Army’s “Carbon Footprint” Taints War Effort

good one...

I think they should adopt sticks and stones to fight the enemy... that’s as environmentally friendly as it gets right? /s

You slay me. Wait! Is ‘slaying’ carbon neutral? ROFLMAO!

Love, love, LOVE your stuff. :)

“... because they’re made of lead and are so very dense.”

How do you think they are going to make that island tip over? Lead. Makes you think, no?

ROFLMAO John. Another good one. Too funny.

Thanks for the ping.

Fake but accurate, John.

Pointy sticks will rule the battle space! Excellent, John, as always.

She also suggested that the Army “put more emphasis on less environmentally damaging methods, like stabbing or clubbing enemy forces in order to minimize the carbon output.”

LOL.

Well if the Dems pass Cap and Trade, the Army could buy carbon off sets from us unemployed.

Not like we have jobs to drive to, and we need money for home improvements!!!

We are jeopardizing our security and the lives of troops for imaginary threats of ozone depletion, green house gasses, heavy metals and ionizing radiation. Better performing materials or chemicals such as Depleted Uranium and Halon are being substituted with lesser performing ones for these "environmental" reasons.

We are replacing Halon 1301 with FM200 on armored vehicles because of the “supposed” threat Halon poses to the ozone and furthering the green house effect. No kidding, we are DOWNGRADING the effectiveness of a fire-suppression system because of “green” criteria that tip the scale in advantage of the FM200 which in sheer performance does NOT put out the fire as quickly nor does it have as well a sustained effect, or even extinguish in all the nooks and crannies as well. But because the FM200 is greener and these variables were heavily weighted in a comparison of fire-suppressants, the FM200 won.

We are replacing Depleted Uranium ammunition with Tungsten which is NOT as capable. The Depleted Uranium is denser, and maintains a sharp tip as it penetrates through the armor. Materials like Tungsten as steel deform and do not fracture along the length of the penetrator. They are less dense and the alloys are simply from their characteristics not as capable. To achieve the same level of performance on an M1 with a Tungsten round we currently have with DU we will need to upgrade the tank because you cannot simply substitute Tungsten for DU and still achieve the penetration values which are required to over-match the threat.

Here's the problem- We're a war fighting military. If you're talking about the Swiss Guards at the Vatican, the Swiss Army, the Austrians..... or most worthless Euro armies it doesn't really matter if they run around with steel pots, no body armor, lacking NVGs, G3 rifles, no decent allice equipment, practically no combat optics...... in the 90s like the Germans were. They don't do much with their military. The few they do use in the KSK like most Euro nations are trained, equipped, organized, selected, and led differently because they're the real deal. For the rest, they're worthless and if you don't even have enough NBC suits to go around (again like the German BW in the 90s) it really doesn't matter because they will never shoot a rifle in anger nor use these suits. They exist because the nation has a requirement to have a certain amount of forces (NATO agreements etc), because the society sees it as part of a socialization for men, because it keeps people employed....... but they don't fight wars in big numbers. This is not the case with the US DoD. The US fights a major war/conflict about every 10 years (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003 etc). We fight smaller wars about every 3 years (Balkans, Panama, Grenada etc). We engage in a smaller sea or air campaign every 3 years (Libya 1986- Eldorado canyon, Iran 1988- Praying Mantis). We are tangled up in multiple peace enforcement/keeping missions on a continual basis (MFO- Sinai, Balkans post war). We are engaged in noncombat but high threat environments on average 2 times per year (Non combatant evacuations....etc- East Timor). We engage in support, training, and assistance to allies such as in Columbia fighting the cartels (80s - present), Afghans fighting the Soviets (80s) on a multiple and continual basis. We are doing non combat humanitarian type missions literally more than a dozen times a year........... Think about this, in 2003 SIMULTANEOUSLY we contended with Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia, fighting Abu Sayeff in the Philippines, Columbia, Yemen, Sudan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Georgia, Balkans, Somalia (we never really left there), Multi National Peace and Observation Forces Sinai......... And look at where our forces are within these theaters! Look at where the US troops are along the Korean DMZ. Look at where the US forces were in Iraq (Sunni triangle). look at where they are in Afghanistan (worst areas)............. The point is this- We fight wars and the equipment we give our troops matters. Penny pinching on equipment for our guys, pushing “green ideas” amounts to sacrificing lives, nothing less. A US Army soldier, Marine, or those in the other branches that are front line troops (Combat controllers, para rescue, sea bees.... etc) will UNLIKEY go through a 20 year career without seeing combat. An American Infantrymen will LIKELY be shot at and shoot at bad guys throughout his career.

Substituting lesser performing systems and materials because of some environmental idea is literally equivalent to saying we will “for sure” risk the lives of troops to achieve even under the best scenarios an insignificant result to combat a hypothetical danger. ***That's called blind ideology where common sense and rational thinking is suspended.***

In reality the military IS drinking the “green revolution.” Also diversity, being a “good force” in the world, being a “top 50” employer, and other bull—rather than focusing on defense.

Note: this topic is from the 17th.

First Dog Bo Flown to Maine on Separate Gov't Jet for Obama Vacation