Author Topic: Replace fossil fuels for the military? Not so fast.  (Read 188 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Replace fossil fuels for the military? Not so fast.
« on: June 18, 2021, 11:25:31 am »
Replace fossil fuels for the military? Not so fast.
By: Matthew Kambrod   
 

Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, Paladins. These names mean nothing unless you’re in the business of war. But to the war fighter, they bring into direct focus main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry carrier vehicles, self-propelled artillery and other offensive battle hardware.

There are a total of approximately 225,000 ground combat vehicles in the Army inventory. Their missions vary from combat to combat support to myriad additional requirements that must be met on the battlefield.

The Army is not alone in owning vehicles. The Marine Corps has similar requirements, and each of the other services needs one form of ground transportation or another to function. The issue is exacerbated when you include aircraft and ships. These add dramatically to the total vehicles and transportation modes owned and operated by the combat forces of the United States.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/06/17/replace-fossil-fuels-for-the-military-not-so-fast/

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Re: Replace fossil fuels for the military? Not so fast.
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2021, 11:26:45 am »
Getting rid of fossil fuels would be a most excellent way for Biden to make the US military totally meaningless on the world stage. 22222frying pan

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78,123
Re: Replace fossil fuels for the military? Not so fast.
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2021, 12:45:06 pm »
Makes about as much sense as replacing fossil fuels for the agricultural industry. Solar-powered tractors!
Support Israel's emergency medical service. afmda.org