Saving Lives On the Battlefield With Green Tech 188
Harperdog writes "This article describes the efforts by some in the Pentagon to save lives by using renewable energy in the battlefield. 'Seventy percent of all convoys carried liquid fossil fuels, and attacks on convoys ... account for about half of all the casualties. Generators consumed more of the fuel brought in than did combat vehicles and air support.' It's a good description of energy efficient projects already happening in Iraq. '... the first significant response in a combat zone came with the investment of almost $100 million for insulating thousands of tents in the two war zones. Before, air conditioners in summer and heaters in winter powered by generators controlled the climate inside the tents used as barracks, dining halls and offices. Now they spray foam so it covers the exterior of the tents like shaving cream. Foaming the tents saves the military $2 million a day in avoided energy costs. This translates into a payback of less than two months. It saves 100,000 gallons of fuel per day, taking 4,000 trucks off the road each year."
Saving lives (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody ever find that phrase ironic when applied to the military?
Granted, this isn't directly like some of the more egregious examples. Usually, "saving lives" involves killing more of "them".
Those people can't see the forest for the trees! (Score:1, Insightful)
They put their minds to it and try to figure out how to save lives and this is what they come up with?
How about bombing and shooting less people!!!?!!
Re:$400/gal adds up fast (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine the serious cost savings that might come from quitting the damn wars.
Re:Saving lives (Score:2, Insightful)
I sometimes wonder how often the idea "We could eliminate 100% of American troop casualties if we just kill everybody else in the world. if there is nobody else to fight, then we don't have to send anybody over there, and we eliminate all possibility of getting shot by enemy forces" surfaces in high level discussions.
I'm thinking the only reason it gets shot down is because they then realize they'd be out of their jobs.
So, the military budget can be cut? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh wait, no, course not.
Keep going ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$400/gal adds up fast (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Classic misunderstanding of statistics (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Please Leave the Politics Out Of This (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because war and politics go hand in hand.
Funny how the "hippie dippies" are aware of this and it completely sails over your head.
Re:Saving lives (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to guess just about never, except in your histrionic fever dreams where everybody in the military is an unstoppable bloodthirsty murderer who just wants to kill everybody else around them.
Re:Those people can't see the forest for the trees (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if you think about it, this strategy removes targets from the battlefield. Fewer targets mean fewer attacks. Fewer attacks mean less dead on both sides. In Vietnam (remember John Kerry?), they used swift boats intentionally as targets to draw the enemy into fighting to make the death counts higher. This time they're doing the opposite. Shouldn't that be a good thing?
Re:Please Leave the Politics Out Of This (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because war and politics go hand in hand.
Funny how the "hippie dippies" are aware of this and it completely sails over your head.
Discussion of technology used in a war situation does NOT always go hand in hand with politics, and this topic is about foam on tents. There's no politics involved, no contractors out of control, no politicians making claims, not even a weapons system; just foam on the tents. The problem is that hippie dippies are unable to discuss military operations without ranting about politics. Only someone with a gratuitous axe to grind links foam on tents to the horror, the horror, the horror...
Re:Saving lives (Score:4, Insightful)
(Here the epithet "shitheads" is applied as much or more to the replies of this thread than the parent.)
Re:Anybody else thought WTF yet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fahrenheit again? Metricate your shit, America!
Re:$400/gal adds up fast (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not - war should be expensive, both in lives & financial sense, preferably for all parties involved.
Countries should avoid going into a war at all costs. Even it improves things on your side of the war, that might mean the same investment (in money & lives) on your side translates into more casualties on the other side. While you may think of that as improvement, it also makes it easier to stamp out an enemy that has every right to be fighting you, or makes it easier to get into a war you shouldn't be getting into. So when there's a development that makes it easier/cheaper to run a war, I don't necessarily see that as a good thing.
Re:$400/gal adds up fast (Score:5, Insightful)
He said, "...[quit] the damn wars."
He didn't say, "Fire all police, get rid of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, disband the army, navy, marines, and airforce."
The former is quite sensible. Iraq and Afghanistan can't be won the way, say, WW2 was. There's no one in charge to surrender and no standing army to be told to lay down arms. Rather than bitching about people supposedly wanting the US to lose, they could see reality for what it is and cut their loses before they waste more lives and more money for absolutely nothing.
Re:Saving lives (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$400/gal adds up fast (Score:5, Insightful)
No, countries should understand and be very clear on the principles they consider non-negotiable, that they are willing to fight and die for. Avoiding war 'at all costs' means you might as well just roll over and let the closest despot with a gun take over.
And if it's a democracy, the citizens should educate themselves and stop voting for people who send young men and women to fight and die in engagements that do not match up with the principles that country has decided are worth fighting and dying for.
There's always something worth fighting, and even dying for, if necessary. If the only determining factor in whether or not you go to war is "how much will it cost?" then you have serious moral and ethical problems endemic to your government, and by extension, endemic to your citizenry.
If it's a case where my country has said, "X is worth fighting and dying for," then I want "X" to be achieved at the lowest cost possible - in terms of economics, in terms of lives of my fellow citizens, and in terms of lives of the civilians on the other side, with the business end of the gun pointed at them.
Re:Please Leave the Politics Out Of This (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because the military is being used for political ends that have nothing to do with the safety of this country, and everything to do with the safety of defense contractor profits.
When they stop playing politics with defense, I'll stop complaining about it.
Re:Saving lives (Score:4, Insightful)
I reiterate: shitheads.
Re:Foam the tents? There's another solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not many tents stand up very well under a yard of earth.
Re:Those people can't see the forest for the trees (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit! The people voted for change, and they got yet another Bush. Obama has continued the elite's agenda of war. Renaming troop's activities doesn't change that the (pointless, for profit, for political coin) wars go on and on and on.
we don't have democracy, we have oligarchy and plutocracy.
Thats great but (Score:1, Insightful)
I find their justification for this to be incredibly deceptive; It ties together reactionary/feel good terms like
green energy, saving troops and saving money for the tax payer. Those are all good right? Any patriotic
American should be for that!
Yes, but this there are far more issues that could have a bigger impact than switching to Solar energy on the
battle field. How about moving away from the use of depleted uranium ammunition's which has made Iraq the most
radio active country on the planet? Causing deformations in children, cancer in both troops and civilians and will have
an impact on Iraq for thousands of years to come!
This article insults my intellect cause it proposes to put a bandage on a massive wound.
I dont know... Am I so cynical that I cant see something that is an honest effort? Its so hard not to be
jaded when your bombarded with propaganda and misdirection all the time.
Re:$400/gal adds up fast (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that would make more sense, because then it is possible to win the war, if there is a single leader to concede defeat. Even quite quickly, as Iraq '91 showed.
Re:Saving lives (Score:2, Insightful)
I had a professor when I was and undergrad flat out tell the class she was lecturing that everyone who volunteered for the US military did so to kill and everyone in the military was a killer.
In her mind and world view if you are in a military you murder people.
Re:Those people can't see the forest for the trees (Score:4, Insightful)
Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to.
No. Troops go to war because they decide to... they are not automatons. Every single one of those troops has gone to war decided that going to war is the best option for them. You should not surrender your integrity when you enter the service.
That being said, I think _most_ of them made the correct choice, since they have been put in difficult positions. Some may feel the war is just, some may not. For the latter, the negatives against following orders have not been large enough. More responsibility lies with those who decided upon the war, but some still rests with those who carried it out. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
Re:Please Leave the Politics Out Of This (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just trying to figure out why people get the label "hippie" when they complain about war for profit, power and political coin.
I'm not a peacenik, hell, I love weapons. I own weapons. I love a righteous war (like WW II) and I love to see evil scum get blown up, shot up, burned up. yeah, come get some!!
BUT,
I get the label "unpatriotic" "hippie" "traitor" when I complain about these bullshit pseudo-wars that the U.S. is inflicting on innocents, to line defense contractors and construction contractors pockets, and to have a rallying point for politicians who have failed to do their most basic of duties, and to provide an excuse for power-mongers to deprive us of liberties and build a police state.
Re:Those people can't see the forest for the trees (Score:3, Insightful)
cleaning up someone else's mess doesn't mean you like to do it.
Obama is doing the responsible thing. Cleaning up the geopolitical mess that bush created without thinking things through. It is one of the few things I agree with. Because the moment we leave Afghanistan the Taliban take back over and Bin Laden comes out of his cave again. They are far to strong still. However since the American public thought it would be a quickie kill them off and leave, and let the mess sort it self out like what we did in the 1980's with the Soviet occupation, This time we are sticking around. Hopefully for the next 20-30 years. that way a whole generation grows up not hating the USA but at least thinking mostly nice things about us.
Re:Thats great but (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because no solution should be implemented unless it solves all problems, even if those problems are completely unrelated.
Re:Old idea better done elsewhere (Score:2, Insightful)
a yurt weighs a shit-ton, then it gets wet. it requires care. It does not like the hot dusty UV environment of the desert. Turns out tents, like what the natives have used in the region for thousands of years are a better choice than something from another fucking climate. But thanks for playing. maybe we should try igloos? hey then we dont need AC! cause they are already cold! and i read snow is a good insulator in nat geo. Fuck me!
Re:Saving lives (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah I know, it's not like the United States ever takes whole carrier groups and parks them off of impoverished third world nations that have just endured a hurricane or an earthquake. Doctors from all branches certainly haven't slaved over nearly innumerable numbers of battered and wounded refugees supported by an immense web of logistics paid for by the American taxpayer with no questions asked. Supplies are never airlifted nor delivered by sea to airfields and ports secured by US servicemen. Yeah, what fucking irony, you ignorant and blind ideologue shitheads. (Here the epithet "shitheads" is applied as much or more to the replies of this thread than the parent.)
You don't need a heavily armed, aggressive military to do humanitarian and rescue work, you ignorant and blind ideologue shithead.