American Doomsday: Climate Change?

wimwag

Blue Belt
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
229
Reaction score
6
Location
Wisconsin
A shocking reason to go green:
10299129_10152198931133049_47439693116772481_n.jpg


So do you oppose the army we used to stop the Nazi war machine as well?

"Whoops, hey, sorry Patton, your 3rd Army is using too much water. Disband and and let the Nazis throw the Jews in the ovens. We gotta be green. Tell McArthur to abandon the Australians and Philipinos to the Japanese for me, k? Tell him we're preserving water" said Truman.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,007
Reaction score
1,613
Location
In Pain
So do you oppose the army we used to stop the Nazi war machine as well?

"Whoops, hey, sorry Patton, your 3rd Army is using too much water. Disband and and let the Nazis throw the Jews in the ovens. We gotta be green. Tell McArthur to abandon the Australians and Philipinos to the Japanese for me, k? Tell him we're preserving water" said Truman.

LOL, nope.

The idea is to find ways to eliminate the need to resupply, not do away with the armed forces,
Like minimizing need for water, so less trucks have to roll.

Failure on my part, I did not link the article in which the Army wants to use alternative fuel options, but congress is against it....

If you can find ways to conserve water or make water onsite, you reduce the number of trucks on the road (= less soldiers)
if you can find ways to conserve fuel or use alternative sources, again, less soldiers needed to drive the convoy.

That starts with solar power, smart cells to conserve generator use, etc...there is a lot of good stuff out that could be put to good use, too bad, too many people have tunnel vision.

The Armed Forces always prided themselves of being 'cutting edge'...too bad it's not in the supply category.

Army commits to security through renewable energy | Article | The United States Army

Senate Armed Services Committee Reins In Pentagon On Alternative Fuel Spending
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
LOL, nope.

The idea is to find ways to eliminate the need to resupply, not do away with the armed forces,
Like minimizing need for water, so less trucks have to roll.

Failure on my part, I did not link the article in which the Army wants to use alternative fuel options, but congress is against it....

If you can find ways to conserve water or make water onsite, you reduce the number of trucks on the road (= less soldiers)
if you can find ways to conserve fuel or use alternative sources, again, less soldiers needed to drive the convoy.

That starts with solar power, smart cells to conserve generator use, etc...there is a lot of good stuff out that could be put to good use, too bad, too many people have tunnel vision.

The Armed Forces always prided themselves of being 'cutting edge'...too bad it's not in the supply category.

Army commits to security through renewable energy | Article | The United States Army

Senate Armed Services Committee Reins In Pentagon On Alternative Fuel Spending

Which has nothing to do with "going Green" AND an even bigger mistake you posted a Marine poster and are quoting Army articles...............That could get you in big trouble in some places
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,007
Reaction score
1,613
Location
In Pain
Which has nothing to do with "going Green" AND an even bigger mistake you posted a Marine poster and are quoting Army articles...............That could get you in big trouble in some places

Yeah, Like a man who kills for his country isn't a soldier...:)

Like it mattered which soldier doesn't get blown up by an IED. Costs the government the same amount to retrain a new one, the families grief him/her just the same.

But as usual, gentlemen, you miss the point to bicker about minor details. One might think it's on purpose.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
Yeah, Like a man who kills for his country isn't a soldier...:)

Like it mattered which soldier doesn't get blown up by an IED. Costs the government the same amount to retrain a new one, the families grief him/her just the same.

But as usual, gentlemen, you miss the point to bicker about minor details. One might think it's on purpose.

It was a Marine vs army Joke You wouldnt get it anyway
 

wimwag

Blue Belt
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
229
Reaction score
6
Location
Wisconsin
Lmao yes let's reduce the amount of water a soldier drinks. While we're at it then maybe we can get all the meteorologists to make pleasant 68 degree sunshine days with one scheduled 15 minute rain each week.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,246
Wars have been won and lost due to environmental impact, so the weather is their concern as well.
:)

Nope improvise adapt and overcome. The military has one job that's it. Leave them out of politics
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
16,007
Reaction score
1,613
Location
In Pain
No point you just keep believing what you see on TV

Not really. I gave up TV.

Now, if you could give up being condescending, we might get a dialog going....


Oh, what am I thinking.
You are satisfied with getting what you always got.
Tough luck for your kids. Because they won't get what you got.

The point - besides to see what copy pasta Billie can bring forth to refute my articles (he can't that's why he is silent) is that other than 97% of scientists believe there is something going on with the climate, that people who can hardly be described as tree huggers have been paying attention and are looking for alternatives, and that of course the same old suspects do as they have always done....

When the Armed Forces look for alternatives, I doubt they look at the budget.
But why run around with WWII technology, when better can be had, in a smaller package that goes further?!
 

wimwag

Blue Belt
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
229
Reaction score
6
Location
Wisconsin
Not really. I gave up TV.

Now, if you could give up being condescending, we might get a dialog going....


Oh, what am I thinking.
You are satisfied with getting what you always got.
Tough luck for your kids. Because they won't get what you got.

The point - besides to see what copy pasta Billie can bring forth to refute my articles (he can't that's why he is silent) is that other than 97% of scientists believe there is something going on with the climate, that people who can hardly be described as tree huggers have been paying attention and are looking for alternatives, and that of course the same old suspects do as they have always done....

When the Armed Forces look for alternatives, I doubt they look at the budget.
But why run around with WWII technology, when better can be had, in a smaller package that goes further?!




You're deliberately stupid. I was an officer, I'll bite.

As a 2Lt, I only played the politics with my superiors. And it gets played like this: an order is given, if lawful, I pass it down to my NCOs. I pretend to agree, even if I do not.

If unlawful, I tell my captain hell no and why.



The method for carrying water will not change. It must be a sealed container if some sort. Human need for water will likely change, but over several millenia.

The only way to do what you claim must be done is to reduce our military to irresponsibly low numbers. You're enjoying that 1st Amendment aren't you? We are not invincible. It can be lost by reducing troop strength while our enemies increase theirs. A few well placed nuclear detonations in the stratosphere will knock our power grid out. Our enemies will fly over the north pole in supersonic transports and arrive shortly after the EMP blast disables all electronics.

Your 1st Amendment rights would be null and void, assuming you survived.
 

Latest Discussions

Top