> On thr other hand, I am amused some people seem to think armored tanks should be getting 35mpg... Distance, a need for speed, and difficulty of logistical su

> On thr other hand, I am amused some people seem to think armored tanks should be getting 35mpg... Distance, a need for speed, and difficulty of logistical support for mid-air refueling has resulted in massive advancement in airframe design and energy efficiency in the military compared to earlier designs. Had the energy efficiency requirements been mandated it would simply have acted as a forcing function. The same is true for armored vehicles. Yes, carrying around a lot of dense steel plating is a problem, but we don't really do that as much anymore because we've found better ways to armor vehicles as steel plating has been defeated by ultra-dense metallic penetrators (DU/TC) and complex projectiles like HEIAP rounds. Ablative armoring combined with ceramic plating (which achieves better results than hardened steel at lower weights) HAS actually created an environment where fuel efficiency for vehicles like tanks has increased (or more accurately in most cases, their top speed has increased given a set engine performance when not gearing limited). Do I think that Congress was wrong to carve out this exemption? Maybe, maybe not. The one thing I think they definitely should NOT have been exempted from is the safe handling and disposal requirements for toxic waste. Personally, I'm not super concerned if a fighter jet or tank is fuel efficient, I am concerned about us utterly decimating the ground water and ecology of our own country by haphazardly dumping toxic substances.