I never said tanks or at least should have been more specific. I am talking about support vehicles and such and very light armor vehicles such as humvees.
1. EV's give off no or minimal sound, no or very little heat signature like a diesel.
2. In Gulf War 1 each soldier had the equivalant of 45 lbs of electronic gear. Currently each soldier has the equivalent of 2000 lbs of electronic gear. EV's can supply this electric need w/o having to bring up generators and such
3. Battery range is going up every year. Toyota said in a presss release their 2026 ev's will have a 600 mile range.
4. As I mentioned before the military is working on batteries that can be changed out in the field due to damage or recharging with no tools in two minutes in less.
5. Every single military contractors from every country at the Qatar show had military ev;s including China in their lineup.
6. You said every ev military vehicle can be taken out with an emp. How do you know this? You are speaking out of your arse.
You know jack crap what they are working on, what their capabilities are but yet you are an armchair general. What I posted above is the minimal info my bil would give me. You are another person who hates ev's because conservatives have been told to hate ev's.
I don't hate EVs. I have laid out what my requirements are for a vehicle, and the EVs on the market and which will be present in the near future do not meet those requirements, requirements which are not merely a matter of convenience, but for me and mine, a matter of life and death.
What I do hate, is the zeal with which proponents of EVs present, almost religiously, a case for those vehicles, which tells me that there is intent behind all this to ban ICE vehicles, not just new ones, but any.
In the meantime, the generation capacity to create 17.8 percent of the electricity created in the US is due to be shut down. In my state, 55% of the electricity is generated by coal. We export 50% of the electricity we generate. That will stop if coal plants are all shuttered. Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, and Canada will suffer a shortage.
There are no downwinders to speak of to worry about mercury or other metals, the fly ash is used as a byproduct in the oil industry. Urban areas are literally few and far between.
Consider that vehicles here do not rust (we do not use salt on the roads because when it gets cold: -20 to -30 F is common in winter, it will not melt ice), so it is not uncommon for people to be driving 20 or more year old vehicles. I have a small fleet of six, and they are all 25 or more years old. Think for just a second how much money (and carbon footprint) is saved by driving one vehicle for 25 years versus of getting a new vehicle every three years or so (seven additional vehicles produced must leave a mark). Banksters hate that because they aren't sucking interest out of my pay for a loan, and I don't carry comprehensive insurance (liability only) which means the actuaries aren't raking it in either. But the ultimate parasite is government, and people who are scurrying around in the delusion that an EV is somehow going to change the temperature of the planet want to impose their delusional crap on me, and everyone else, for that matter.
As a geologist who doesn't buy the AGW bullshit (never has), and as one who signed the petition to request that the US NOT become a signatory to the Kyoto Accords, this is all a 'solution' for a 'problem' (not crisis) that doesn't exist in any way that humans can do anything about it but panic and scurry into a new Dark Age as a result of their misguided attempts to solve a problem they cannot.
The planet will be just fine, but civilization may well not be.
