Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (52601)	5/12/2000 7:02:00 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116759

Gold goes into the missle & bomb connector link points on a fighter: Thursday May 11, 8:40 pm Eastern Time Boeing, Lockheed set to share massive fighter deal By Chris Stetkiewicz SEATTLE, May 11 (Reuters) - The Pentagon may abandon its current winner-take-all strategy for a $200 billion contract to build a new fighter jet and Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - news) and Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - news) say they are prepared to share. While each manufacturer insists it would win the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) contract outright, both say they would work together no matter which of the competing designs the Pentagon picks as the template for over 3,000 attack planes. ``We are still operating in winner-take-all mode,'' said Lockheed spokeswoman Carolyn Hodge. ``We believe we have the right airplane and we want to be the prime contractor. But we will work with Boeing. We work with them on other programmes.'' (cont) biz.yahoo.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (52601)	5/12/2000 7:40:00 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 116759

This might slow any war with China: Has Taiwan Gone Nuclear? NewsMax.com Friday, May 12, 2000 If a report in a prestigious publication dealing with defense issues is correct, Taiwan has joined the nuclear weapons club, and the strategic situation in the Taiwan Straits has changed drastically. According to a report in the authoritative Defence and Foreign Affairs journal the Taiwanese military have gotten their hands on two nuclear warheads and put them on a pair of medium-range ballistic missiles aimed at the mainland. The journal, published by the International Strategic Studies Association in Washington reports that the nukes, originally owned by South Africa, were obtained in an under-the-counter deal brokered by a so-called "intermediary Middle Eastern country." Taiwanese officials strongly denied the report and said they didn?t have any "medium-range surface-to-surface missiles" that could carry nuclear warheads and, thanks to restictions on exports of missile technology, couldn?t develop their own arsenal of ballistic missiles if they wanted to. Nevertheless, if the report is true, the entire strategic situation, vis-a-vis the Taiwan-Mainland China standoff, has changed drastically. China has made no secret about their plans to invade Taiwan should the island?s government declare independence. Published reports from official People?s Liberation Army have outlined a blitzkrieg-like attack on Taiwan, with hundred of thousands of PLA troops landing on the island and overwhelming Taiwanese defenses. The lightning like invasion would effectively preclude U.S. participation in the early stages of the war, and China bluntly warned the United States that they would not hesitate to use their own nuclear arsenal against the United States, should the United States attempt to use nuclear weapons in retalliation against China. But, if Taiwan does have even as few as two nuclear missiles aimed at the mainland, they could stop a Chinese invasion dead in its tracks. It could be back-to-the-drawing board for Chinese strategic planners, and a toning down of the war of words Beijing has been waging. newsmax.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (52601)	5/12/2000 8:37:00 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116759

<If we don't permit the Arabs to get an inflated price for their oil, how will they continue to be able to buy our expensive military toys??> ha ha... amazing isn't it, didn't work with Iraq yet the same old paradigm continues. That said, we do seem to be backing fewer despots these days. We must be advancing. DAK

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (52601)	5/13/2000 8:47:00 AM
From: Joan Osland Graffius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116759

Ron, I am not so sure the Arabs need a high price for oil as much as our own politicians need the price. It is my opinion that if we do not have a high price for oil our government would have to pay the insurance on the Mexican bail out to our banks. Besides the banks would take it on the chin for their portion of the risk on the bail out. These banks do contribute to both parties campaign fund. These politicians do not have the political where-with-all to admit they made a mistake to the American public and pay the insurance out of current tax revenues when they can get it out of the American public through high gas prices. With high oil prices Washington gets "more tax revenue" and Mexico can pay their debt. Another note, it is my understanding that our refineries are running at 98% capacity at the moment. I am not sure any price of oil would help the cost of gasoline at the pump. I don't think our oil companies are going to build more refining capacity at these prices. The price of gasoline is going to have to get a lot higher before they can get a decent return on investment before capacity is increased. In my opinion we are in trouble. Joan

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (52601)	5/13/2000 11:04:00 AM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116759

<<<There is plenty of oil out there. The article points out quite clearly that the shortage is due to OPEC production limits, not the shortage of oil.>>> I continue to marvel at the type of logic that you use... never mind total collapse of the world order that we have, and never mind that it would take many generations to implement any transition to the alternative energy...(Which of course must happen and will happen...(there is no indefinite supply of cheap oil) But....here what marvels me...according to you, there is no food shortage in the World, all we have to do is to have US, Australia, Canada farmers to drastically increase production...Food is cheap and getting cheaper to produce, than we shall flood markets with beef, grain, and even with genetically engineered food, rather than see people starving around the globe...Why that does not make sense...(or rather it does but make no ecnomically viable sense, and threatened to plunge US in deep recession...I would let you to figure that one out..<g> Regards PS Now trick trivia question....name 3 biggest consumers of US agricultural products (wheat, grains)....