Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

That's a scary looking goat...look at those future shofar.

 AustonT wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

That's a scary looking goat...look at those future shofar.

Are they good even good eating???

 whembly wrote:

Are they good even good eating???

Good lamb, decent mutton. The trick hand to horn is to hit their never centers and temporarily paralyze them so you can tie them up more easily. And remember if you grab them below the hock they'll kick reflexively.

Meh, Rams aren't exactly the tastiest. But overall if you're a decent cook you can make them good to great.

We have a contender

That's a small one. When I was a kid, old Knucklehead (our ram) smashed through a double layer of inch thick oak planks once we put a steel bar across his stall door to keep him from breaking out that way.

lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

 DIDM wrote:
lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

As we have learned, don't be quick to write off the inventivness of nutjobs.

 DIDM wrote:
lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

Red States control the Coal, and the civilian firearms ;D

 Wardragoon wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

Red States control the Coal, and the civilian firearms ;D

so a dying resource that mainly goes to China, but the Blue guys run the ports, der der der. Civilian vs gov issued is always a mismatch, plus with all our $$$ we can buy nice guns and not have to pull out the antique from grand dad

 DIDM wrote:

 Wardragoon wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

Red States control the Coal, and the civilian firearms ;D

so a dying resource that mainly goes to China, but the Blue guys run the ports, der der der. Civilian vs gov issued is always a mismatch, plus with all our $$$ we can buy nice guns and not have to pull out the antique from grand dad

Not quite a dying resource, Wyoming (nations leading Coal 'producers') opened up two coal mines in the last five years, and this is just to my awareness, also most of the coal from wyoming stays stateside. Besides the Coal jobs are putting bread on the table, and paint on the minis . Besides I wasnt saying for the sake of rebelling on the firearms, just the fact that red states do have more civilian firearms per capita compared to blue states. Oh, Red states also have cowgirls if thats your taste of women

Wow. Lots of arrogance in this thread. Just remember that it was two nutjobs, a truck, and some agricultural goods coupled with a basic knowledge of chemistry that turned a federal office building into a pile of rubble.

Underestimate people at your peril.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow. Lots of arrogance in this thread. Just remember that it was two nutjobs, a truck, and some agricultural goods coupled with a basic knowledge of chemistry that turned a federal office building into a pile of rubble.

Underestimate people at your peril.

And remember, two rednecks out there have used the exact same chemicals to blow up a tree

 Amaya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thankfully, you can't vote.

Or type.

I love how people try and accuse others of not being able to type properly, when in matter of fact, I did, maybe an odd grammar mistake but again no basis to back yourself on ... and no, a gammar mistake does not count. But at least you tried ;D.

Again, wrong.

 Wardragoon wrote:

And remember, two rednecks out there have used the exact same chemicals to blow up a tree

Not just in red states either. Remember red necks live in blue states too. and can be every bit as ornery.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow. Lots of arrogance in this thread. Just remember that it was two nutjobs, a truck, and some agricultural goods coupled with a basic knowledge of chemistry that turned a federal office building into a pile of rubble.

Underestimate people at your peril.

Really good point. Look what 19 guys armed with perfectly legal pocketknives did by thinking outside the box.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Wardragoon wrote:

And remember, two rednecks out there have used the exact same chemicals to blow up a tree

Not just in red states either. Remember red necks live in blue states too. and can be every bit as ornery.

Oh agreed, I have lived in both red and blue states, both have their rednecks, both have their decently normal people, both at about the same ratio

 Ouze wrote:


Really good point. Look what 19 guys armed with perfectly legal pocketknives did by thinking outside the box.

The US should get down on their knees and thank God those guys had a lousy idea of what to actually hit. I'd have put them on a LNG carrier and blown up all of NYC.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


Really good point. Look what 19 guys armed with perfectly legal pocketknives did by thinking outside the box.

The US should get down on their knees and thank God those guys had a lousy idea of what to actually hit. I'd have put them on a LNG carrier and blown up all of NYC.

Indeed. While I'm sorry for the brothers in arms lost at the Pentagon, I'm ever so thankful that they chose it as a target for one of the aircraft. It kept possibly thousands of civilians alive, and if there was truly a structure in this world built to take something like that, it was the Pentagon.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Are they good even good eating???

Good lamb, decent mutton. The trick hand to horn is to hit their never centers and temporarily paralyze them so you can tie them up more easily. And remember if you grab them below the hock they'll kick reflexively.

I think a 30-06 would do just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DIDM wrote:
lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

Yes thats why high tech is in Texas.

Blue states control income taxes and out of control budgets. Red states control really fattening cuisine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Poppabear wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thankfully, you can't vote.

Or type.

I love how people try and accuse others of not being able to type properly, when in matter of fact, I did, maybe an odd grammar mistake but again no basis to back yourself on ... and no, a gammar mistake does not count. But at least you tried ;D.

Again, wrong.

I never accuse anyone of bad typing. I'm a two finger typist with bad proofreading skills. I have people for that.

 Frazzled wrote:

I think a 30-06 would do just fine.

You'll laugh, but the FMJ .30-06 bounced on a head shot. You want at least a .45-70 for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:

Indeed. While I'm sorry for the brothers in arms lost at the Pentagon, I'm ever so thankful that they chose it as a target for one of the aircraft. It kept possibly thousands of civilians alive, and if there was truly a structure in this world built to take something like that, it was the Pentagon.

Millions. Not thousands. Millions.

A LNG carrier blast, set up right, would have been like the city had been nuked. The trick is to bring the temperature of the liquid gasses up just short of boiling in the containers, and then under a min or so before detonation, opening the valves and start dumping it overboard. In less then 30 sec you have a FAE 2 km wide. Ka fething boom.

 Ouze wrote:

Really good point. Look what 19 guys armed with perfectly legal pocketknives did by thinking outside the box.

To be fair, it was more like 19 guys with years of planning, an extensive support infrastructure, and millions of dollars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19408479

There's another possible issue in a potential militia uprising that might be of some concern...

 DIDM wrote:
lets put it this way

Blue states control the $ and the brain power

Red states are um.............................. yea, they don't even know, MOST are religious nutjobs

Bwahahahaha. I hope you believe that.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Millions. Not thousands. Millions.

A LNG carrier blast, set up right, would have been like the city had been nuked. The trick is to bring the temperature of the liquid gasses up just short of boiling in the containers, and then under a min or so before detonation, opening the valves and start dumping it overboard. In less then 30 sec you have a FAE 2 km wide. Ka fething boom.

LNG carriers store their cargo right at the boiling point, which is why there is always loss while in transit. If you want to cause one to explode you would simply disable whatever mechanism the vessel uses to cope with boil off, usually power generation or re-liquefaction. You wouldn't want to vent the gas prior to a pressure detonation because the external heat of the tanks would likely cause any vented gas to combust immediately (and likely prevent a pressure detonation); remember Boyle's Law? What this means is that turning an LNG into a giant FA bomb is very difficult, and potentially impossible*, you're talking about an aerial firestorm rather than an actual explosion. It would still be devastating, but not to the extent that it would kill millions; especially given that port areas tend to not be that densely populated.

You would probably have more luck simply venting the tanks, provided you could actually get aboard the ship; which is difficult when you're primary objective is to crash planes into things.


*And external explosion wouldn't work well either, as the gaseous NG would almost certainly combust very shortly after being vented. This is a case where the volatility of the stuff actually makes it more difficult to weaponize, rather than less.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wow. Lots of arrogance in this thread. Just remember that it was two nutjobs, a truck, and some agricultural goods coupled with a basic knowledge of chemistry that turned a federal office building into a pile of rubble.

Underestimate people at your peril.

What peril? If, as you say, the possibility of an uprising is high, and its fully within the capacity of ordinary citizens to achieve, it isn't a case of underestimation as there would nothing to be done to stop it short of military action; which isn't going to take place unless some series of domestic terrorist events occur.

You can call it arrogance if you want, but I'm just as keen to call you opinions on the matter a paranoid lack of perspective.

 dogma wrote:


LNG carriers store their cargo right at the boiling point, which is why there is always loss while in transit. If you want to cause one to explode you would simply disable whatever mechanism the vessel uses to cope with boil off, usually power generation or re-liquefaction. You wouldn't want to vent the gas prior to a pressure detonation because the external heat of the tanks would likely cause any vented gas to combust immediately (and likely prevent a pressure detonation); remember Boyle's Law? What this means is that turning an LNG into a giant FA bomb is very difficult, and potentially impossible*, you're talking about an aerial firestorm rather than an actual explosion. It would still be devastating, but not to the extent that it would kill millions; especially given that port areas tend to not be that densely populated.

You would probably have more luck simply venting the tanks, provided you could actually get aboard the ship; which is difficult when you're primary objective is to crash planes into things.

The last part shows your sort of missed the point. The primary objective was to cause as much death and destruction as possible. And you just run it out through the gas heaters that raise it to 20 C . That's warm enough that external heat won't cause it to instantly combust. I'm not talking about just blasting a hole in the side of it and hoping for the best, I'm talking replacing the crew and executing a massive act of sabotage. Further, there are plenty of port areas with large populations these days. San Diego. New York City. Seattle. Honolulu. all have more than a million people within the effective blast range.

Look at Cleveland 1944. An LNG leak leveled a square mile of the city. This would be orders of magnitude larger.

 dogma wrote:

What peril? If, as you say, the possibility of an uprising is high, and its fully within the capacity of ordinary citizens to achieve, it isn't a case of underestimation as there would nothing to be done to stop it short of military action; which isn't going to take place unless some series of domestic terrorist events occur.

You can call it arrogance if you want, but I'm just as keen to call you opinions on the matter a paranoid lack of perspective.

Well, let me posit this question: if the police either are neutralized or defect, and the governor refuses to use the national guard (either because they would be unreliable in this case, or because he has long backed the rebels position) who do you think they're going to call in? Un Peacekeepers?

 BaronIveagh wrote:



Well, let me posit this question: if the police either are neutralized or defect, and the governor refuses to use the national guard (either because they would be unreliable in this case, or because he has long backed the rebels position) who do you think they're going to call in? Un Peacekeepers?

Ghostbusters?

That's a lot of "ifs" and "maybe"s in there.

I personally think if things have gotten that bad, you just call up Norad.

 Easy E wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:



Well, let me posit this question: if the police either are neutralized or defect, and the governor refuses to use the national guard (either because they would be unreliable in this case, or because he has long backed the rebels position) who do you think they're going to call in? Un Peacekeepers?

Ghostbusters?

That's a lot of "ifs" and "maybe"s in there.

I personally think if things have gotten that bad, you just call up Norad.

Thing is that National Guard does train for this, they would just grab units from areas that have are not likely to support the cause. E.G. if its a rebellion based in New York, then units from both the midwest and western seaboard would be called in, admittedly this is depending on what the rebellion is about.

 Wardragoon wrote:
[

Thing is that National Guard does train for this, they would just grab units from areas that have are not likely to support the cause. E.G. if its a rebellion based in New York, then units from both the midwest and western seaboard would be called in, admittedly this is depending on what the rebellion is about.

Yeah, but with national movements, where will they get them, exactly. Hell, even California has some teapartiers. This is the thing that they're looking at, large scale movements not limited to one state. If, god help us, the tea party takes over, say, Richmond, sending in National Guard from just about anywhere could be iffy. It's bad enough at that point that you wouldn't be 100% on the regulars, let alone weekend warriors.