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."

Comments

Saving lives

[Compaqt]

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".

Re:Saving lives

[zero_out]

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 know you're being facetious, but the idea of "saving lives" in this case is like the phrase "a penny saved is a penny earned." They're not actually saving lives, so much as not spending them. Yes, I find it ironic.

I had a roommate in college who was studying Mechanical Engineering, interned with, and was later hired at, a company that designed and made light weapons (pistols, rifles, etc.). He justified it as saving American lives.

Re:Saving lives

[Americano]

I sometimes wonder how often the idea "We could eliminate 100% of American troop casualties if we just kill everybody else in the world. if there is nobody else to fight, then we don't have to send anybody over there, and we eliminate all possibility of getting shot by enemy forces" surfaces in high level discussions.

I'm going to guess just about never, except in your histrionic fever dreams where everybody in the military is an unstoppable bloodthirsty murderer who just wants to kill everybody else around them.

Re:Saving lives

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah I know, it's not like the United States ever takes whole carrier groups and parks them off of impoverished third world nations that have just endured a hurricane or an earthquake. Doctors from all branches certainly haven't slaved over nearly innumerable numbers of battered and wounded refugees supported by an immense web of logistics paid for by the American taxpayer with no questions asked. Supplies are never airlifted nor delivered by sea to airfields and ports secured by US servicemen. Yeah, what fucking irony, you ignorant and blind ideologue shitheads.

(Here the epithet "shitheads" is applied as much or more to the replies of this thread than the parent.)

Re:Saving lives

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, and the ambulance company sends you a bill too, does that mean you spit in the EMT's eyes? Whether somebody's life is saved by 'pure altruism' or some geopolitical machination is immaterial to the fact that the person's life was saved, and some people had to work damn hard to do it, regardless of whether they were paid or that was 'just their job,' that doesn't negate that hard work was done to save lives.

I reiterate: shitheads.

Re:Saving lives

[Skarecrow77]

either you have a poorly developed sense of dry humor, or it's -so- well developed that I'm incapable of noticing it in your post.

Let me cut directly to it, are you by any chance British?

Re:Saving lives

[joebagodonuts]

The hard work WASN'T done to "save lives". It was done to advance America's interests. We aren't a goddamn charity. Especially when we use our military resources. They are expensive and worth every penny. Those humanitarian efforts are just as much a "projection of force" as dropping bombs. Just more subtle. Additionally, it helps maintain the political will to support our military. A win for America. We get to flaunt our power, without incurring casualties. A very effective way to fight, actually.

As a veteran, I appreciate what our military does and how well they do it. What I don't do is fool myself about the motives of their masters. Or them, either. In the final analysis they are Warriors.

Re:Saving lives

[tehcyder]

Yeah I know, it's not like the United States ever takes whole carrier groups and parks them off of impoverished third world nations that have just endured a hurricane or an earthquake. Doctors from all branches certainly haven't slaved over nearly innumerable numbers of battered and wounded refugees supported by an immense web of logistics paid for by the American taxpayer with no questions asked. Supplies are never airlifted nor delivered by sea to airfields and ports secured by US servicemen. Yeah, what fucking irony, you ignorant and blind ideologue shitheads. (Here the epithet "shitheads" is applied as much or more to the replies of this thread than the parent.)

You don't need a heavily armed, aggressive military to do humanitarian and rescue work, you ignorant and blind ideologue shithead.

$400/gal adds up fast

[pz]

When the cost of safely delivering gasoline in-theatre is $400/gal, any non-trivial reduction in fuel consumption will result in a serious cost savings for the military. I'm all for this.

Re:$400/gal adds up fast

[metrometro]

Just imagine the serious cost savings that might come from quitting the damn wars.

Re:$400/gal adds up fast

[bonch]

Didn't you hear? Obama officially ended combat operations! Our troops who are still fighting over there are just, uh, hanging out or something.

Re:$400/gal adds up fast

[GrumblyStuff]

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.

Re:$400/gal adds up fast

[Americano]

Countries should avoid going into a war at all costs.

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.

Re:$400/gal adds up fast

[Anonymous Coward]

"Iraq and Afghanistan can't be won the way, say, WW2 was."

That's why they aren't being fought like WW2 was. Or even Vietnam or Desert Storm for that matter. Hell, even top military planners acknowledge that in the current strategy, counterinsurgency, the military aspect is only a small part of much larger effort. The media tends to focus on the military aspect and service members might make up the bulk of the personnel involved, but that doesn't mean that military operations make up the bulk of the operations.

Take the time to read a book on the rise of the Taliban some time ("Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid is a fantastic example). They rose to power precisely because all the world powers chose to ignore Central Asia. The nature of the Taliban regime is one such that their support for terrorism was and is a foregone conclusion. Do you think that if the US left Afghanistan today that the Taliban wouldn't just reassume power? Do you think that they wouldn't continue to support terrorists once they did reassume power? Do you think we wouldn't just end up back there another 10 years from now saying, "How'd we end up back here again?"

Violence in Iraq has dropped to levels not seen since OIF I and is continuing to drop. For context, the level of violence is actually lower than the Second Intifada was in Israel. The counterinsurgency strategy proved itself in Iraq and its already started to show success in Afghanistan. We need to see this through now, so that don't find ourselves back there in another decade wondering why we're spending soldiers' lives to do a job that should have been done right the first time. ...and before anyone dares to accuse me of being frivolous with lives, I'll add this: I'm an American soldier, serving as a combat engineer (the guys who go out and find IEDs the hard way), and I believe absolutely in our mission and means of achieving it in Afghanistan. Regardless of what our ulterior motives may be, we are helping people over there and doing the right thing.

Re:$400/gal adds up fast

[bogjobber]

Good post, but I would object to a couple points. The Taliban didn't rise because world powers chose to ignore Afghanistan. Quite the opposite. Most of the Taliban leaders were educated in madrassas located in Pakistan, and are heavily influenced by Saudi religious tenets (Wahhabism). Bin Laden is a Saudi (although disowned by his native government), and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan was facilitated by Saudi and Pakistani intelligence. The Taliban most likely would not have taken power outside of Kandahar and the surrounding provinces without foreign aid. They might not have been able to take Kandahar itself.

The Soviets left and the US basically ignored Afghanistan during the 90's, but there has never been a time that foreign powers didn't control Afghani politics. At least for the last couple hundred years.

Classic misunderstanding of statistics

[vlm]

A classic misunderstanding of statistics. Lets see how this works.

Lets assume we have 100 future martyrs loaded up and ready to blow.
Send 500 convoys. Lets say 90 get blown up by the 100 martyrs.

Ivory tower metrics MBA says, lets cut back so we only send 250 convoys. Since a bit under a fifth of convoys are blown up, that means by definition only about 40 convoys will get blown up.

Send 250 convoys. 90 get blown up by the 100 martyrs. Maybe due to doubled security, VERY optimistically twice as many fail, so best case only 80 convoys get blown up by the 100 martyrs.

Ivory tower metrics MBA gets confused that losses are 100% higher than expected.

Life imitates The Onion

[MrEricSir]

http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-how-can-we-make-the-war-in-iraq-more-e,14213/

So, the military budget can be cut?

[Colin Smith]

Oh wait, no, course not.

Keep going ...

[alexibu]

Then transfer the green ideas back to USA and the war itself may not be necessary.

Re:Please Leave the Politics Out Of This

[Cruciform]

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.

Re:Those people can't see the forest for the trees

[cavePrisoner]

This is a basic confusion of who makes decisions. Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to. If you have a beef with them, this is a democracy. Vote. Don't take it out on the Pentagon for trying to protect its troops.

Besides, if you think about it, this strategy removes targets from the battlefield. Fewer targets mean fewer attacks. Fewer attacks mean less dead on both sides. In Vietnam (remember John Kerry?), they used swift boats intentionally as targets to draw the enemy into fighting to make the death counts higher. This time they're doing the opposite. Shouldn't that be a good thing?

Old idea better done elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Mongolian Yurts are insulated and reusable and can be set up in hours. Funny that it took them so long to consider having to keep soldiers for extended periods under severe conditions. The military should check in with some of the existing Yurt building companies and see what it would cost to field test some. They should be roomier and as I say reusable. The traditional ones get set up and taken down several times a year and last for many years. The thick woolen insulation with a few layers of kelvar would probably be bullet and explosion resistant, the insulation provides the give needed to allow the kevlar to flex. It just seems like a better option than foaming tents then tossing them once you are done.

Re:Anybody else thought WTF yet?

[ColdWetDog]

Go to these places and see how long you last without AC. The real WTF, is why they are taking so long to build more permanent structures, or leaving. This in the middle BS is costing us a fortune.

Really. For all of the 'tent money' they've spent, they could have dug in, literally, with buried structures that would be safer, cheaper and very useful for the enemy once we pull out.

Oh, wait. (Actually even permanent emplacements that were used by enemy forces once we've moved out could be quite valuable for us. Nothing like knowing exactly what to expect and where the literal back doors are).

Re:Those people can't see the forest for the trees

[Smauler]

Troops go to war because the President/Congress/The People tell them to.

No. Troops go to war because they decide to... they are not automatons. Every single one of those troops has gone to war decided that going to war is the best option for them. You should not surrender your integrity when you enter the service.

That being said, I think _most_ of them made the correct choice, since they have been put in difficult positions. Some may feel the war is just, some may not. For the latter, the negatives against following orders have not been large enough. More responsibility lies with those who decided upon the war, but some still rests with those who carried it out. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.

Re:Please Leave the Politics Out Of This

[rubycodez]

I'm just trying to figure out why people get the label "hippie" when they complain about war for profit, power and political coin.

I'm not a peacenik, hell, I love weapons. I own weapons. I love a righteous war (like WW II) and I love to see evil scum get blown up, shot up, burned up. yeah, come get some!!

BUT,

I get the label "unpatriotic" "hippie" "traitor" when I complain about these bullshit pseudo-wars that the U.S. is inflicting on innocents, to line defense contractors and construction contractors pockets, and to have a rallying point for politicians who have failed to do their most basic of duties, and to provide an excuse for power-mongers to deprive us of liberties and build a police state.