Re: [GRIMDARK] Fallout Equestria: Project Horizons Discussion

[Cptadder]

Speaking real quick about invasions
A scenario was run awhile back and it's re-run every year by the Pentagon about all the various land wars America could get into with all our various enemies and most wars these day are simply not possible without the entire world pitching in. For example a theoretical invasion of China by America and America by China were run. In one set we invade China the other they invade us. Generals with lots of know how, subject experts on hundreds of subjects getting together to plan this war game out.

The result?
100% chance of victory for the defender in any conventional war even assuming all allies support to their fullest can not marshal enough boats, bombs and bullets in order to land a force large enough to secure the others territory.

America has the largest Navy in the world, to the point at which it's known in the Naval community that America could literally take on the entire rest of the world's Navy's and win even assuming the rest of the world starts it with another Pearl Harbor style attack. We just have that many advance ships with that many carriers and all other ships are baby seals when fighting carriers. Any fleet without carriers exists only as targets for those with and we have enough to fight any enemy in existence.
Despite this fact even with all of our fleet an all of our ships and transport abilities and paratroopers any land invasion of China would be facing ten to one odds at best. With two hundred to one odds at worst. Thing is even with a multi-million man army the most we can transport and support at that distance is roughly 200k soldiers facing a military with 2.5 million active duty and another two million in reserve (America has 1.5 million and another 1.7 million in reserves plus things like State police, reserve and guard units, secret service, TSA and a hundred and one other paramilitary groups with firearms training who could be quickly (A matter of works) be trained into full soldiers)

And that 200k assumes China lets them land and does not attack the resupply ships.
China of course is in a worse boat and can only land about 60,000 troops and support them at that distance and again assuming we don't sink their ships at all.
The amount of support a modern military needs is massive and America fighting China is not exactly equal distant from each other... it's close, if we wanted to go to war we'd have to pick a neutral third country to fight in because neither of us can make to the others country in sufficient numbers to provide a challenge for the other guy.

[Icy Shake]

@tri fuel cars: the three fuels are gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. Methanol comes from many sources besides natural gas, natural gas is just the cheapest. But the US government is supporting flex fuel cars with subsidies, and car manufacturers are taking advantage of them. The problem is there isn't currently an infrastructure in place to deliver ethanol/methanol or the supply in the US to make it worth it, yet.

According to the Rio Times and other sources, in Brazil the three fuels are gasoline (20-25% ethanol depending on jurisdiction), ethanol, and compressed natural gas. As for infrastructure--that's what policy is for. Brazil showed that mandating the provision of infrastructure can work; they got it done in well under a decade. If the people through the government mandate that all stations provide ethanol and CNG, and back up the requirement with sufficient incentives, then it will happen.

[222222]

@icyshake: compressing natural gas makes it into methanol.
About policy: that is called socialism and is frowned upon in America. You try suggesting private corporations should take massive losses and be compensated by the government. Sure it would work, but only assuming the government is right and the business eventually becomes profitable. I believe they are right in this case, but this would 4130 set a precedent for the government to make similar policy demands in the future and we would become socialists.

[Sindri]

The only way to take over the U.S would be this...

See, your step one there is a thing that won't happen. There isn't a magic line at which we suddenly don't have oil anymore, it just becomes increasingly expensive to find and extricate as we use up the easiest stores, the low-hanging fruits. So the oil doesn't "run out," it just eventually costs enough that it's cheaper to use something else. At which point we switch over to that something else over the course of several years, because the price increase is a very gradual process.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if we had such technology right now and it was just being somewhat suppressed by the oil companies that have all this equipment and land they've invested in and want to continue to turn a profit on

Sure, we could make it now. But it would be much more expensive to synthesize it in large quantities than it is to just use the ready-made stuff that bubbles out of the ground. And there's the issue of what you make it out of; most of our plastics and such start out as... petroleum products. I think the easy way to make fossil fuels is to take the orgaics that would eventually turn into them and accelerate the process. So we'd need a whole lot of cheap organic material, like, say, corn, and then turn it into wait this sounds familiar...

Btw, I really doubt America will ever stop using oil. We just don't adapt to things.

We adapted to the beginnings of the use of oil pretty quickly. We really adapted to the invention of the automobile. And I've been hearing good things about this newfangled "electricity" thing. Not to mention wireless communication, the transistor, the microchip... really the only new thing that I can think of which we've failed to adapt to is nuclear energy, because the majority of people are morons and there's been a very effective PR campaign against anything fusion-powered.

Ancient campaigns have demonstrated if you willing to conduct full sweep and clear missions you can win, but to blunt that's genocidal...

Yes, but in today's world there is nobody on earth who is willing to do such a thing...

Oh I really wish you were right. But that's just no more true her and now than it was in Germany in the 1940s. Or Rwanda in 1994. Or any of the other countless, horrible "impossible" massacres that nobody could possibly allow, but apparently almost anyone can ignore, or deny the existence of, or hope somebody else will deal with. All it takes is one madman at the top, and normal people on the ground. Because a normal person is terrifyingly easy to indoctrinate, and even if they object to their orders is more than likely to obey out of fear. There are very few good people, or bad people; most are just... people. And people tend to do what they feel they have to to protect their family, or preserve their own life, or just not rock the boat.

@oil: even without oil, america still has massive coal deposits that will last several centuries, so the government wont just collapse without oil, liquid fuel only makes up about 40% of energy consumption in the US after all. And I think we will convert to all coal before we convert to hydrogen. Not that I think we will convert to all coal, I just know we won't ever use hydrogen fuel because of how massively inefficient it would be and because we have no infrastructure in place to transport the fuel.

True. As much as I hate coal, we could use it to run pretty much everything, power-wise, at least temporarily. It's not great for anything mobile and smaller than a train, but it can be used to make electricity and either power increasingly cheap and effective electric cars, or split water for hydrogen fuel cells (which are efficient and smooth and reliable and not hard to work with, but kinda expensive, to the point where they're expected to be economically viable in a decade or so but can't compete with gas yet).

What we really should do is switch over from coal burning to fusion. The biggest suppliers of Uranium are Kazakhstan (pretty good relations with the US, peaceful region, member of OSCE, EAPC, NATO Partnership for Peace, etc) and Canada (Canada) so it's not hard to get the fuel and there won't be any wars over it for a long while. It's massively cheaper than coal burning, produces more energy, removes all the normal pollution and cuts the radioactive waste products to 1% of what coal spits out, and then all those byproducts are neatly bundled for containment and eventual disposal instead of just spat into the atmosphere. There are pretty much no downsides, but huge opposition from people who don't know how energy is produced.

And if you'd prefer something that we produce ourselves in large quantities rather than something we need to work with allies for, as Icy Shake said we have more natural gas than we know what to do with, and it's significantly more efficient and cleaner than coal is.

Seriously, fuck coal burning.

About policy: that is called socialism and is frowned upon in America. You try suggesting private corporations should take massive losses and be compensated by the government. Sure it would work, but only assuming the government is right and the business eventually becomes profitable. I believe they are right in this case, but this would 4130 set a precedent for the government to make similar policy demands in the future and we would become socialists.

A) it would totally be profitable, and pretty quickly.
B) we've done similar things in the past. Look at all the regulations regarding vehicle design, air transit, exact fuel mixtures at the gas station... this isn't going any further than that. And yes, people will scream 'Socialist' but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
C) textbook slippery slope fallacy; doing one thing now does not guarantee that we'll do similar but more extreme things later. Especially when we've already done similar and more extreme things, and they did not make this a certainty.



Okay, I'm finally caught up on the last page (2?). Now to go back and read the ten I missed. Blarg.

[CamoBadger]

Oh I really wish you were right. But that's just no more true her and now than it was in Germany in the 1940s. Or Rwanda in 1994. Or any of the other countless, horrible "impossible" massacres that nobody could possibly allow, but apparently almost anyone can ignore, or deny the existence of, or hope somebody else will deal with. All it takes is one madman at the top, and normal people on the ground. Because a normal person is terrifyingly easy to indoctrinate, and even if they object to their orders is more than likely to obey out of fear. There are very few good people, or bad people; most are just... people. And people tend to do what they feel they have to to protect their family, or preserve their own life, or just not rock the boat.

It's the path of least resistance for them. If they speak out by themselves against the psycho on top, it gets them killed. But because they are afraid to speak up individually, they never bother to find others who think the same as them. I'm not saying there are no jacked up people around who would happily commit genocide, there are everywhere, but they usually don't do such a thing because they fear the ramifications. Those few who do such a thing believe they can get away with it, but as history has shown, they don't. Karma always comes back in one way or another to get them, whether it be in the form of those they sought to destroy beating them back, their own 'followers' realizing their error, or from a third party putting their foot down. It serves as a deterrent to most, but some people think they are better than the others who have tried, because they see themselves as superior. I guess I kinda used the wrong wording on my original post. There ARE people who will consider genocide, but even fewer who will actually try, simply because they don't have the omnipotent ideals of those who do try; they still have a sense of mortality.

[Icy Shake]

@icyshake: compressing natural gas makes it into methanol.
About policy: that is called socialism and is frowned upon in America. You try suggesting private corporations should take massive losses and be compensated by the government. Sure it would work, but only assuming the government is right and the business eventually becomes profitable. I believe they are right in this case, but this would 4130 set a precedent for the government to make similar policy demands in the future and we would become socialists.

I'm now almost entirely sure that you mean methane (the primary component of natural gas), not methanol. Otherwise, see what Sindri said. (Except it's fission, not fusion, and while conventional nuclear is already relatively competitive, it's also limited in potential duration compared to the more expensive breeder reactor technology--after all, U235 is only about .72% of uranium ore. And we as Americans need to get off our collective asses and decide where we will dispose of our radioactive waste.)

Say what you want, but EPA and its existing and scheduled regulations haven't turned America into a Socialist hellhole yet. Nor have Social Security, Medicare, FDA, FDIC, the Federal Reserve System, et cetera. As I stated before, this is a policy that has already proven profitable, successful, and popular elsewhere, but it won't be a step taken by private interests because of the disadvantages of being the first mover: you don't build cars that can't be fueled, and you don't build fueling infrastructure for cars that nobody has; this is in fact a wonderful example of how government can be used to ameliorate a market failure, justifying the democratic/mixed-economy model that has proven to be successful at delivering both economic prosperity and personal liberty in the West, Japan, and other non-Western nations since the beginning of the twentieth century.

[Sindri]

...Except it's fission, not fusion...

I just don't know what went wrong! I know how fission works, I was thinking about fission... was it just a typo? No, I made the same error multiple times. Right, I'll be sitting in the pit of shame for a while if anybody needs me.

[222222]

@Sindri: I was not using slippery slope, because I said if we do one thing it will be legal to do the exact same thing with a different idea later, it's called setting a legal precedent and is commonly used in the Judicial system to determine the legality of new laws. If a precedent is set that the government can mandate that businesses make changes to their basic structure, then legally they can do so again. Not more extreme or worse changes, but changes of equal magnitude. The government is fallible like everyone else and could eventually mandate something just as detrimental as (I believe) ethanol is beneficial. And this is different than a requirement, a requirement would change future designs, this would demand current businesses change their infrastructure significantly.

[222222]

@Icyshake: you can't put a gas into a car, they run on liquid fuel. Through a chemical process you can turn methane gas into methanol, if you want I'll explain in detail but I assure you it's long, boring, but cheap as hell. About government mandates, all those things you listed aren't changes being mandated to financial institutions. They are laws imposed on and for the American public as a whole. Also, flex fuel vehicles can run on both gasoline and ethanol, so people do buy them because there is no difference in cost. Car manafacturers are increasing production as they are selling very well. Finally, I'm not saying government is bad or even big government is bad, but government should not interfere in the private sector unless people are at risk, is my belief.

[Icy Shake]

@Sindri: I was not using slippery slope, because I said
if we do one thing it will be legal to do the exact same thing with a
different idea later, it's called setting a legal precedent and is
commonly used in the Judicial system to determine the legality of new
laws. If a precedent is set that the government can mandate that
businesses make changes to their basic structure, then legally they can
do so again. Not more extreme or worse changes, but changes of equal
magnitude. The government is fallible like everyone else and could
eventually mandate something just as detrimental as (I believe) ethanol
is beneficial. And this is different than a requirement, a requirement
would change future designs, this would demand current businesses change
their infrastructure significantly.

As for the idea that this would be an increase in the powers allotted to government, rather than an increase in the usage of the powers it is already understood to possess, I'm pretty sure that this policy change would be well within the government's Commerce Clause powers (in conjunction with Necessary and Proper Clause powers) as presently understood (though it might not be with the astonishing apparent overturn of Wickard v. Filburn earlier this year). Remember, the government already, for instance, bans the sale of leaded gasoline; why, on the same basis, couldn't it ban the sale of gasoline at locations that do not also sell compressed natural gas and ethanol? Alternately, EPA requires the addition of pollution-mitigating equipment at already-existing power plants that fit certain conditions; why couldn't it do the same (just with pumping/sales equipment) for gasoline distributors?

On your more recent response: Yes you can use compressed natural gas in cars; it is used in millions of internal combustion engines around the world, such as in (for example) Brazil, where many cars, especially newer models, can run on CNG or a linear combination of gasoline and ethanol. You are talking about something else, something which has seen relatively limited commercial automotive implementation, though recent legislation has encouraged carmakers in the US to warrant their engines for methanol use. Flex-fuel vehicles, as marketed in the US, generally do not run on CNG, and stations selling even E85 are still the exception rather than the rule, except maybe in California.

Moving on, each of the agencies or programs I listed has imposed important changes on the firms and/or markets they regulate and/or operate in. They, like EPA, were established by law, as you say, for the American people as a whole. Just like the policy I suggested could be legislated for the good of the American people as a whole, or possibly even achieved through mere regulatory change without supporting legislation; I don't know the ins and outs of EPA or the relevant Acts well enough to say. I can respect a relatively hands-off philosophy of government, but I disagree with it, taking instead an expansive stance on the roles that government should fill.

Anyway, I'm sorry this kind of blew up into a political/jurisprudential topic; that wasn't my intent in the least. My whole point amounted to the idea that non-petroleum transportation options already exist, and have been successfully implemented.

[O. Hinds]

@Icyshake: you can't put a gas into a car, they run on liquid fuel. Through a chemical process you can turn methane gas into methanol, if you want I'll explain in detail but I assure you it's long, boring, but cheap as hell. About government mandates, all those things you listed aren't changes being mandated to financial institutions. They are laws imposed on and for the American public as a whole. Also, flex fuel vehicles can run on both gasoline and ethanol, so people do buy them because there is no difference in cost. Car manafacturers are increasing production as they are selling very well. Finally, I'm not saying government is bad or even big government is bad, but government should not interfere in the private sector unless people are at risk, is my belief.

Wood gas can also be used straight in otto cycle engines.

[222222]

@Icyshake: Well I've never heard of methanol gas in cars, but I'll take your word for it. I was talking about methanol though. I understand all the points you are making and agree that their are alternatives to gasoline and that the government should promote these alternatives, just in different ways than what you are saying. At this point I don't think there is much more i can bring to the table that I haven't already said. I guess it's just a fundamental difference of opinion.

[Icy Shake]

@Icyshake: Well I've never heard of methanol gas in cars, but I'll take your word for it. I was talking about methanol though. I understand all the points you are making and agree that their are alternatives to gasoline and that the government should promote these alternatives, just in different ways than what you are saying. At this point I don't think there is much more i can bring to the table that I haven't already said. I guess it's just a fundamental difference of opinion.

Yeah, the fundamental difference of opinion sounds about right.

Just to clarify for anyone still following: compressed natural gas (CNG) is methane = CH4, and is in fairly widespread use in internal combustion engines for consumer vehicles, but not in America; methanol = CH3OH, is a volatile liquid, and is (as far as I know) used in internal combustion engines, but more in stuff like race cars, monster trucks, and model airplanes than consumer automotive applications.

[Cptadder]

Just to clarify for anyone still following: compressed natural gas (CNG) is methane = CH4, and is in fairly widespread use in internal combustion engines for consumer vehicles, but not in America; methanol = CH3OH, is a volatile liquid, and is (as far as I know) used in internal combustion engines, but more in stuff like race cars, monster trucks, and model airplanes than consumer automotive applications.

CH30H fueled cars would fail every Transportation safety testing due to the habit of failed fuel tanks having a nasty habit of catching on fire before violently exploding.

Which is why Hydrogen is the future but the only way we get Hydrogen is via massive use of Nuclear and Solar and building the transportation infrastructure to move hydrogen around.

[Kippershy]

So, I know this shouldn't really go here... but because I know it'll get a lot more traffic / interest...


I need a male voice actor for the role of Titan in my mod. He's over 200 years old (pre-war ghoul) who has experience in the Royal Equestrian Forces.

I'll be voicing Crimson myself (I think) unless someone with a better voice opts in for him, but yeah.


I'm also in need of a female V.A for Cherry Sundae.
I've approached Kim about it, but not out of disrespect but out of just in case, I'm letting that be known as a role I may need filling too. (If she turns it down for whatever reason.)




Roles are somewhere around (just under, I think) ten lines each.
If you're interested, let me know.

[IncoherentOrange]

Man, I would like to help you, but I don't have a deep enough voice by a fair margin, and I don't have any skill I know of in 'gravelly' voices.

Edit: If you need any younger voices, I might be able to do those.

[Caoimhe]

I might be up for your female part if it's possible. I've done some acting before. I'm not gonna say I'm totally for it yet as this is my busy season at work though!

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE!!!





OH YES!

[Kippershy]

I might be up for your female part if it's possible. I've done some acting before. I'm not gonna say I'm totally for it yet as this is my busy season at work though!

Like mentioned, it's only something around 10 lines or less, all with the complexity of something like:


"Hey, what's up?"
"Grenade out! I hope!"
"Ow! Be careful!"

The lines aren't specific and if you do wanna do it, just give me a little sample of your voice so I know what you sound like and I'll give you the set of lines, you can mix them up as you feel fit if you do go ahead with it.

It's just nice to have characters that speak rather then mutes, ya know?

[Caoimhe]

Neaaat. I'll try and do something in our studio tomorrow since I have to talk to people there anyway.

[Kippershy]

for the record...
dialogue as it currently stands written down.

Spoiler:

[tylertoon2]

The only way to take over the U.S would be this:


Oil runs out, first world chaos ensues as the governments haven't properly planned & converted infrastructure over to hydrogen. One government has (or a selection of same region governments)... let's say, Russia + China have converted.

Russia and China aren't 100% buddy buddy, but if they were in that situation, they'd see the most sensible thing to do would be to team up and join in unity.
Pan Asia ensues (as in, all countries in Asia become 'one' in a USSR style takeover led by AFRF/ChiCom forces).


During this time, the American government becomes nothing, literally nothing. What power they did have is now obsolete, the riots and the gang warfare have delved to feudal levels -- even the military cares for its own rather then the populace as a whole.

NATO is disbanded, the EU is disbanded, hell, even the UK falls back into the ways it once was perhaps, kingdoms arise when the young and hungry fight between themselves and develop leadership circle types not seen since medieval times.


The Pan Asian forces now wait, equipped with superior technology (as in, it works / is mobile), superior numbers, the ability to feed themselves and organise themselves efficiently...
They move on through Europe, conquering as they see fit -- taking what resources they would like/need.

Britain or mainland Europe becomes a springboard for vessels that set off from the British/Norwegian coast on route to New York.



America is still in shambles, the population drastically lower as food reserves have run out and production has been drastically lowered by loss of infrastructure.
Many have killed themselves out of desperation or died of hunger.
Those few that live - live either in the life of a roaming bandit or by farming.


When the invading forces roll in, the opposition is minimal.
Some people welcome them as the liberators they always dreamed of.
Some people welcome them for the peace and security they offer if you give up peacefully.
Others simply have no choice, without food or hope they give in.

The rest stand defiantly until the bitter end.



Thus, the U.S has been invaded... successfully.

Someone make this a goddamned novel.

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

Titan recording FOvoice and raspy.amr

I did something neat!

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

Neaaat. I'll try and do something in our studio tomorrow since I have to talk to people there anyway.

feels inadequate with his dollar store micropohne

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

oh right I forgot, i recorded this with my phone which encoded it to an amr...(not a clue)

anyway I still feel inadequate even if it wasn't with my dollar store microphone

[Kippershy]

The only way to take over the U.S would be this:


Oil runs out, first world chaos ensues as the governments haven't properly planned & converted infrastructure over to hydrogen. One government has (or a selection of same region governments)... let's say, Russia + China have converted.

Russia and China aren't 100% buddy buddy, but if they were in that situation, they'd see the most sensible thing to do would be to team up and join in unity.
Pan Asia ensues (as in, all countries in Asia become 'one' in a USSR style takeover led by AFRF/ChiCom forces).


During this time, the American government becomes nothing, literally nothing. What power they did have is now obsolete, the riots and the gang warfare have delved to feudal levels -- even the military cares for its own rather then the populace as a whole.

NATO is disbanded, the EU is disbanded, hell, even the UK falls back into the ways it once was perhaps, kingdoms arise when the young and hungry fight between themselves and develop leadership circle types not seen since medieval times.


The Pan Asian forces now wait, equipped with superior technology (as in, it works / is mobile), superior numbers, the ability to feed themselves and organise themselves efficiently...
They move on through Europe, conquering as they see fit -- taking what resources they would like/need.

Britain or mainland Europe becomes a springboard for vessels that set off from the British/Norwegian coast on route to New York.



America is still in shambles, the population drastically lower as food reserves have run out and production has been drastically lowered by loss of infrastructure.
Many have killed themselves out of desperation or died of hunger.
Those few that live - live either in the life of a roaming bandit or by farming.


When the invading forces roll in, the opposition is minimal.
Some people welcome them as the liberators they always dreamed of.
Some people welcome them for the peace and security they offer if you give up peacefully.
Others simply have no choice, without food or hope they give in.

The rest stand defiantly until the bitter end.



Thus, the U.S has been invaded... successfully.

Someone make this a goddamned novel.

Haha, thank you.
(http://denver.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/img/mlfw5536-89237498237498.png)

Titan recording FOvoice and raspy.amr

I did something neat!

replied via inbox.

[Admiral Stoic Rum]

which inbox?

[Kippershy]

[tylertoon2]

You know I really wish my INCREDIBLY Conservative parents would read these posts. I would like them to see political and societal speculation from somewhere else than fox news...

[Kippershy]

which inbox?

That was me sending the inbox after the forum post, LOL.
I'm bad like that.


also, brb. gonna go down the shops despite it being 4am.

[Sponsored content]