Slashdot Mirror
Should the US Air Force Bomb Forest Fires? (popularmechanics.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Popular Mechanics: Earlier this summer, the Swedish Air Force dropped a laser-guided bomb on a forest fire to help suppress the flames. Now there's a proposal for the United States to do the same, using the might of the U.S. Air Force to fight America's raging forest fires via bombs and sonic booms. F-15 Strike Eagle Weapon System Officer Mike Benitez, writing in War on the Rocks, proposes using B-1 bombers stuffed to the gills with bombs to battle wildfires on the American homefront. The idea here is to snuff out fires the way you'd blow out birthday candles at the base. In Sweden, the shockwave from a single bomb snuffed out flames within a 100-yard radius of the impact point. So, Benitez reasons, why not load up a heavy strategic bomber with up to 84 bombs and do some serious firefighting?
Benitez chose the B-1 for his hypothetical scenario not only because of its bomb-carrying capability, but for the same reason the heavy bomber became a close air support platform of choice in Afghanistan: its long range translated into persistence over the battlefield, enabling the big bomber to hang around above friendly forces and bomb the Taliban for hours. The B-1 could do donuts in the skies over a wildfire as firefighters on the ground work out the best way to tackle it. The B-1 wouldn't carry just any bomb, either, but ordinance that was designed for firefighting. Most bombs use a steel casing that fragments into deadly shrapnel, but this would be unnecessary (and dangerous) when fighting fires. A firefighting bomb would use a combustible casing that would disintegrate on impact. Ideally the bomb would use a thermobaric warhead, one that kills via overpressure, as it generates even more powerful blast waves than traditional high-explosive bombs.
Benitez chose the B-1 for his hypothetical scenario not only because of its bomb-carrying capability, but for the same reason the heavy bomber became a close air support platform of choice in Afghanistan: its long range translated into persistence over the battlefield, enabling the big bomber to hang around above friendly forces and bomb the Taliban for hours. The B-1 could do donuts in the skies over a wildfire as firefighters on the ground work out the best way to tackle it. The B-1 wouldn't carry just any bomb, either, but ordinance that was designed for firefighting. Most bombs use a steel casing that fragments into deadly shrapnel, but this would be unnecessary (and dangerous) when fighting fires. A firefighting bomb would use a combustible casing that would disintegrate on impact. Ideally the bomb would use a thermobaric warhead, one that kills via overpressure, as it generates even more powerful blast waves than traditional high-explosive bombs.
Why not? California does give the US Federal Government more in taxes than any other state, by a lot!
Exactly, imagine being caught in a forest fire somewhere without anybody's knowledge and that you have managed to find a sweet spot to stay alive and then the bombs come at you. Now you really get the battlefield experience!
Seriously, wild forest fire areas are hard to clear of human presence in advance due to their unpredictable nature. One might also think of animal casualties.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Oversimplifying and collectivizing people is what made the annoying orange be the president in first place, and what makes the far left be so fucking lunatic (as is the thing that makes the far right be fucking lunatic as well).
So better start to treat people individually or get plowed by the "exception".
You have to remember that 1% of the US population is still 3.4 million people, and many simplifications made by both sides assume that groups of like 10% don't actually exist.
Fires are an incredibly important part of the ecosystem. Areas that have forest fires have greater biological diversity, healthier plants, and yes, some seeds even require the heat of a fire in order to germinate. This obsession with stopping all fires at all costs is hurting the environment.
You really can't talk meaningfully about trends by examining individual events in isolation.
Climate change is neither necessary nor sufficient for the kinds of fires we are seeing. However, in places prone to wildfires, wildfire is a seasonal phenomenon, and the lengths of fire seasons over the last forty years has increased by 19%, and the area burned in fire seasons has more than doubled. Wildfires are only possible when three factors are present: fuel, ignition sources, and dry weather. While the acreage and number of fires *might conceivably* be due to increased fuel or ignition sources, the lengthened fire season is pretty obviously correlated to prolonged dry seasons.
It's probably meaningless to ask whether anthropogenic climate change "caused" any particular fire or set of local fires, because such fires could happen in a steady state world, or a cooling world. The more narrowly you look in space and time the less meaningful the question is. But the overall global, multi-decade trend to more area burned and longer fire seasons is a different kettle of fish.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You are right, that forest fires are a natural occurrence.
The problem today is scale and human interference.
Around 1900 there where 1 Billion humans. Today there are 7.5. These want to eat, and that is why a lot of fires are man made. Look at south east asia, they have smog every year due to burning rain forest.
The second problem is climate change. I can tell you first hand (i fly gliders, i'm a weather junky) that the weather has changed. Not necessarily the amounts of rain / dryness but the cadence. The whole process has sped up considerably, leading to a lot higher occurrences of storms and therefore lighting.
So what used to be a once in 10 year event, is now occurring yearly.
>I wonder who got the idea that it was a nice approach at large...
I'm guessing it involved a lobbyist tied to the military-industrial complex. Sounds like a great way to subsidize those poor starving bomb makers when there aren't enough wars going on.
I mean seriously - what sort of bone head would think this was a good idea in general? Bombs (especially guided ones) are fracking expensive, and do a massive amount of damage at the point of impact. How many water-tanker planes could you dump for the cost of one bombing run? And you do want the forest to recover quickly afterwards, right?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.