Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "OBF" channel.

@_Epsilon_ NATO was created against the Soviet Union (they refused to hand over territories occupied after WW2). NATO has cooperated with Russia in many instances (even as recently as 2011 with joint exercises).
48
@derkatzenfuerst6077 Batteries don't work with combustion. Of course they do not need to carry oxidizer.
2
@derkatzenfuerst6077 "a plane using hydrogen / oxygen combustion engines only has to carry half of its fuel" - Oxygen isn't the fuel, it's the oxidizer. The point is, when we calculate the energy densities of a fuel, we include the result of the energy released by the breaking of the O2 double bond without including its mass or volume. So there's no "hidden" advantage. "When using batteries you need more energy on board to compensate for that fact." - But no, you don't. It's already compensated for. Same as automobiles, we compare fossil fuels to batteries by assume the energy released from oxygen is already in the fuel tank.
2
That buffer state is useless by reactivating NATO's drive. Just staying low was allowing NATO to disarm itself and focus less and less on warfighting. Now European states are investing in arms manufacturing and personnel increase. Russia awakened the thing it feared.
2
They couldn't do it with their supposedly trained and well equipped army. How are they gonna do it with convicts, Nepalese immigrants and turtle tanks?
2
@averagejoe9040 That's not the point. If you have 10 megajoule in hydrogen or in batteries, the energy is the same. When we calculate the heat energy recovered from the reaction we already took the oxygen's share into account.
1
Just because one religious group has no originally you don't get to concern troll, pipe the hell down.
1
The gear in Kaliningrad isn't gonna turn the tide. The 2022 army with real soldiers couldn't take the capital. It's 2024 and Russia's army is full of conscripts, convicts and immigrants.
1