Xoon

2 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

It's called moguls. Look it up.

Interesting. 

32 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah it would probably work out for all sorts of countries. I mean I do think the right to arms comes with some downsides, but in terms of making a lot of political BS untenable yeah I think it's more or less one size fits all.

How about the old Homeguard model in Norway?

During a 60-80s, about 1 in 40 Norwegian were a part of the Homeguard, and the HG soldiers kept their rifle and equipment at home.  This meant that the military was highly integrated into the population, meaning that the people always had the support of the military, and with access to second grade military gear if the government went rogue. Considering the homeguard outnumbered the army by 12:1 right now, I think they would have a fair chance, with actual training. 

A interesting thought crossed my mind recently regarding a discussion about civil war in Sweden. 

The discussion basically boiled down to that unless the people got the Military's support, there was no way in hell a rebellion could emerge. 
This is simply because of the large military and reserve in comparison to the population, and how integrated it is into the common man. 

Would the second amendment work out for small countries like Scandinavian ones? 

21 minutes ago, ApplesauceBandit said:

 

And that's precisely the issue from my experience.  They're either against guns on an emotional level (they're scary!) or they've not bothered to really educate themself on the matter, both of which could fall under the "not really making sense" part.  Other agendas is what you'd expect here, some people just don't like people owning guns for political reasons or whatever.

 

Granted these mass shootings are no bueno, but from the debates I've found myself in, people calling for gun control seem to be hyperfocused on those instead of where the vast majority of gun violence comes from.  They do a good job of sidestepping that fact even when I try to bring up that point.  You can't just use gun violence numbers against me in a debate and then ignore the cases actually causing those numbers!

Norway is a example of why gun control does not stop mass shooters, we have strict gun control. And even still, he was actually going to get a AK, but he was too impatient.

2 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

And one more quip (Because I'm sure you're not tired of them at all),

 

People tend to toss around statistics for the entire US. Which is doing a disservice. The US is HUGE with many many sections. The crime rates of one state oftentimes are totally different from the crime rate of another. Even per capita.

I agree, the US is almost like Europe. 

Not sure how banning guns would lower gun violence,  if it is for exampled caused by gang wars in a few major cities.  
People in the entire country losing their guns, because a few gangs had a war and the media caught wind of recent statistics. 

Does not really make sense, unless you are motivated by different agendas. 

9 hours ago, Donward said:

Per Das Wikipedia, citing the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the murder rate of the continent of Europe, made up of 50 sovereign states and a land mass of 3.9 million square miles is 3.0 per 100,000 people.

 

The United States, made up of 50 separate semi-independent states and a land mass of 3.7 million square miles has a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people.

 

Given that Europe has twice the population as the United States, that means there are twice the murders per square mile in Europe as compared to the United States, making it a more dangerous place to live per the square mile.

 

Because that's how statistics work!

 

Amirite guys?

 

High five!

 

 

Huh, just calculated Norway's murder-rate per 100 000, and it is at 0,57 per 100 000 people in 2012.  (SSB)

Russia's murder-rate is 11,31 per 100 000 people, the highest in the Europe. (Wikipedia)
Austria has the lowest at 0,51 per 100 000 people. (Wikipedia)

I guess the variation is pretty big in Europe.

Since we are talking about taxes and trumps tariffs is a hot debate. How do you people feel about the 25% steel tariff and 10% aluminum tariff? 

From what I understand, in a oversimplified manner, tariffs basically increases the price of the goods by the percent set. For example a foreign steel company produces steel at 1 Dollars for 1kg of steel, while a domestic company sells steel at 1,2 a kilogram, With a 25% tariff on steel, the foreign steel company's steel would cost 1,25 dollars a kilogram, making the domestic company competitive.  The downside is that now the nationally, the price of steel has increased, making all steel related goods more expensive. 

This then affects the consumer, which has to pay more for their product. 

Extremely simplified, it is negative for the consumer, but positive for the domestic industry.  

However, if a domestic steel company can't keep up with foreign competition and no tariffs are placed, then they will eventually go bankrupt,  losing the consumer potential jobs and losing the country revenue which it uses to serve the citizen.  

Or, it could make a domestic steel consumer unprofitable, like a car company, in which they move their factories abroad outside the tariff, or potentially bankrupt. 

I am no economist. But this is how I see the issue.  

Personally I feel a tariff on the import of manufactured goods makes more sense, which encourages domestic industry to import raw goods and manufacture them, then export it, effectively making a profit off other countries export.

On 3.3.2018 at 3:48 AM, Meplat said:

You know who fixes the machines?

 

People like me.

 

Let that sink in a bit. 

 

 

You know who makes the machines?

People like me.

Let that sink in a bit.

It is honestly a bit depressing considering the Norwegian army is driving around in refurbished Leopard 2A4s, the armor is practically dead weight. 

I guess the CV90 120 option sounds really tempting. 

How did the French mess up the LeClerc's armor that badly by the way?

Didn't they use several weight saving measures? 

11 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

This is identical to the diagram I posted earlier (with a lot less pixels) coming from a presentation on the Swedish tan trials. It seems that the protection level was censored in the Swedish presentation (because it is public access). I guess somebody dug this up out of the Swedish archives? But the file name suggest that it shows the M1A1 HA...

 

That said, it seems to be legit. It would confirm my believes on the armor protection of modern tanks being hugely exaggerated and matches some of the earlier mentioned requirements stated in the British documents.

If we can presume that the diagram, and this is accurate, don't we now know how effective the composite armor is compared to RHA?

Example:
Side turret armor is 400mm thick, with a protection level of 380mm, equals 0,95 as effective per millimeter vs RHA vs CE.

Also, it seems there is no protection gained for the turret side armor to be at 45 degrees, compared to 90 degrees?
 

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Historically, in this field 'Mergers' have usually been preceded by 'Hostile Takeover Bids'.....'Mergers' are subsequently offered up as a form of pacification in the newly acquired holdings.

A democratic elective monarchy seems like the best idea then. 

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah, no you're not understanding me. Let me be more explicit. I looked it up before you posted it. Those limits mean you don't have freedom of speech.

I liked old norse law. If someone tried to dishonor you, you could challenge them to a fight to the death, if they declined then they get dishonored. If you get dishonored 3 times without acting, you will get punished by law xD

Basically any dispute could be solved by holmgang, a sort of battle to the death on a small island.

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You mean like this?

 

I think so, just clip fed and without a barrel shroud. 

Just out of boredom, I drew up a rifle/pistol that would be just as capable as a "assault weapon", while not counting as a assault weapon:

A semi-automatic rifle in pistol or rifle caliber, since intermediate caliber is "too dangerous". It has a internal fixed magazine, feed by a 20-30 rounds clip, since detachable magazines are not allowed.

A "thumbstock" since a pistol grip is not allowed, but a as long as it is part of the stock it is. The stock that extends all the way to cover the barrel, since a shroud is not allowed and also acts as a picatinny rail, since they are also not allowed, unless part of the gun, it is also not telescopic or fold-able.  Also lacks barrel groves for suppressor, flash suppressor, or compensator, no bayonet lug, no grenade launcher. No selector. Not named AR-X or AK-X or associated with them.

It is made in stamped steel and plastic, in grey and black for the "danger look" to troll anti-gun activists. 

I guess you could make it a bullpup since you need to have a large stock, but I am too lazy, it would save space though. 

LoooSeR, do you know how Russia felt about the recent ceasefire in Afrin? 

Norwegian media seems to blame Russia and Syria for breaking the ceasefire.

7 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

2. Boredom. I think the great bulk of US law enforcement experience has, among other things, one great lesson to teach us: Bored people commit crimes. Not all bored people, and not in every case, but those with nothing better to to do will tend towards the thrill-seeking that is committing crimes. There is something inherently thrilling about acting outside the law, and if your life is dead-end, yet all your basic needs are met, and especially if legitimate enterprise is discouraged, you will tend towards criminality. Welfare and corporate tax rates - both firm Democratic policies, encourage this. 

This one is proven true. Our government has youth programs to keep the youth away from stealing and mischief. 

18 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

And you're disqualified from talking about US gun laws, until you do some reading.

Fair enough.

18 hours ago, Meplat said:

License Process...

LICENSE PROCESS...

 

Take a wild guess how many licenses/permits/etc.  I have for my small collection of arms..

 

I meant to make it more streamline, less of a hassle, easier. I am pretty sure that a bit of paperwork would not stop a criminal or a murderer, so why annoy law abiding citizen?

18 hours ago, Donward said:

Yeah, but a significant portion of your armed forces are commanded by a penguin.

 

His Majesty King's Guard*

Long live Colonel-In-Chief Sir Nils Olav III!

16 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

This is why we roll our collective eyes when it comes to gun control bills. 

 

A Democrat in Minnesota (a state in the US) has released a gun bill into their legislature.

 

This is in response to the recent shooting in Florida. Those states are over 1000 miles away, fyi.

 

Here's the high points.

 

 

2 day waiting period on all firearm transactions, because these idiots still believe that mass shootings are acts of passion. 

 

Total ban on private sales, including inheritance, family, C&R, antiques, etc. So tell me, how will you enforce this? Confiscation at someone's funeral?

 

Registration of firearms. Literally straight out of a despot's playbook. 

 

Bans something called an "Assault Weapon", which will be defined by the Democrats. 

 

Felony to possess a fucking piece of baffled metal. Oil filter owners beware!

 

Bans all ammo purchases online. Must buy ammo in person, and tracked and "registered" however the fuck that works. The intricacies of this one blow my mind. 

 

Delinquent in paying child support from possessing a firearm. Really? Who made you put THAT into the bill? 

 

Storage laws, right out of the UK playbook. 

 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF3022&version=latest&session=90&session_number=0&session_year=2017

The second last one sounds like a salty mother.

33 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

You realize the only reason you guys have stability is because the US hovers over you, right?

Like OF COURSE if there were a major coup or whatever, US troops would be deployed to stabilize your country. Everybody knows it, so they don't try to pull those kinds of shenanigans.

Now, what's stabilizing the US?

No offence, but the US has caused more stability issues for Norway than stabilizing. 

-Sabotaging early oil industry to make us rely on the US.
-Forcing us to give up our cooperation with the Soviet Union.
-Making us a front line country for a potential WWIII.

-Breaking up cooperation with other Nordic countries.

-Spying on Norwegian citizen.

-Numerous politically forced military acquisitions. 

-Destabilizing countries which cause mass immigration to Europe and later the migrant crisis. 

-Oil crisis. 

-Neo-Marxism. 

Make no mistake, the US military presence is a huge deterrence, but it also comes with costs. And it is for the most part a self-created issue. 
We stabilize the US with very favorable trade deals, like the rest of Europe. If Europe turned it's back on the US, it would cause a major blow to the US. 
This is why we cooperate, for a better future. But all countries, logically, will always serve their own interests first. 

I don't have much fate in the EU though, reminds me a lot of the HRE, just less democratic. 

When it comes to gun control, I think the US should continue what it is doing, maybe reverse some of the dumb laws and try to refine the license process. 

16 hours ago, Legiondude said:

I suppose it depends on where the central authority is placed? Thinking back through the major nations in or around Europe, the things that spring to mind are:

• Subordinate princes/states under one king. Maybe the King on the biggest throne and the Princes on lesser ones. Or something like the Roman assimilation/semi-colonization of lesser kingdoms in it's domain
• One king with multiple hats/chairs. The Austria-Hungary after the reforms I suppose, but going so far back as Ancient Egypt with the conflicts between Upper and Lower Egypt
• A confederation of equal authorities with an elected leader like the HRE
• An alliance of equal authorities

I was thinking about a merger between kingdoms. I guess one king or emperor could rule over them all, but that would either require the royal families to merge, or the other to be subdued, which would not really work out if the kingdoms wanted to have equal representation. 

I guess a elected monarchy like the HRE is the best option for fair representation of the kingdoms, of course, the downside being that the emperor has to die before a new emperor can be appointed. 

I have been thinking on how a Scandinavian federation would work out with the current monarchies. If the kings serves as a representative of each country, the same role as the US president, though without the extra power.  A federation would undermine this culture, so a common "king" would be the best. Just appointing one of the kings "emperor" would undermine the other royal families and cause unrest. Also, forcefully merging the royal families does not seem like a good idea. 

I guess a democratic elective monarchy system would work, in which the people would chose who would be "king of kings". Naturally over time, the royal families would merge to one.
Though note, this has nothing actually to do with the supposed country's political system, they would still be just symbolic.

47 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Plus Norway is like super white, so the left hates them by default now. 

We are Norwegian, not white

And I am not sure if you can actually find a statistic for races in Norway, only immigration,were 831 751 are immigrants or immigrant children, out of 5 232 000.

Besides our national statistics bureau is politically biased and removes and hides "problematic" information. 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm currently trying to do a little research on how conventional tank design could evolve, as well as the future of the Merkava family (due to their frontally placed engine), when hybrid or purely electric motors become the norm.

 

Can anyone make a simplified comparison of the required volume for each type as well as purchase cost and maintenance costs.

 

i.e if certain type of engine would take a little more volume, or much more volume. And if it would cost just a little more or a lot more. 

 

I believe that if there is a substantial difference in the parameters of volume and cost, and not just performance, then this could cause a pretty serious shift in the way tanks are designed.

I guess I can add my two cents about electric and hybrid systems, going from soft hybrid-electric to fully electric. 

Soft hybrid-electric:

A soft hybrid electric vehicle is about as bare-bone as possible for the most amount of advantages. To take a example from the car world: The ICE would still power the wheels though a gearbox like usual, but the electric motor starter is replaced with a more powerful motor which can power the vehicle on it's own, though mostly for added power and better torque characteristics in sprints or slow driving.  The motor is lighter and uses usually a 48V system, with a small battery, requiring minimally extra space and changes. The motor serves also as a engine starter, generator and regenerative break, giving the car all the advantages of a full fledged HEV. This system is also often combined with a electric supercharger which spools up the turbocharger for close to zero turbo lag, and it can also harvest excess kinetic power from the turbo which charges the battery and can be used later by the electric motor. Modern vehicles also include a heat scavenger system, which creates electricity out of the hot exhaust, which in turn can power the electric motor. 

The flowchart above is purely for the soft hybrid system, not the best in the world, but I sadly lack the software for better. 

Parallel hybrid:

A parallel hybrid is built up in much the same way as soft hybrid with a few changes. Usually the power is split between the ICE and the electric motor, meaning the electric motor usually provides 30-70% of the power. This requires a much bigger battery, but usually the range is only big enough for short trips, like to and from the store. Also here the motor runs commonly on around 400V, which is unique for the motor and inverter. Most modern parallel hybrids are also Plug-in battery hybrids, meaning that they can charge their battery with a charger, instead of using the ICE.  This system is usually easy to retrofit into conventional layouts, provided there is enough space. This system takes up more volume and is heavier than a pure ICE and loses out in terms of fuel efficiency over long marches, but easily beats it in short trips, frequent start stops, and sprints. 

Series hybrid:

In a series hybrid, the ICE powers a generator. Because of this, it is set to its optimal RPM, this also causes the frequency and the voltage to stay stable. The load can either be variable or locked, were the ICE charges the battery in tune with the power the motor consumes, or the ICE goes at max load until the battery is full, and engages again when the battery is low on charge.  This setup usually provides better acceleration because of the electric motors torque curve and instant throttle response. It also provides the most amount of regenerative breaking, since it is equal to the motors power output.  Like the parallel setup, this setup requires a large battery, which gives it enough range for short trips of silence. The downsides is that this setup is the heaviest and takes the most volume, however. You can chose where the ICE is and the electric motors are, no driveshaft needed. 

Series-Hybrid:
A series hybrid is a like a weird combination of them both. Simply take a parallel hybrid and add one or two electric motors after the gearbox. This way the starter/generator/motor can be used as a generator to power the other electric motors. Koningegg uses this system:

Range extended battery electric vehicles:

A range extended electric vehicle looks a lot like a series hybrid vehicle, only the in a opposite relationship.  Here the vehicle is usually built in a electric vehicle architecture, usually not designed to run at full power with the range extender. Imagine a electric car with a generator in the trunk, which provides roughly 50-80% the power the electric motors do, charging the vehicle, giving it extra range.

Linear generator series hybrid electric vehicle:
Skipping the crankshaft and drive shaft, and uses the motion of the pistons directly to charge the battery:

In general, you can see a trend that the harder the hybrid, the heavier the vehicle becomes, until you are fully electric. It usually takes more volume too, however new technologies are closing the gap. 

This is about as much as I care to write today, and can fill in more with electric vehicles and motor technology later. 

I am reposting a 84 page report on hybrid technology in military vehicles too:
http://www.ffi.no/no/Rapporter/08-01220.pdf

13 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

Also @Donward fix your state.

 

How did she mix up this?!

With this?!

The actual US flag is closer in resemblance with the color scheme and stars.

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Interesting question to ask, given the political history of the two admins on this board.

hmm, I sadly do not know much of this. 
Care to elaborate? 

I was curious about what americans think about monarchies. Since the US has always been a Federal Republic with no king, I though you guys might have different views form say a Englishman, or a Saudi.  I mainly want to focus on constitutional monarchies, but other types are welcome to discuss too.  If you are from another country feel free to drop by too.

This thread was created to share opinions of monarchies, and not to be political.  So please do not start a flame war about crowing Trump king of America or something along that line. 

What inspired was a radical left movement in Norway that wants to abolish the monarchy, and I though why not learn about peoples opinions of monarchies, should the question ever arise. 
Note, the radical right also has a movement to abolish the king, but it currently has about as much traction as a M2 Bradly up a snowy hill.

Also a side question, a federation is a union of states, what is a union of kingdoms? A elective monarchy like the Holy Roman Empire? 

Keep it civil, and keep it clean. 

I'll just leave this here:

Potato chips commercial are getting political.

[Collimatrix here, I fissioned this off from the active shooters thread.  It's good discussion, but it should be separated from the other thread.]

What is the tolerance for violence and misbehavior in US schools? 

I honestly do not have much of a good experience with US schools, I know very personally a girl who was assaulted and beaten, and sent to the hospital by a group of black girls because someone spread a rumor about her being racist.  The irony being that she is scared shitless of being racist, to the point of fearing for her life. 

We have some fights on the schools here too, but usually only a fist fight, once on a blue moon a retard grabs a pipe or spike gun ammunition or a knife, but no murders or grievous wounds. 

I only know one mentally unstable individual on the highschools in my area, and I know he does not currently have access to any effective weaponry, if he ever does I will be sure to watch him.