Silver Shogun Technical Question

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

For example, when I got back from Iraq, I bought a used 2000 Toyota Echo for $7,000. I bought a standard so I could get the best fuel efficiency, plus power when I needed it. The safety rating is perfectly adequate. I have two car seats in the back for my children, though the car is a 2-door. The inconvenience of folding the passenger seat forward is modest, and I’m still fit enough to lift a young child into the car seat behind the driver’s side. Depending on how much highway driving I am doing, I get 37-39 mpg. This is in line with the fuel efficiency of some hybrids that cost a lot more. I have as much carrying capacity as a more prestigious and more expensive automobile would give me. So why aren’t the roads filled with Toyota Echos?

My wife's car is a Toyota Echo (4-door sedan). Great little car. Excellent fuel economy, zippy, very mechanically reliable. We'll probably keep driving it until it dies.

[rcaf_777]

We have a Toyota Corolla four door with 300 k on it no mechanical issues so far

[Webstral]

Kato, allow me to propose a very different scale of thinking when it comes to ROI regarding sales of AK-74 to the US and their resale domestically.

First, the PRC finds herself in possession of 100,000 of these rifles. They aren’t going to let them lie around on the battlefield for someone to pick up. They aren’t especially useful to the Chinese without the right ammunition. Someone with a bit of business acumen remembers that up through 1994 the PRC sold several million SKS rifles to civilian dealers in the US. Profits weren’t huge (I bought my first SKS retail for $99 in Macon, GA in late 1994), but profit is profit. If the PRC can sell these 100,000 rifles for $100 each to a US distributor, the proceeds amount to $10 million. This is not big money when compared to the trade deficit the US has with the PRC prior to the start of the war; nor is it big money compared to the debt the PRC is accumulating by buying everything that isn’t nailed down. But it is $10 million to be made by moving a few shipping containers of captured materiel to the US. Double the price to the US distributor, and we’re talking $20 million. Again, it’s not big money on the scale of Sino-Soviet trade. It doesn’t have to be. Not every profitable idea has to be worth the gross domestic product of the Netherlands to be worth doing to the participants.

Getting this idea passed in Congress in the context of the Sino-Soviet War shouldn't be that much more difficult, really. The US distributor contacts his Congressman, arranges a luncheon, and appears with a briefcase with $25,000 and a request to let American collectors show their patriotism and help the Chinese war effort by buying genuine Soviet AK-74s. The Congressman pockets his bribe and goes back to Congress to get the import of captured AK-74s into the US attached as a rider to any of the bills now moving through the subcommittee(s) overseeing US involvement in the Sino-Soviet War; i.e. arranging to have as much US gear sold to China as China is willing to buy and arranging to lend China more money lest the Chinese coffers empty before US arms manufacturers have supped their fill. Someone who is not in on the deal notices that the rider involves weapons that fire on automatic and puts the kibosh on it. US arms manufacturers get wind of this matter through their representatives in the respective subcommittees, and further negotiations ensue over golf. The various parties agree that the best thing to do is mandate removal of the auto fire capacity and rebuilding the weapons to fire 5.56 NATO. If the rifles don’t sell, then the distributor eats the loss. In the end, a few more palms are greased to the tune of a paltry sum by the standards of arms deals but which is meaningful enough to individuals, and the rider is attached to a high priority bill.

On the floor of both Houses, the rider is defended as a means of helping the Chinese offset their growing debt and as a means of helping Americans own a piece of Soviet setback. When someone with a head for figures points out that the total profit to China of selling these rifles is a veritable drop in the bucket, the retort is that any debt repayment is good, and why is the Congressman from California opposed to helping our Chinese friends pay down their debt to us by selling whatever they have to sell? Because it is a small sum on the scale of arms trade, the debate over the rider is brief. There are, after all, tens of thousands of ATGM to be sold and delivered with proceeds to US manufacturers measured in the billions of dollars. Surely, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we’re not going to fail to pass this important bill because the Chinese are selling us military curios captured from the Soviet Union to the tune of 5% of the value of our sales to the Chinese in this one bill alone. The BATF has already signed off on the modifications mandated in the bill, so can we get a vote on this already?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

We have a Toyota Corolla four door with 300 k on it no mechanical issues so far

I have a 2005 Kia Sedona Minivan. I've only needed a minor AC repair and new brakes. Most of where I need to go is less than 10 miles away, and I only have about 37,000 miles on it. I don't plan to get a new car until I pay off the house in about 6 years, and I don't think my Sedona will have any problem making it.

Stop making jokes about Kias! They don't deserve it!

[Targan]

Web, you seem to be going to a great deal of trouble to justify having 100,000 AK-74 rifles turn up in the US during the Twilight War. You clearly have your heart set on it. Why? Did you have an image in your mind of the Shogun's forces being armed with AK-74s and can't bear the thought of not having it happen in your campaign background, or is it something else?

[Webstral]

I’d say it’s more of a character failing. In this particular instance, I have become fixated on a certain idea that has certain ironies that appeal to me. I challenge myself with ways of seeing how unlikely things can be explained. Then I get involved in the business of testing ideas, which is where my pettiness comes out. This is good in that the devil is always in the details. This is bad in that the urge to be “right” can outweigh the merits of the idea itself. Looking at the behavior more in a positive light, I might say that I refuse to yield the point to a counterargument that doesn’t hold enough water. If you were to say that I might be better served by spending more time developing the characters and less time developing certain details, you’d probably be right.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Webstral

This is bad in that the urge to be “right” can outweigh the merits of the idea itself.

I can be similar when I look at a discussion as a debate and I try to "win". My apologies if that part of me had a negative effect on this discussion. I will try to keep my comments more positive.

[Webstral]

Of all the people on this board, Kato, you have the least to apologize for.