3 ms·

> I really don't know what to think about this Simple: it's bad, very bad. Increasing expenditure increases the threat level: it's the whole point. Not to men

> I really don't know what to think about this Simple: it's bad, very bad. Increasing expenditure increases the threat level: it's the whole point. Not to mention that the world is facing a climate catastrophe and the war machine is amongst the biggest sources of pollution.

yardstick 5y ago
Wouldn’t the war machine also be one of the most incentivised to find alternative energy sources? Can’t defend your country if you can’t source enough energy (legacy and renewables).
- briffle 5y ago
  One of the first 'real' modern uses [0] of Opposed Piston Diesel engines in by Fairbanks Morse, for military uses. the Army is funding [1] Cummins new $87M opposed piston diesel engines for vehicles, they will have about a 25% decrease in fuel use. (which is HUGE for an army that has to carry their own fuel) That will definitely be quickly implemented by the major transportation companies, since fuel is such a huge part of their cost for trucking. 0. https://www.fairbanksmorse.com/blog/new-opposed-piston-engine-from-fairbanks-morse https://www.fairbanksmorse.com/blog/new-opposed-piston-engin... 1. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210803-ace.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210803-ace.html
- nebula8804 5y ago
  Not if the war machine has enough safe resources. While the Pentagon is "researching" alternative energy sources, I am not sure if they are just paying lip-service or actually serious about it. The US military is the single largest point source of pollution in the world. [1]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/?sh=14ccbb74372f https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
- goodpoint 5y ago
  In this context, "alternative" does not mean sustainable. The war machine has one priority: be ready to win wars. Sustainability is not a priority. Unsurprisingly the US army is the organization that uses the largest amount of oil in the world.
sofixa 5y ago
> Simple: it's bad, very bad. Increasing expenditure increases the threat level: it's the whole point. Not necessarily, after a certain point MAD comes to play ( assuming rational actors, which Putin is not).
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > after a certain point MAD comes to play That's the obsoleted narrative that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would create long-lasting world-wide peace. Easily disproven by current events. > assuming rational actors, which Putin is not Hence the criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Cri... Unsurprising the Doomsday Clock is showing increased threat level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Timeline
  - adventured 5y ago
    > That's the obsoleted narrative that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would create long-lasting world-wide peace. ... Easily disproven by current events. It's clearly not obsolete nor disproven by current events at all. The conflict would have to involve two nuclear powers at war with eachother. The US and Russia are not at war; NATO and Russia are not at war; MAD hasn't failed what-so-ever, nor has it even come to that context. The situation is presently one nuclear power vs a non-nuclear power (being supplied with weapons by foreign allies). The present events don't disprove the effectiveness of MAD any more than Russia in Afghanistan did.

yardstick 5y ago

Wouldn’t the war machine also be one of the most incentivised to find alternative energy sources? Can’t defend your country if you can’t source enough energy (legacy and renewables).

briffle 5y ago
One of the first 'real' modern uses [0] of Opposed Piston Diesel engines in by Fairbanks Morse, for military uses. the Army is funding [1] Cummins new $87M opposed piston diesel engines for vehicles, they will have about a 25% decrease in fuel use. (which is HUGE for an army that has to carry their own fuel) That will definitely be quickly implemented by the major transportation companies, since fuel is such a huge part of their cost for trucking. 0. https://www.fairbanksmorse.com/blog/new-opposed-piston-engine-from-fairbanks-morse https://www.fairbanksmorse.com/blog/new-opposed-piston-engin... 1. https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210803-ace.html https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210803-ace.html
nebula8804 5y ago
Not if the war machine has enough safe resources. While the Pentagon is "researching" alternative energy sources, I am not sure if they are just paying lip-service or actually serious about it. The US military is the single largest point source of pollution in the world. [1]:https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report-the-u-s-military-emits-more-co2-than-many-industrialized-nations-infographic/?sh=14ccbb74372f https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/06/13/report...
goodpoint 5y ago
In this context, "alternative" does not mean sustainable. The war machine has one priority: be ready to win wars. Sustainability is not a priority. Unsurprisingly the US army is the organization that uses the largest amount of oil in the world.

sofixa 5y ago

> Simple: it's bad, very bad. Increasing expenditure increases the threat level: it's the whole point. Not necessarily, after a certain point MAD comes to play ( assuming rational actors, which Putin is not).

goodpoint 5y ago
> after a certain point MAD comes to play That's the obsoleted narrative that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would create long-lasting world-wide peace. Easily disproven by current events. > assuming rational actors, which Putin is not Hence the criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Cri... Unsurprising the Doomsday Clock is showing increased threat level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Timeline
- adventured 5y ago
  > That's the obsoleted narrative that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would create long-lasting world-wide peace. ... Easily disproven by current events. It's clearly not obsolete nor disproven by current events at all. The conflict would have to involve two nuclear powers at war with eachother. The US and Russia are not at war; NATO and Russia are not at war; MAD hasn't failed what-so-ever, nor has it even come to that context. The situation is presently one nuclear power vs a non-nuclear power (being supplied with weapons by foreign allies). The present events don't disprove the effectiveness of MAD any more than Russia in Afghanistan did.