American image before the whole viewing world. The only country supporting Bush's call for action is Britian namely Prime Minister Tony Blair. Saddam wants us to be portrayed as the war-mongering monsters. High civilian casualties would be too detrimental to the world's opinion of America.

[ReaperFett]

I saw a demonstration on TV once, where a satellite guided missile was shot into the front seat of a car.

Yeah, but they were aiming for the building 100m away