4 ms·

Modern war also produces a lot of carbon. Tank fuel usage is measured in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. An M1 abrams gets 0.6 mpg, a F-22 at mil

Modern war also produces a lot of carbon. Tank fuel usage is measured in gallons per mile rather than miles per gallon. An M1 abrams gets 0.6 mpg, a F-22 at military power gets 0.4. Now imagine the fuel usage required by two post-industrial countries having it out rather than the US running counter-insurance operations. I suspect that even if modern war dropped populations enough to dent CO2 production, the war itself would burn enough oil to offset it.

ams6110 8y ago
Honestly this is a drop in the bucket compared to what normal automobile traffic produces. Not that war shouldn't be avoided, but carbon emissions are the last of the reasons we'd want to worry about.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  It’s more than a drop. The world produces a bit short of 100 million barrels of oil per day, and the US military alone consumes a bit north of 100 million barrels per year (109). This means that the US military consumes a bit over one days worth of oil consumption alone in just fuel. This isn’t even accounting for the 30,000 GWH they consume in electricity, and what carbon emissions they might produce. And remember, the US military is not running at full speed. It’s currently involved in a few counter insurance missions, which while not cheap are a far cry from the resources required for 2 modern nations having it out. There are fewer than 20,000 soldiers in hot spots as of 2017, out of the 1.3 million active duty personnel available. You can bet if the US were to go against China or Russia our oil usage would go through the roof.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    I wonder what the peak energy usage was in WW2, say in 1941, when both the European and Pacific fronts were still ongoing.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      A lot. I couldn’t find hard numbers, but the range appears to be about a billion barrels of oil per year for the US, maybe higher. Interestingly, we used a lot less fuel per soldier then. The normal back then was 1 gallon per soldier per day. By desert storm we were up to 4, and by 2007 we consumed 16 gallons per soldier per day[0]. Now obviously we have a smaller army now, which goes a long way to explain the lower total consumption than in WW2, but it is mildly terrifying to consider what a WW2 sized engagement would consume at 16x the per-soldier fuel consumption. 0: https://www.forbes.com/2008/06/05/mileage-military-vehicles-tech-logistics08-cz_ph_0605fuel.html https://www.forbes.com/2008/06/05/mileage-military-vehicles-...

ams6110 8y ago

Honestly this is a drop in the bucket compared to what normal automobile traffic produces. Not that war shouldn't be avoided, but carbon emissions are the last of the reasons we'd want to worry about.

village-idiot 8y ago
It’s more than a drop. The world produces a bit short of 100 million barrels of oil per day, and the US military alone consumes a bit north of 100 million barrels per year (109). This means that the US military consumes a bit over one days worth of oil consumption alone in just fuel. This isn’t even accounting for the 30,000 GWH they consume in electricity, and what carbon emissions they might produce. And remember, the US military is not running at full speed. It’s currently involved in a few counter insurance missions, which while not cheap are a far cry from the resources required for 2 modern nations having it out. There are fewer than 20,000 soldiers in hot spots as of 2017, out of the 1.3 million active duty personnel available. You can bet if the US were to go against China or Russia our oil usage would go through the roof.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  I wonder what the peak energy usage was in WW2, say in 1941, when both the European and Pacific fronts were still ongoing.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    A lot. I couldn’t find hard numbers, but the range appears to be about a billion barrels of oil per year for the US, maybe higher. Interestingly, we used a lot less fuel per soldier then. The normal back then was 1 gallon per soldier per day. By desert storm we were up to 4, and by 2007 we consumed 16 gallons per soldier per day[0]. Now obviously we have a smaller army now, which goes a long way to explain the lower total consumption than in WW2, but it is mildly terrifying to consider what a WW2 sized engagement would consume at 16x the per-soldier fuel consumption. 0: https://www.forbes.com/2008/06/05/mileage-military-vehicles-tech-logistics08-cz_ph_0605fuel.html https://www.forbes.com/2008/06/05/mileage-military-vehicles-...