The function of the Marines is "to break things and kill people". I think the Army should follow that rule, too. Militarys are formed to fight wars, and "climate change" is not one of their concerns--lots of destruction happens in war.

flashguy

The future military participant, will be a non-binary, gender fluid, beta personality, schooled in pronouns and preferences, with a fundamental grasp of critical race theory, in a self-contained bio suit that prohibits the emission of methane from the body; while doing so in a neutral non-aggressive color or tone, that represents unity of the human race as a whole absent any reference to our racist, white privileged history of military and other oppression. Promoting diversity and inclusion as the drive for our global mission.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Electrified Combat Vehicles. Right. Show me a battery powered Abrams, please.

Just tell the enemy to pay no attention to the 1,500' extension cord.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
The function of the Marines is "to break things and kill people". I think the Army should follow that rule, too. Militarys are formed to fight wars, and "climate change" is not one of their concerns--lots of destruction happens in war.

flashguy

You beat me to it. Well done Sir!

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
The future military participant, will be a non-binary, gender fluid, beta personality, schooled in pronouns and preferences, with a fundamental grasp of critical race theory, in a self-contained bio suit that prohibits the emission of methane from the body; while doing so in a neutral non-aggressive color or tone, that represents unity of the human race as a whole absent any reference to our racist, white privileged history of military and other oppression. Promoting diversity and inclusion as the drive for our global mission.

The effort to put that together is worth recognizing!

I just figured out the strategy. I used to think the goal was to put in a cap and trade scheme so the leftists could skim a rent from almost all energy. It's no secret that leftist insiders like Al Gore have a financial stake in the trading schemes. And the government would love to be able to dictate who gets how many carbon credits so they can pick winners and losers based on who gives the biggest contributions.

But now I think it will just be a "settlement" with the oil/gas industry for all the "harm" they have caused like was done with the tobacco companies. Under threat of lawsuit based on "science" from government paid research, the government will compel a multi-billion dollar settlement and a percentage of the money from all oil/gas sales will be given to "fight climate change" and fund green energy. Then they will be in business with oil/gas and won't be able to afford to stop getting that money.

Just like tobacco. Notice the calls for banning and restricting vaping which by most accounts is a much less harmful nicotine delivery system (except for home brews that have led to lung problems)? Other countries are using vaping to get people off tobacco due to much lower risk of lung cancer. Banning it here or treating it the same as smoking just drives more cigarette sales and a continuous stream of "settlement" money. If we allowed vaping indoors in restaurants or workplaces that ban smoking, then people would change from cigarettes to vaping. And that would significantly improve public health and lower medicare and medicaid expenses for smoking related diseases.

Thus we will keep using gas/oil, the government will take their cut of the profits, throw it at politically favored "green" energy in exchange for campaign contributions, or unadulterated payoffs to family members, and then declare "victory" over global warming. Then "the science" will change to say that mitigation efforts have worked and there is nothing to worry about. Basically it's a big tax, but raising fuel taxes gets politicians unelected.

Until they find the next thing to attack. Remember, this is exactly what happened with Freon and Ozone, how the name Ozone Al came into use. Al Gore insisted that chlorinated hydrocarbons were going to destroy the ozone layer and kill millions of people with higher skin cancer rates. He called freon "the most dangerous substance known to man" and the penalties for smuggling into the US are higher than smuggling the same weight in marijuna. Once it was banned and we moved the new refrigerants - which are less efficient, require more energy, and use nasty synthetic lubricants that can cause cancer - none of them talk about the ozone anymore. There are no documentaries about how we "saved" the ozone or if it had any effect at all. No one cares.

25 years after the global warming settlement, people will think about global warming as much as they think about freon/ozone today.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

Next up.... Environmentally friendly high explosives?

This isn’t anything new. It’s impacted the entire Gov and DOD, started under Obama. Now the big magical concern is CARBON.

One company I used to work for sold MRAP engines to the military. They were cheaper to make because they had zero emission controls. They just had upgraded pistons and made more power. Lots of military stuff still runs on 2-stroke Detroit Diesels. Simple and able to burn a lot of different fuels depending on what is available.

Nothing about any hardware the military uses has much consideration for the "environment", nor should it.

The solution for dense jungle in Vietnam? Burn it down with Napalm. Then kill it all with Agent Orange. Not exactly environmentally friendly. Nor is depleted Uranium. Heavy metals aren't good for you, especially when hurled at you at high speeds.

It is sad to see the Army (and the other services too) pulled in different directions to please the whims of poseur politicians, special interest groups, Deputy Assistant Undersecretaries of Defense in charge of single issues, etc.

In garrison, the Army can/should follow local environmental rules and such, like any other part of the government. For tactical operations, any annoying or distracting rules should be ignored. EVs are probably not ready for use in the tactical world - and may not be for a long time.

I mean, that's just common sense, right? But this story gives me visions of a fleet of diesel-powered charging stations (and fuel tankers) having to be towed to the field to keep EVs charged up in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:
It is sad to see the Army (and the other services too) pulled in different directions to please the whims of poseur politicians, special interest groups, Deputy Assistant Undersecretaries of Defense in charge of single issues, etc.

In garrison, the Army can/should follow local environmental rules and such, like any other part of the government. For tactical operations, any annoying or distracting rules should be ignored. EVs are probably not ready for use in the tactical world - and may not be for a long time.

I mean, that's just common sense, right? But this story gives me visions of a fleet of diesel-powered charging stations (and fuel tankers) having to be towed to the field to keep EVs charged up in the future.

EV's are not viable, ever, for combat. Too heavy, which limits hauling capacity, and vulnerable to EMP unless the entire thing is shielded. A fully loaded 80,000 GVW tractor and semi-trailer can go 30 miles on a charge. And you lose capacity because the weight of the batteries offsets some of the available loading up the the 80K highway limit in most states. This is from people who are working on actual electric drivetrains for commercial trucks. The only viable use is hauling containers from port to local warehouses with opportunity charging at both locations.

M1 Tanks weigh over 60 tons. Bradleys weigh almost 30 tons. MRAPs weigh almost 20 tons. The range will be dismal. The Air Force has a lot of 38L V12 Diesel Genset trailers in storage. They will burn more fuel to recharge the EV's than would be used if the EV's had diesel engines. Of course, this doesn't mean they won't spend a shit ton of money trying to field EV's.

But there a couple actual uses - very quiet light attack dune buggy things and quiet drones. Drones may only be for reconnaissance if they can't carry the weight of weapons. But then they could just have a brick of C4 in them and fly to the target and detonate. That's a hell of an idea, and probably already done or in the works. Of course, terrorists could do the same thing too.

Lefty Sig, I don't care that vaping is less unhealthy than smoking--I don't want either one in my vicinity.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you wrotte.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Electrified Combat Vehicles. Right. Show me a battery powered Abrams, please.

Just tell the enemy to pay no attention to the 1,500' extension cord.

You didn’t see the new model, it has a 500sqft solar sail.

Remember Secretary of Defense went to the White House this week with all that was going on to discuss with cabinet level members the most important topic facing our military; diversity and inclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
The future military participant, will be a non-binary, gender fluid, beta personality, schooled in pronouns and preferences, with a fundamental grasp of critical race theory, in a self-contained bio suit that prohibits the emission of methane from the body; while doing so in a neutral non-aggressive color or tone, that represents unity of the human race as a whole absent any reference to our racist, white privileged history of military and other oppression. Promoting diversity and inclusion as the drive for our global mission.

The effort to put that together is worth recognizing!

If you were a senior NCO or an Occifer, that paragraph would earn you a bullet point on your next evaluation report and guarantee you a promotion.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Lefty Sig, I don't care that vaping is less unhealthy than smoking--I don't want either one in my vicinity.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you wrotte.

flashguy

I don't necessarily want to be around vaping, but the primary reason for smoking bans was "second hand smoke" and the studies linking it to lung cancer were seriously flawed and basically worthless. But "the science" supported the politics so the studies were used to justify the laws. There is no evidence vaping harms anyone around the person vaping, except the smell which is usually a flavor. It's no more offensive than perfume.

That said, I like not having to smell things. I prefer scentless soaps and other personal products. You really realize how much we have gotten used to not being around smokers when you go to another country where many people smoke, and restaurants don't have no smoking sections, or the tiny no smoking section is right next to the smokers so it's useless. You can't escape it. China, South Korea, Japan - tons of smokers. And in China, many ignore no smoking signs in hotels or other places where customer service looks the other way. Airports are non-smoking and I've never seen a violation. That probably gets you in serious trouble...

It's funny when you ask for a no smoking hotel room and the room has a little plexiglass block on the table with a no smoking sign on it. I think they put the sign in the room just before check-in, so it is no smoking for you, nut not necessarily all the time. It's pretty obvious when you find cigarette burns and it's clear someone smoked in the room.

Has anyone considered that they may be right?

Afterall, our first army was energy efficient, non-polluting, and net-zero climate change - just, sore feet, some black powder smoke, farts - and we still beat the British!

I love the smell of a cooking fire in the morning.


.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Lefty Sig, I don't care that vaping is less unhealthy than smoking--I don't want either one in my vicinity.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you wrotte.

flashguy

I don't necessarily want to be around vaping, but the primary reason for smoking bans was "second hand smoke" and the studies linking it to lung cancer were seriously flawed and basically worthless. But "the science" supported the politics so the studies were used to justify the laws. There is no evidence vaping harms anyone around the person vaping, except the smell which is usually a flavor. It's no more offensive than perfume.

That said, I like not having to smell things. I prefer scentless soaps and other personal products. You really realize how much we have gotten used to not being around smokers when you go to another country where many people smoke, and restaurants don't have no smoking sections, or the tiny no smoking section is right next to the smokers so it's useless. You can't escape it. China, South Korea, Japan - tons of smokers. And in China, many ignore no smoking signs in hotels or other places where customer service looks the other way. Airports are non-smoking and I've never seen a violation. That probably gets you in serious trouble...

It's funny when you ask for a no smoking hotel room and the room has a little plexiglass block on the table with a no smoking sign on it. I think they put the sign in the room just before check-in, so it is no smoking for you, nut not necessarily all the time. It's pretty obvious when you find cigarette burns and it's clear someone smoked in the room.

You're right, the studies about second hand smoke were seriously flawed and the people who wrote them and the subsequent laws knew it but didn't care. I have spent most of my life working with Engineers and the majority of the ones I knew shared this opinion in spite of the fact that most of them didn't smoke.

You know, to me the smell of cigarette smoke isn't a bad smell or a good smell, it's just a smell and it doesn't bother me one way or another. In fact the only smell I find objectionable is the 2 gallons of cheap cologne some women use.

^^^ Yes, to an engineer, getting the data and analyses right is more important than getting the result you want. And that's the difference between engineers and scientists. Engineers have to design and build things that work and don't fail. You can't hide behind "the science" when shit doesn't work. When a P.E. signs off on plans for a bridge or a structure, if the thing comes crashing down they are on the hook. Many scientists can and do hide behind flawed studies as we have seen with global warming, masks, and COVID vaccines.

This is the difference with the leftists. They are all about getting the result they want and don't care if the data or analysis is correct. The non-viability of "green energy" vs. Oil/Gas is painfully obvious to any engineer with experience in thermal power systems, and if you add some economics on top of that you can see how bad things are going to get if politicians are allowed to do stupid things in the name of "zero carbon".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

I want to be inserted into an environmentally friendly LZ in a battery powered Chinook.