| Author | Message | ||
     Fahren |
The Military's Conversion To Renewables Will Save Soldiers' Lives | ||
| Kenm123t |
Nuclear trucks cool about time | ||
| Kenm123t |
Any thing to kill the enemy faster quicker cheaper and bring our guys home safely | ||
| Slaughter |
For the Military, this IS the bottom line - costs-to-operate actually include replacement costs of personnel and machinery. This is their cost of doing business. If they can save lives, save machinery, save fuel - they're saving costs. If they're saving costs of re-deploying equipment destroyed in action, re-deploying fuel resources, they're saving money. Don't think for a moment that they are under some "obligation" to support the oil industry. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm all for getting off the fossil fuels. However.... let us say the new gas is made from algae. We make it north of Pittsburg. Awesome. We STILL need to truck it to the units in the field, and STILL are going to get shot at delivering it. Kenm123t is right. Nuclear tanks & trucks is the ONLY solution to the problem. About time too. I've been waiting for the nuclear car for half a century. Oh, yeah. Another little flaw is the econuts. The USAF spent a lot of time & money figuring out how to use bio diesel in jets. Turns out that produces more CO2 ( and less other pollution. The actually toxic stuff. ) so the econuts put the kibosh on independence from fossil fuels. Bad religions cause more problems in this world. | ||
| Sifo |
How would a change in the fuel save lives? They are talking about lives of people defending fuel supply for the military, right? That would still be just as necessary and just as dangerous. Sounds like BS greenie propaganda to me. | ||
| Darth_villar |
Supply convoys are always targets of opportunity, and always will be. No current technology that is easily movable will replace the need for such convoys. I ran a few convoy ops, they aren't fun. There aren't a whole lot of MSR's (Main Supply Route), it is usually just a matter of when, not if. | ||
| Brumbear |
electrics simple | ||
| Aesquire |
Electrics don't have the energy density yet. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Brumbear SEE nuclear post above thats when electrics become viable. Nucs with rail guns and lasers yea baby! | ||
| Darth_villar |
+1 Ken I personally can't wait for rail gun technology to evolve. Biggest problem besides destroying the rails through firing is the lack of portable large quantities of energy. Think 1g projectiles, how many bullets can you carry :P | ||
| Kenm123t |
Next we need Modular tank drones that coordinate with the M1s think of a destroyer screen on a carrier some airbourne and others ground based quick agile and expendable with a heavy self destruct payload. A swarm of smart munitions. Similar systems for the Infantry the better to kill the enemy faster quicker and cheaper! When in doubt nuc from orbit! If you want the real estate quicker than 100 years Bunker busters to stir the pot then napalm the rest. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeas t/view/20111018windmills_stopped_at_night_after_ba t_death/srvc=home%26position=recent Not really on topic... but "bottom line" seems to apply. I do worry about autonomous fighting machines. It's one thing to have a guy with a remote shooting at you. You can wave a flag, or scrawl "On your side idiot" on a wall.... Self directing armed drones that hunt you down and kill you though..... has that EVER been a good thing in a movie? ( sucked in R.U.R. back in 1920. Made Arnie's career though.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R. ) |
