US tech titans rejoice in $600B Saudi shopping spree

The Saudi government on Tuesday announced a massive $600 billion investment in US defense, transportation, energy, and IT infrastructure. It's not just American military contractors reveling at the thought of packing Saudi armories and airfields with $142 billion worth of fighter jets and missiles. Prince Mohammed bin Salman's …

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsurprising

The Saudi kingdom and it's Gulf neighbors have this common dream: Selling every last drop of oil hidden below their feet.

AI is the technology that promises to make this dream come true by burning it all. And Mad King Orange is their ally in this task. So he will sell them everything they want.

They know that at one point, they will have to switch to burning it for air-conditioning their cities to survive in the rising heat. But that will sell even more oil and gas.

[Like a badger]

Re: Unsurprising

Incorrect. The Middle East states may not be run by people we like, but they're run by intelligent people. The goal of the oil states has been (as per the article) to build an alternative economy, and that's not based on extracting every drop. As Sheikh Yamani said a few decades ago, "The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones, and the Oil Age will end, but not for a lack of oil".

Whereas countries like the US, Britain, Holland, Venezuela used oil revenues to fund day to day spending and then found it didn't last forever, most of the Middle East (and Norway) put a lot of the money into sovereign wealth funds invested in other regions and non-oil activities. As a result they've got a vast nest egg of professionally managed investments that will continue to pay off. The Norwegian SWF is worth $1.7 trillion, and the main Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dhabi funds are each worth around $1 trillion.

I wish the UK government hadn't pissed North Sea revenues away on whatever it was they pissed it away on....

[NewModelArmy]

Re: Unsurprising

I thought that the UK Tories sold off the north sea oil, so all we got was the tax revenue from the oil and gas, not the proceeds from the selling of oil and gas ?

[Like a badger]

Re: Unsurprising

I'm not sure of the specifics, but the data shows that the tax as a % of commercial North Sea revenues collapsed under the 1987 Thatcher government, and then again under the Cameron government, so I think it's fair to say the Tories gave it away to a greater extent than Labour.

https://obr.uk/box/the-evolution-of-north-sea-oil-and-gas-receipts/

[NewModelArmy]

Re: Unsurprising

The issue was Tory privatisation.

When the Tories sold off the oil and gas industry for the North sea, we only ever received the tax from the sales.

If we kept the oil and gas industry we would have received all proceeds from the sale of the oil and gas, similar to Norway.

Your link refers predominantly to tax revenues, which are variable based on accounting techniques, and tax changes.

Here s a link from the BBC where BP paid no tax for about 5 years, and in fact we the UK people paid them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177

[Apocalypso - a cheery end to the world]

Re: Unsurprising

> When the Tories sold off the oil and gas industry for the North sea, we only ever received the tax from the sales.

Not true. The Government sold (and still sells today) extraction licenses. Companies bid for rights to extract and sell oil and gas from designated blocks (areas of seabed). It's similar to the way mobile phone spectrum is auctioned off.

> If we kept the oil and gas industry we would have received all proceeds from the sale of the oil and gas, similar to Norway.

That's true but simplistic. If the government owns the extraction company then it also has to fund, up front, all of the capital, exploration and other development costs long before any oil revenues start to arrive. That means either borrowing and paying interest or not spending on other things. By selling licenses the Government gets its money immediately.

Which is the better approach is a subject for an economics thesis, but remember that Norway has roughly the same area of North Sea to extract from but only a small fraction of the UK's population, so they can easily spend the same or more per head than the UK and still have plenty left over to go into a sovereign wealth fund.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unsurprising

"they're run by intelligent people"

how's that stupid fucking line city doing?

[nobody who matters]

Re: Unsurprising

<......."I wish the UK government hadn't pissed North Sea revenues away on whatever it was they pissed it away on....".....>

Mostly on paying off the debts run up by profligate Governments of the 1960s and 70s.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unsurprising

"Mostly on filling the pockets of thatcher's cronies."

(i.e mostly stolen by the tories)

FTFY

[Like a badger]

Re: Unsurprising

@nobody who matters: UK government debt was coming down fairly consistently through the 1960s and 1970s:

https://articles.obr.uk/300-years-of-uk-public-finance-data/index.html

But don't let any facts sway your opinions.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Unsurprising

Those sovereign wealth funds investing in property in the UK. So they switch from oil revenue to rental income.

And it doesn't end there. And this time, there's no end

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unsurprising

"The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones, and the Oil Age will end, but not for a lack of oil."

The knowledge economy came to an end not for a lack of knowledge. Rather a lack of any actual intelligence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unsurprising

"The goal of the oil states has been (as per the article) to build an alternative economy, and that's not based on extracting every drop."

On the other hand they are quite busy to derail any attempt to reduce use of fossil fuels or production of plastics. They even made sure to host the international meetings about these concerns which they very professionally made non committing to any actual action.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unsurprising

With the shit-ton of worthless desert there …. converting a significant chunk of it into solar seems a no brainer.

I’d also advocate for Neom - once complete - to be offered as a home for their fellow Arab Palestinians. Honourable Islam in action.

[Khaptain]

For the Saudis,maybe , maybe not

I wonder if the Saudis are just being the Middle Man here and that those processors might end up being pushed on elsewhere ?

[nobody who matters]

Re: For the Saudis,maybe , maybe not

<......."I wonder if the Saudis are just being the Middle Man here and that those processors might end up being pushed on elsewhere ?"....>

That is always the worry with exports of sensitive tech nowadays, almost regardless of where the stuff is being exported to initially.

For me, it is sad to see the playground bully winning again.

[Valeyard]

Re: For the Saudis,maybe , maybe not

I wonder if the Saudis are just being the Middle Man here and that those processors might end up being pushed on elsewhere ?

if you're talking about Russia then they'll have to undercut India for that dirty little market

[phuzz]

Re: For the Saudis,maybe , maybe not

I'm sure they've convinced the US that there's no way that could possibly happen. Pinky-swear and everything.

[Burgha2]

Re: For the Saudis,maybe , maybe not

"I'm sure they've convinced the US that there's no way that could possibly happen. Pinky-swear and everything"

Being worried about Russia is so 2024. Not sure the US government would care if they went to Russia these days.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Burgha2 - Re: For the Saudis,maybe , maybe not

US are facing a big dilemma here, those who would be allowed to buy don't have the money and those who have the money are not allowed to buy. Saudi Arabia is right in the middle here. Sorry but no Russia. US administration (also known by he name of Deep State) would rather open their veins (and Trump's veins too) than doing business with Russia.

[ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo]

Given enough GPUs

maybe AI will finish building The Line.

At least, they can update it to consist of Renderite 2.0

[nobody who matters]

<.."....reveling at the thought of packing Saudi armories and airfields with $142 billion worth of fighter jets and missiles.".....>

They are jet fighters, NOT fighter jets. Why do so many people nowadays insist on twisting it round and making it nonsense?

You wouldn't refer to an airliner jet, or a car motor, or ship sailing; so why 'fighter jet'? It is simply garbled English.

The jet is merely the method of propulsion. In full they are a jet engined fighter aeroplane, which is correctly shortened to 'jet fighter'.

[wolfetone]

The thing flies and fires missiles that kill people, often innocent people.

Who gets uppity and becomes a full on Lampard about what you call it? Surely you should be more concerned with how they're used?

[that one in the corner]

> You wouldn't refer to an airliner jet, or a car motor

But you would refer to a car motor versus a mower motor or a chainsaw motor* when talking about components.

We are certain the Saudis aren't just trying to corner the market on spare parts? "Getcha jets 'ere, got 'em in all sizes, love! Got yer fighter jet, yer jet for Jumbo Jets, come over 'ere and show us yer gams and oi'll shows yer a leer jet!"

Those things probably wear out fast, what with all that sand around.

* Ok, many would say 'engine' there; for the oldies even the slightly redundant 'motor car engine' or 'motor mower engine' - you remember the push mower, yes, or the big horse drawn job out in the fields, that filled the evening breeze with the aroma of cut grass instead of fumes.

[Anonymous Coward]

that filled the evening breeze with the aroma of cut grass instead of fumes.

You're overlooking the manure aroma.

:)

[that one in the corner]

Still better than the fumes IMO - straight from horse isn't so bad, a few times across the field.

Now, muck spreading days - those you can't ignore! Although it hasn't been very noticeable so far this year.

[nobody who matters]

It is pretty clear the it is reference to the aircraft, not just its power plant. Your argument is just plain silly - it isn't the jet engine that is the fighter, it is the whole aircraft - if you were only referring to the power unit, you would not use the word fighter on its own in the first place.

This reversal of correct English occurs far too frequently for it to just be swept aside by misinterpreting its use to try to excuse it.

Sad that several people on here have such a poor grasp of the English language that they think I am wrong. Sadly, the rules of English mean that it is you who are wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The one small thing I'll take away from this thread is that you've got a wholly appropriate posting name.

[Anonymous Coward]

The humour bypass was a total success.

[that one in the corner]

> if you were only referring to the power unit, you would not use the word fighter on its own in the first place.

Sure you would - the sort of power plant you shove into a fighter aircraft, afterburner and all, looks nothing like the big ducted fuel efficient jobs you see hanging off a freight/passenger plane, nor even the diddly things normally seen on a ten-seater corporate jet. Let alone the pulsed engines that people (well, person, well nutter on Youtube) strap onto a push bike.

Put a selection of those engines into a row and ask anyone, they'll go "fighter", "fighter", "lear", "heavy lift". Not "jet fighter jet" or "jet corporate lease, with option to buy, executive conveyance, jet".

Okay, you will have caught them out on the second one, it was a trick question: that came out of a speed record attempt car, which was never armed and therefore was technically was never a fighter (you can tell by the staining from the salt from the dried lake bed race surface).

[Anonymous Coward]

"pulsed engines that people (well, person, well nutter on Youtube) strap onto a push bike."

URL for the YouTube nutter with a V1 pulsejet strapped to his treadly? Please.

The buzz bomb biker?

The Spitfire was I think a radial engined fighter so also a fighter radial then?

Even for me a fairly pointless argument over contemporary usage. As long as it makes sense and reasonably unambiguous what the heck?

"Jet" is problematic in that either jet engine or jet [engined] aircraft can he the intended meaning†. So jet fighter (= jet engined fighter [aircraft]) and fighter jet (= fighter jet [engined] aircraft.) Either way a sodding lot of money that if it were spent on solving the problems that lead to the conflicts requiring these aircraft in the first instance everybody excepting the arms peddlers would be a lot happier.

_{† nouns in apposition I was reading recently, even in Latin can be tricky to translate accurately.}

[O'Reg Inalsin]

C.f.

- Passenger jets

- Jetliners

- Jet setters

Middle English had a verb getten, jetten meaning "to prance, strut, swagger, be showy" (c. 1400), from getter, jetter, the Old French form of the verb. Related: Jetted; jetting.

[An_Old_Dog]

Phrasing

@ nobody who matters:

They are called "fighter jets" because the phrase, "jet fighters" is misleading. These jet-powered, fixed-wing*, military aircraft do not fight only other jet-powered, fixed-wing* military aircraft.

* the phrase "fixed-wing aircraft" is not literal ("swing-wing" military aircraft have existed), but generally-descriptive, and used as contrast to "rotary-winged" aircraft (helicopters).

[nobody who matters]

Re: Phrasing

You are just being disingenuous.

To split hairs, to take it to the logical conclusion of your naming - they are actually jet-powered, fixed-wing fighter aircraft, but if you think 'fighter jet' is correct, they would actually have to be referred to as military aircraft, fixed-wing, jet-powered for that term to make any sense. We don't use the terms in that order, so 'fighter jet' is still wrong even by your argument.

The term 'jet fighters' is not misleading in any way, and is the way they always used to be referred to (until some ill-educated numpty decided to screw with the language). Jet refers to the power source, not to the type of aircraft they will be in combat with. Seems you neither understand how English works, not understand the concept of aerial warfare.

The use of the term 'fighter jets' by contrast, most definitely is, and this nonsensical term only seems to have strted being (incorrectly) used in recent years, and is now everywhere you look. Its acceptence by some people is just yet another symptom of their inability to differentiate between the evolotion of language, and the deterioration of language. .

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Phrasing

Have you gotten over "PIN Number" yet?

[Casca]

Re: Phrasing

Maybe he is stuck on LCD Display?

[An_Old_Dog]

Re: Phrasing

Add "NIC card", and "ATM machine".

I despise 'em all, but have been sufficiently beaten into submission by common mis-usage that it doesn't get my adrenalin up.

[cornetman]

Re: Phrasing

They are all awful and propagated by lazy people.

Honestly, I'm with the original poster. Adjectives usually come before the noun. "Fighter jet" is referring to an engine. "Jet fighter" is referring to an aircraft. The first is probably a contraction of something like "fighter jet aircraft", which is probably overly repetitive, and now sounds like something different. Both are truncated for brevity so neither is perfect but we live in an imperfect world.

It's about time we cared about our language. Sure, language evolves but let it not stray too far from logic.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Phrasing

> "Fighter jet" is referring to an engine.

Yes, thank you, that was my point. Not that the OP will agree with us ;-)

Anyway, enough of this for the moment, it is a bright day, there are two clumps of sunspots rotating into view, time for afternoon coffee.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Phrasing

Have you gotten over "PIN Number" yet?

No. Still stuck in "GNU is Not Unix." :)

[heyrick]

so why 'fighter jet'?

Because it's a jet that is happy to roll up its sleeves and kick some arse, and the fighting part is perceived as being more important than the jet part so it is said first?

Icon, because...

[Dr. G. Freeman]

Fighter Jet- an aircraft used for fighting other jet-powered flying things in the sjy

Jet fighter- an aircraft with a jet engine, used for picking a fight with other things, that might not be jet-powered or even in the sky (but can move)- i.e. tank shaped things

Source - ex- RAF bod in the tearoom.

[Tubz]

and once the Saudi's start taking US Ai jobs, in come the tariffs from Uncle Trumpy, if he gets a 3rd vacation at the White House.

[tonique]

"Authoritarian regimes love rising authoritarian regime" was my first thought. Certainly, the USA makes such things they want but the timing and amount is suspicious.

[Dave@Home]

How are they powering and cooling these massive datacenters?

I can't imagine solar will be enough, though maybe with battery farms perhaps. Cooling seems like a real problem though.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Cooling seems like a real problem though

something on El Rego a while ago that it was easier to cool datacenters† in hot dry environments (deserts) than in not quite so hot humid environments (tropics.)

I don't remember whether the hot dry cooling was predicated on evaporating water into the dry atmosphere or some other reason. Fresh water is not something the gulf is exactly awash in. I guess you might be able to harness the waste heat to assist the desalination of seawater.

With a little luck the bottom will fall out of the AI tulip market before the hardware is paid for or shipped and old bin bone saw can reneg on the deal in much the same way the Trumpty administration has done on a plethora of long standing agreements.

_{† datacentres is a real word but just doesn't look right. Peculiar.}