Slashdot Mirror
Saving Lives On the Battlefield With Green Tech
Harperdog writes "This article describes the efforts by some in the Pentagon to save lives by using renewable energy in the battlefield. 'Seventy percent of all convoys carried liquid fossil fuels, and attacks on convoys ... account for about half of all the casualties. Generators consumed more of the fuel brought in than did combat vehicles and air support.' It's a good description of energy efficient projects already happening in Iraq. '... the first significant response in a combat zone came with the investment of almost $100 million for insulating thousands of tents in the two war zones. Before, air conditioners in summer and heaters in winter powered by generators controlled the climate inside the tents used as barracks, dining halls and offices. Now they spray foam so it covers the exterior of the tents like shaving cream. Foaming the tents saves the military $2 million a day in avoided energy costs. This translates into a payback of less than two months. It saves 100,000 gallons of fuel per day, taking 4,000 trucks off the road each year."
Anybody ever find that phrase ironic when applied to the military?
Granted, this isn't directly like some of the more egregious examples. Usually, "saving lives" involves killing more of "them".
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Just imagine the serious cost savings that might come from quitting the damn wars.
Why is it in almost every military related article posted here, it inevitably turns political?
Because war and politics go hand in hand.
Funny how the "hippie dippies" are aware of this and it completely sails over your head.
He said, "...[quit] the damn wars."
He didn't say, "Fire all police, get rid of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, disband the army, navy, marines, and airforce."
The former is quite sensible. Iraq and Afghanistan can't be won the way, say, WW2 was. There's no one in charge to surrender and no standing army to be told to lay down arms. Rather than bitching about people supposedly wanting the US to lose, they could see reality for what it is and cut their loses before they waste more lives and more money for absolutely nothing.
No, countries should understand and be very clear on the principles they consider non-negotiable, that they are willing to fight and die for. Avoiding war 'at all costs' means you might as well just roll over and let the closest despot with a gun take over.
And if it's a democracy, the citizens should educate themselves and stop voting for people who send young men and women to fight and die in engagements that do not match up with the principles that country has decided are worth fighting and dying for.
There's always something worth fighting, and even dying for, if necessary. If the only determining factor in whether or not you go to war is "how much will it cost?" then you have serious moral and ethical problems endemic to your government, and by extension, endemic to your citizenry.
If it's a case where my country has said, "X is worth fighting and dying for," then I want "X" to be achieved at the lowest cost possible - in terms of economics, in terms of lives of my fellow citizens, and in terms of lives of the civilians on the other side, with the business end of the gun pointed at them.