Realcent.org

So as the white house has instructed the military to prepare a "no fly zone" on Syria ie: bombing campaign/war. I have been wondering if this will affect the prices of metals? With Russia arming the Syrians with sophisticated weapons it seems like it will be quite a different show than Libya. Any ideas from you knowledgable folks?

I don't know about the metal price. It will probably be a very small dent in the metal supply as this is still a low grade conflict.

But, the Russian missiles vs US airpower has been tried before. The Russians like to sell their missiles, they are missile people. Their missiles are typically very good and cheap.

If the Russians teach the Syrians how to shoot down a bunch of expensive American aircraft (All our military aircraft are VERY expensive and paid for with borrowed money) this could escalate quickly.

Election is coming quick. Omambo may want to swing his d%%% if we get hurt by the, relatively cheap Russian missiles. If this escalates, even if Israel fights as our proxy, someone will pay for it.

War is expensive. The government will just borrow another trillion from my kid and his kids=metals go up per USD.

Every US cruise missile supposedly vaporizes a monster box of silver. In the event of a BIG conflict, that sort of military use could put a squeeze on the market.

If things escalate with Syria and Israel to levels not seen in recent years it could very well spook people back into the fear trade. If Syria goes the way of Libya without a relatively (note: relatively is a relative term) high amount of global escalation it could be a non-event for metals. Although Syria has shown resilience lately. Regime change throughout MENA is certainly on the globalist agenda, but not necessarily on the BRIC's.

Thogey wrote:Election is coming quick. Omambo may want to swing his d%%% if we get hurt by the, relatively cheap Russian missiles. If this escalates, even if Israel fights as our proxy, someone will pay for it.

I dont think he needs to swing it. Doing fine right now w/o. However, the US will do whatever it needs to maintain access to our oil interests.

Engineer wrote:Every US cruise missile supposedly vaporizes a monster box of silver. In the event of a BIG conflict, that sort of military use could put a squeeze on the market.

What a WASTE of perfectly good silver!!! I've heard the same thing about 500 oz per cruise missile is used. It blows up, and no more silver...

I have a better plan....how about we stay OUT of other countries and let them sort it out?

Thing about the cruise is that the silver is already allocated. The US is not going to create more cruise missles just for Syria. The US might create more if they went to war with Canada

In the entirety of the Gulf War, the US used.... 288 cruise missles.

However, losing a 100 tonne tank with a 5% nickel plating armor would be a serious financial setback. Losing a Littoral class warship would be a minor setback as they apparently contain no nickel at all (they are rusting, badly)

The cruise missle theory for consuming silver is laughable at best.

5 tons of nickel isn't a lot relative to overall supply either... and I do believe it would be scrapped, unlike vaporized silver.

I refuse to believe there are 500 ounces of silver in a missile unless someone can prove it with actual documentation not Zero Hedge articles (no offense to ZH but they sometimes publish rumors to get hits or to try to be in front of the "regular" news). Even if they have a massive computer system (I'm sure they do) I cannot see how it would be more than a couple ounces.

AGgressive Metal wrote:I refuse to believe there are 500 ounces of silver in a missile unless someone can prove it with actual documentation not Zero Hedge articles (no offense to ZH but they sometimes publish rumors to get hits or to try to be in front of the "regular" news). Even if they have a massive computer system (I'm sure they do) I cannot see how it would be more than a couple ounces.

It's hard to tell, and that's why I prefaced with "supposedly".

It wouldn't surprise me if ALL of the wiring in a cruise missile is silver to shave a few ounces off the weight and increase range. Even with that, it would take a lot of wiring to use up 500 ounces.

Another possibility which I haven't seen discussed is the use of Ag based compounds as a primer for the main charge. Those could use up ounces in a hurry.

scyther wrote:5 tons of nickel isn't a lot relative to overall supply either... and I do believe it would be scrapped, unlike vaporized silver.

Says you. The US doesn't have a nickel mine. If Canada says no more nickel or no more oil for you, you guys are seriously in trouble. Russia also has a stockpile of 40,000 mostly rusting tanks as well (post-war hardware had low nickel content due to cost, as nickel was parity with silver for most of the 1940's) Imagine mixing in a few tonnes of silver into a tank, and thats what it cost, and many willingly paid.

US doesn't have a Neodymium mine either.

In 1964, the US had 10 ounces per capita in silver, but only 6.5 ounces of nickel in coin form. You also managed to spend $37 Billion on combat ships (Littoral) that seem to contain no nickel. You would think that if it was slightly more available, you would spend the extra $100 million to make them rustproof and armored. Most modern jet fighters are made of alloyed nickel in the frame and engines (aluminum is too weak to survive the stresses)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dy ... ing_Falcon

The F-16 at 9,100 kilograms (10 ton) is considered a "lightweight" fighter, not for its ability to fight, but its acutal weight. I can imagine the frame and hull of a Tomahawk has 500 ounces of nickel in it as well.

It also means that a single 5 cent piece from Canada (4.54 grams) was worth twice what a 90% silver dime was during WWII.

Nickel is a very important metal in time of war.

blackrabbit wrote:So as the white house has instructed the military to prepare a "no fly zone" on Syria ie: bombing campaign/war. I have been wondering if this will affect the prices of metals? With Russia arming the Syrians with sophisticated weapons it seems like it will be quite a different show than Libya. Any ideas from you knowledgable folks?

oh man, i'm sorry...I didn't see this post, before I put up those two vid's and a mainstream media report.......i'm sorry.

I agree with the author of the two video's...its "smelling" like WWIII.....you have Russia/China/Iran lining up.....against the US/EU, and the whole guiding force is resource competition.

my MAIN worry is this, (and maybe Thogey will back me)...IF we get into a hot war, a shooting war, we run a HIGH risk of nuclear weapons release. I don't care what anybody says, once that demon gets let out of the bottle, I don't see how anyone can contain it to a limited nuclear exchange...the only way it stays limited, is if there is leadership decapitation....and even then, there might be "deadman switches" built into any system, where national leadership has been taken out.

Preppers can prep all they want, and stackers can stack all they want....but when you get into a discussion of nuclear "war", unless you have one of 70 "kneecap" style bunkers...forget it, all bets are off. I mean not EVERYBODY will die....out of 6-7 billion souls, maybe 25 million might live.

interesting times....should I make the donut run?

I hate to say this...because i'm NOT liking the REASONS for any future conflict...but we do have ONE ace card, that no adversary can counter, UNLESS there has been a total penetration of our cyber systems....up in the sky...very very high...space, our weapons systems, which nobody speaks of, are unparalleled.

they strike absolute fear into both the Chinese and Russians...and THAT itself is not good. Means a nation state acting in fear is very unpredictable.

This whole thing, is SO unnecessary....in fact, it borders on total insanity....when did this "insanity" really get in motion?

Millennium Challenge 2002 ....here, read this, we reward stupidity, and punish the smart guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium_Challenge_2002

ZenOps wrote:

scyther wrote:5 tons of nickel isn't a lot relative to overall supply either... and I do believe it would be scrapped, unlike vaporized silver.

Says you. The US doesn't have a nickel mine. If Canada says no more nickel or no more oil for you, you guys are seriously in trouble. Russia also has a stockpile of 40,000 mostly rusting tanks as well (post-war hardware had low nickel content due to cost, as nickel was parity with silver for most of the 1940's) Imagine mixing in a few tonnes of silver into a tank, and thats what it cost, and many willingly paid.

US doesn't have a Neodymium mine either.

In 1964, the US had 10 ounces per capita in silver, but only 6.5 ounces of nickel in coin form. You also managed to spend $37 Billion on combat ships (Littoral) that seem to contain no nickel. You would think that if it was slightly more available, you would spend the extra $100 million to make them rustproof and armored. Most modern jet fighters are made of alloyed nickel in the frame and engines (aluminum is too weak to survive the stresses)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dy ... ing_Falcon

The F-16 at 9,100 kilograms (10 ton) is considered a "lightweight" fighter, not for its ability to fight, but its acutal weight. I can imagine the frame and hull of a Tomahawk has 500 ounces of nickel in it as well.

It also means that a single 5 cent piece from Canada (4.54 grams) was worth twice what a 90% silver dime was during WWII.

Nickel is a very important metal in time of war.

Uhhhh, not going to go fact by fact, but in general you all don't know what you're talking about... Not that nickel isn't important (for use in stainless steel as well a superalloys for engine materials) but aluminum remains an excellent structural material for airframes - it is NOT a matter of it not being able to take the load -just a matter of what is most efficient for what purpose. But for the more modern aerostructures the bulk of the the structure is carbon/epoxy - no metal except in some of the joints, and most of the fasteners. Wiring is, by and large, regular copper - not silver. There is PM use in electronic platings and other specific uses, but nowhere near the amounts that are speculated on. Etc, Etc.

Awww...how am I supposed to get them all riled up if you keep throwing those buckets of cold water all over everything? I thought the Ag compound based primers were excellent conspiracy theory fodder...

One thing you didn't address, however, is the need for titanium based fasteners for the carbon/epoxy airframes. We pretty much have to get that from the Russians.

Ran out of time during my previous post but I was going to add that - but you beat me to it. Yes, lack of titanium is our weakest area by far. Not just for fasteners (though we can and do use stainless, with composites, in a pinch) but for the lightweight multi-axially loaded structures like landing gear, wing boxes, helicopter rotor hubs, engine frames, etc. These are most efficient in titanium, plus titanium best interacts and interfaces with the composite structures on either side of it. The Rooskies have so much of it that they actually were building entire submarines out of it.

Nickel is important, no doubt about it, but we use relatively small amounts of it, and because stainless steel is in such common industrial use there is frankly enough residual scrap nickel in the country that it would not be the most critical issue in any future war.

Your standard airliner uses quite a bit of titanium and aluminum, but again - surprisingly little in fighter jets, and suprisingly high amount of nickel.

There supposedly is quite a bit of Rhodium (at least quite a bit compared to its relative rarity) in a fighter jet engine thruster flaps.

Canada might cancel the small order for 65 F-35's simply because you guys can't produce one that meets minimum specs (bending airframe at high speed is a big issue) Thats usually a sign that you "used cheap concrete". I know the US is planning on producing 2,443 F-35 along with a hundred or so F-22's for internal use.

If you ask me, there isn't all *that* much nickel out there (at least compared to the amount of silver that people seem to think there is silver). There wasn't enough in 1942, and there was barely enough to make it through the Korean war (which the US may have to fight again soon)

To anyone who is a "doomer" to the point where they think it will come down to guns: Nickel is probably what you want to be stacking, not silver. And more Tungsten as well. For an economic doomsday scenario only, silver and gold have historically done well.

There is a lot of resistance from people who suggest nickel as an investment. Bullion and coin shops basically make $0 on nickel because the US insists on operating at a massive losses to keep circulation of 5 cent nickels (IE: to keep the price of it low.) Just yesterday I bought some 1947 to 1967 British half crowns for... 10 cents apiece. (And $25 worth of stamps for $20) BTW: The US produces and circulates nickels in a very socialist manner. Just saying...

Syria ~ No matter who wins ~ We lose.

ZenOps wrote:...
Canada might cancel the small order for 65 F-35's simply because you guys can't produce one that meets minimum specs (bending airframe at high speed is a big issue) Thats usually a sign that you "used cheap concrete". I know the US is planning on producing 2,443 F-35 along with a hundred or so F-22's for internal use.
...

lol - well, I'm not going to get in an argument on this, which is way off topic, but suffice it to say that I'm personally perfectly fine with any other country which is a potential F-35 buyer choosing instead to buy a second or third-rate fighter from Sweden, France, the Euro-consortia, the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Brazilians - or any other organization purporting to offer a competitor.

ZenOps wrote:Nickel is probably what you want to be stacking, not silver.

I do stack nickel as well, canadian as well as french. Hmmm, by weight I might have as much of it as silver - maybe more - I haven't checked lately. I don't stack it for the WW3 potential, just because it is a rather scarce as well as highly useful material, as I know you emphasize. So we're on the same page there.

ZenOps wrote:

scyther wrote:5 tons of nickel isn't a lot relative to overall supply either... and I do believe it would be scrapped, unlike vaporized silver.

Says you. The US doesn't have a nickel mine. If Canada says no more nickel or no more oil for you, you guys are seriously in trouble. Russia also has a stockpile of 40,000 mostly rusting tanks as well (post-war hardware had low nickel content due to cost, as nickel was parity with silver for most of the 1940's) Imagine mixing in a few tonnes of silver into a tank, and thats what it cost, and many willingly paid.

US doesn't have a Neodymium mine either.

In 1964, the US had 10 ounces per capita in silver, but only 6.5 ounces of nickel in coin form. You also managed to spend $37 Billion on combat ships (Littoral) that seem to contain no nickel. You would think that if it was slightly more available, you would spend the extra $100 million to make them rustproof and armored. Most modern jet fighters are made of alloyed nickel in the frame and engines (aluminum is too weak to survive the stresses)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dy ... ing_Falcon

The F-16 at 9,100 kilograms (10 ton) is considered a "lightweight" fighter, not for its ability to fight, but its acutal weight. I can imagine the frame and hull of a Tomahawk has 500 ounces of nickel in it as well.

It also means that a single 5 cent piece from Canada (4.54 grams) was worth twice what a 90% silver dime was during WWII.

Nickel is a very important metal in time of war.

So what if the US doesn't have a nickel mine? Why would Canada ban nickel exports to the US? Price is all that really matters, and the fact is that nickel is much cheaper than silver. I also think the amount of nickel in coin form per capita doesn't matter... at all. There's even less steel par capita in coin form. Should we start stacking that?

neilgin1 wrote:

blackrabbit wrote:So as the white house has instructed the military to prepare a "no fly zone" on Syria ie: bombing campaign/war. I have been wondering if this will affect the prices of metals? With Russia arming the Syrians with sophisticated weapons it seems like it will be quite a different show than Libya. Any ideas from you knowledgable folks?

oh man, i'm sorry...I didn't see this post, before I put up those two vid's and a mainstream media report.......i'm sorry.

I agree with the author of the two video's...its "smelling" like WWIII.....you have Russia/China/Iran lining up.....against the US/EU, and the whole guiding force is resource competition.

my MAIN worry is this, (and maybe Thogey will back me)...IF we get into a hot war, a shooting war, we run a HIGH risk of nuclear weapons release. I don't care what anybody says, once that demon gets let out of the bottle, I don't see how anyone can contain it to a limited nuclear exchange...the only way it stays limited, is if there is leadership decapitation....and even then, there might be "deadman switches" built into any system, where national leadership has been taken out.

Preppers can prep all they want, and stackers can stack all they want....but when you get into a discussion of nuclear "war", unless you have one of 70 "kneecap" style bunkers...forget it, all bets are off. I mean not EVERYBODY will die....out of 6-7 billion souls, maybe 25 million might live.

interesting times....should I make the donut run?

I don't see this as a problem, unless a serious misunderstanding occurs. For example, a rouge nuke is released and blamed on the wrong players.

We avoided nuclear catastrophe between 1950-1990, and trust me, we came close. Mostly through misunderstandings.

Like, USSR test launched from operational sites. Yes it really happened. It freaked a lot of people out. We advanced our readiness because of it. It was a very serious situation. Maybe worse than the Cuban crisis.

Advancing readiness on a nuclear alert facility involves actions that are extremely stressful and serious.

Communication was lousy back then. But ICBMs could be enabled and released in a matter of minutes.

We might be headed for a nuclear incident, but not a full exchange IMO.

neilgin1 wrote:I agree with the author of the two video's...its "smelling" like WWIII.....you have Russia/China/Iran lining up.....against the US/EU, and the whole guiding force is resource competition.

I mean not EVERYBODY will die....out of 6-7 billion souls, maybe 25 million might live.

interesting times....should I make the donut run?

I always thought China had its eye on Russian living space (Lebensraum?). But, with Russia no longer a superpower it might make a good coolie for China. Interesting to see how their relationship pans out.

Resource wars? Yes, they will be fought. It's why we are in the middle east still. I'm not sure it will be a WWIII though. More likely the bigger countries pushing on the smaller ones to get what they want. Until, it starts getting real rough getting what they want. Meaning one of the big boys decides it just cant do without (anymore, right now, or at some time in the not so distant future). Perhaps a pre-emptive wack. Will billions die? Yes, but from combined emergencies (famine, flood, lack of medical, lack of energy, super bugs, financial, war, and other general civilization degradation, etc.)

(edit for spelling)

Then you might see two or more of the big powers go at it. Will there be an exchange? I'm thinking more tactical (regional or regions) in nature than world wide. Hopefully, the complete and abject horror of it will make those involved stop. Or more likely they just wont exist at the level to continue.

Another thing you have to consider is, superpower military runs on huge amounts of energy & resources. If you are the US you have to include uber-technology. And uber-technology takes even more energy & resources to make. At some point, we just wont have the energy or resources to perform war as we now know it nor use technology as we now know it. But not before hell is released at least on a limited scale.

While I believe it can and will be profitable to either collect, horde or invest in high tech, or rare earth, or military, or financial metals in the short-term, I think for the long-term we need to concentrate on low tech metals. Say metallurgy from a time that didn't require as much energy to make stuff. This and salvage from the cities will be the future. But, I'm sure I'm talking at least a few generations down the road here. Or at least I hope I am.

And all of this, because humanity is still attempting to maintain the unsustainable status quo. Where do I think we are headed? Something along the lines of fascist enforced economic austerity. Or the corporate government decides the priority of energy and resources. Really I ask, does it seem like a whole lot of a stretch from where we are now?

Make mine a cinna-bun.

Hitler coveted the idea of "Lebensraum" for Germans as to the reason it invaded the Soviet Union during WWII.

Do the Chinese think in the same way towards Russia? Something to think about. I have no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me. Russia is huge, geographically.

The US has been fighting a resource war for many years now, off the radar. Why do you think we are in so many countries now?

johnbrickner wrote:

neilgin1 wrote:I agree with the author of the two video's...its "smelling" like WWIII.....you have Russia/China/Iran lining up.....against the US/EU, and the whole guiding force is resource competition.

I mean not EVERYBODY will die....out of 6-7 billion souls, maybe 25 million might live.

interesting times....should I make the donut run?

I always thought China had its eye on Russian living space (Lebensraum?). But, with Russia no longer a superpower it might make a good coolie for China. Interesting to see how their relationship pans out.

Resource wars? Yes, they will be fought. It's why we are in the middle east still. I'm not sure it will be a WWIII though. More likely the bigger countries pushing on the smaller ones to get what they want. Until, it starts getting real rough getting what they want. Meaning one of the big boys decides it just cant do without (anymore, right now, or at some time in the not so distant future). Perhaps a pre-emptive wack. Will billions die? Yes, but from combined emergencies (famine, flood, lack of medical, lack of energy, super bugs, financial, war, and other general civilization degradation, etc.)

(edit for spelling)




Then you might see two or more of the big powers go at it. Will there be an exchange? I'm thinking more tactical (regional or regions) in nature than world wide. Hopefully, the complete and abject horror of it will make those involved stop. Or more likely they just wont exist at the level to continue.

Another thing you have to consider is, superpower military runs on huge amounts of energy & resources. If you are the US you have to include uber-technology. And uber-technology takes even more energy & resources to make. At some point, we just wont have the energy or resources to perform war as we now know it nor use technology as we now know it. But not before hell is released at least on a limited scale.

While I believe it can and will be profitable to either collect, horde or invest in high tech, or rare earth, or military, or financial metals in the short-term, I think for the long-term we need to concentrate on low tech metals. Say metallurgy from a time that didn't require as much energy to make stuff. This and salvage from the cities will be the future. But, I'm sure I'm talking at least a few generations down the road here. Or at least I hope I am.

And all of this, because humanity is still attempting to maintain the unsustainable status quo. Where do I think we are headed? Something along the lines of fascist enforced economic austerity. Or the corporate government decides the priority of energy and resources. Really I ask, does it seem like a whole lot of a stretch from where we are now?

Make mine a cinna-bun.

Scary scenario. I can only hope that sanity would rule the day here. The environment would be the ultimate loser as well as humanity as a whole in a nuclear exchange. Even one that is limited. We all need the environment in order to survive.

Stack a variety of metals. They could be quite valuable one day.

I also like old Canadian nickels and coppers, besides the base metal they could develop into a numi play down the line as they disappear from circulation. The bags are still sitting on the floor though... storage is a consideration.

IMO silver is the most undervalued right now whether regarded as money or as an essential metal for technology, but it could be both at the same time. That along with historically low stockpiles only covering a fraction of yearly demand independently of mining supply makes for a thin line being walked, and so I think it's the best play and what I focus my core position around.

But I like gold and PGMs too, and why not lead, iridium, gallium? They're all (essentially) indestructable elements with unique properties.

I don't think the war will have much impact on prices unless it somehow undermines the exchanges' ability to provide price discovery. Once that changes then I expect revaluations to happen, but real life demand doesn't carry the weight it used to unless it's on a mass scale.