Got to be kidding

[Dave Saxton]

It's not April 1st yet, so I guess not. Once again I'm just speechless at this president's stupidity. Maybe we should make fighting Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy priorities too?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... climate-c/

[Steve-M]

I would suggest that the climate change aspect is more PR than anything else. More efficient equipment, so long as it doesn't compromise performance, is always desirable as fuel may not always be plentiful, particularly at a local level. It's also good in that it reduces logistical requirements, which is a crucial consideration in any conflict far away from home. Now if they start saying we can't bomb ISIS because the carbon emissions would be too great, that's another story.

[Dave Saxton]

I would suggest that the climate change aspect is more PR than anything else. More efficient equipment, so long as it doesn't compromise performance, is always desirable as fuel may not always be plentiful, particularly at a local level. It's also good in that it reduces logistical requirements, which is a crucial consideration in any conflict far away from home. Now if they start saying we can't bomb ISIS because the carbon emissions would be too great, that's another story.

It's already happened in some ways:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -oil-wells


It's just idiotic, and goes to Obama's nonsense about climate change being the biggest threat ever faced by mankind.

Let us hope this doesn't mean the military will need to start utilizing so called renewable energy. These are very inefficient and very unreliable sources of energy.

Or let us hope there's no curtailing operations or readiness to limit harmless c02 emissions.

[Byron Angel]

I have it on very good authority that future "Obama" class warships now in the design process will feature a return to a square-rigged wind-powered sail-based propulsion system which takes advantage of numerous state of the art technical advances. Great improvements in operating economy are promised.

B

[Steve-M]

It's already happened in some ways:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -oil-wells

I'd consider that a matter of long term strategic planning. We can bomb the wells, but whose going to foot the bill to clean everything up after the fact? How many more refugees do you create, both due to the economics of eliminating the wells in addition to the environmental consequences? It's cool to say we have to bomb the crap out of ISIS, but we have to be ready for what happens when ISIS is defeated. It's more or less similar to what happened with the Iraq occupation. We knocked out much of their infrastructure, which massively degraded the Iraqi capability to wage war. OTOH, it's made post-war Iraq a gigantic mess, and that has certainly contributed to the woes currently afflicting the region.

[Dave Saxton]

I would not give Obama that much credit for war planning:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... e-n2144666

He is fighting the wrong war. He's fighting an unneeded, futile, and very expensive war, against a very minor, if that, threat, while not taking Islamic Terrorism seriously.

[RF]

Give it another nine months..... and Obama is history.

Lets see what President Trump would do with these orders......

[Dave Saxton]

There has been a return to sanity:

https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Docum ... ummary.pdf

It's like it never happened. Some comments by Anthony Watts:

The new National Defense Strategy makes no mention of “global warming” or “climate change”. The document makes no mention of “climate,” “warming,” “planet,” “sea levels” or even “temperature.” ..........

The National Defense Strategy, signed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, doesn’t have much to say about energy issues, except that the U.S. would “foster a stable and secure Middle East” and “contributes to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes.”
......

The Trump administration released its “America First” security strategy in December, which called for “unleashing these abundant energy resources— coal, natural gas, petroleum, renewables, and nuclear” to boost the economy and aid U.S. allies.

That plan de-emphasized policies aimed at fighting manmade global warming, a complete u-turn from national security under the Obama administration.

And just recently:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... o-hybrids/

From the article

As the program began to materialize and development progressed, a number of problems began to materialize, according to a former Navy official who spoke on background. Foremost among them was the intense electrical load that running the drive system on the ship’s two running generators was putting on the ship.
Destroyers have three generators, two of which run while a third remains in standby, which rotates through while generators are down for maintenance or in case of an emergency. Running the electrical motor that turned the shaft while also running the ship’s power-hungry radars and related systems maxed out the capacity of those generators.

“At that point you are a light switch flipping on away from winking out the whole ship,” the official said…
Furthermore running the generators at that load wasn’t exactly as fuel efficient as they had hoped it would be…

[frontkampfer]

Time to stop using the military as a laboratory for social experiments including this green crap. I don't care if it was done in the past for other issues. Time to train sailors to stand watches so the ship doesn't collide with other vessels & to have the ability to trouble shoot and fix the equipment without having to call on civilian contractors. The Navy used to have personnel onboard who knew their systems like the back of thier hands. They don't now & that's a big effin problem. A lot of kids are going to be casualties if they don't return to being a military service instead of a business. That's my story & I'm sticking to it!

[OpanaPointer]

"America First" was so very effective back in 1941. They represent a whopping 5.5% of the country.