The article states that they run preparedness drills for events like flooding. That is hardly "fighting climate change" or anything similar.
Oops. Not really what you were implying. I'm guessing you haven't thought all of this through very much.
In all actuality, one of the biggest complaints from the military is the "need" to use "green" sources of energy. I personally don't mind that all of base housing on a base in Hawaii has solar panels on the roof. That's not really a bad thing other than the extra cost to put it in.
Quote:In all actuality, one of the biggest complaints from the military is the "need" to use "green" sources of energy. I personally don't mind that all of base housing on a base in Hawaii has solar panels on the roof. That's not really a bad thing other than the extra cost to put it in.
There is nothing wrong with that. I agree with you, and also support those kind of things. Where I draw the line is if the expenditures for those items takes away from necessary military equipment. I'm not going to leave a soldier without a gun just so his barrack can have solar panels.
There is certainly a happy medium somewhere, and if the military finds and utilizes it, more power to them.
Quote:Climate change is something that naturally occurs.
Grand Canyon much?
Fires also occur naturally doesn't mean people should be allowed to commit arson
Quote:Fires also occur naturally doesn't mean people should be allowed to commit arson
You mean like the liberals who are burning down peaceful towns like DC and Berkley?
You're double-talk is definitely noteworthy.
Quote:You mean like the liberals who are burning down peaceful towns like DC and Berkley?
You're double-talk is definitely noteworthy.
Yes I don't agree with smashing stuff and burning stuff down. Like hopefully you don't agree with shooting people in mosques for no reason...
I wouldn't even consider myself that left, I think the government should be involved with education,health and obvious monopolies like roads and utilities. I have no problems with strong border control, or curbs on excessive borrowing etc.
We aren't all far left/right
Quote:There is nothing wrong with that. I agree with you, and also support those kind of things. Where I draw the line is if the expenditures for those items takes away from necessary military equipment. I'm not going to leave a soldier without a gun just so his barrack can have solar panels.
There is certainly a happy medium somewhere, and if the military finds and utilizes it, more power to them.
Absolutely. One HUGE mistake that the 0bama regime made was getting rid of the F-22 program. Sure, they do cost more, but the effectiveness of the weapon was worth it. Just 1 F-22 can take out 5 enemy fighters before they even know that it's there. Why was Desert Storm such a success? It was because we engaged with superior firepower and technology. Much of the Iraqi forces were defeated before a single troop set foot in the country.
The big mistake is the F-35 program. While it is far more advanced technically, it wasn't ready for production and still isn't. While the F-35 takes advantage of the latest technology and innovation, it wasn't ready for full production when it came out, and still isn't.
As it relates to the subject of this thread regarding "green energy", the thing is that the job of the military is a dirty business. Priority should be to use the "best" method to do something rather than the "greener" method. I could say more about it, but I would be approaching a line that I don't even want to get close to.
Quote:Absolutely. One HUGE mistake that the 0bama regime made was getting rid of the F-22 program. Sure, they do cost more, but the effectiveness of the weapon was worth it. Just 1 F-22 can take out 5 enemy fighters before they even know that it's there. Why was Desert Storm such a success? It was because we engaged with superior firepower and technology. Much of the Iraqi forces were defeated before a single troop set foot in the country.
The big mistake is the F-35 program. While it is far more advanced technically, it wasn't ready for production and still isn't. While the F-35 takes advantage of the latest technology and innovation, it wasn't ready for full production when it came out, and still isn't.
As it relates to the subject of this thread regarding "green energy", the thing is that the job of the military is a dirty business. Priority should be to use the "best" method to do something rather than the "greener" method. I could say more about it, but I would be approaching a line that I don't even want to get close to.
While I agree, the F-22 is a great fighter, it also had hiccups when first rolled out. It still battles software integration issues. Saying the F-35 is not ready is simply not true. It met IOC certification last year. Is it perfect, no. But you try ordering a car and then changing the options every week! Much like the F-22, it is going through some software bugs. The differences in that the F-35 is way more advanced electronically than the F-22. In fact, even with some integration issues, the F-35 clobbered the enemy in this past Red Flag. Its best feature is the ability to not only counter but to direct the battlefield from a safe distance linking with gen 4 aircraft, as well as naval systems.
Quote:I personally don't mind that all of base housing on a base in Hawaii has solar panels on the roof. That's not really a bad thing other than the extra cost to put it in.
I dunno, mining the rare earth metals and resources it takes to build a solar panel and giant batteries is hundreds of times worse for the environment than coal, oil, and natural gas.
It takes a very long time for a solar panel to be more environmentally friendly, in addition to the actual costs.
Quote:While I agree, the F-22 is a great fighter, it also had hiccups when first rolled out. It still battles software integration issues. Saying the F-35 is not ready is simply not true. It met IOC certification last year. Is it perfect, no. But you try ordering a car and then changing the options every week! Much like the F-22, it is going through some software bugs. The differences in that the F-35 is way more advanced electronically than the F-22. In fact, even with some integration issues, the F-35 clobbered the enemy in this past Red Flag. Its best feature is the ability to not only counter but to direct the battlefield from a safe distance linking with gen 4 aircraft, as well as naval systems.
I won't argue that the F-35 isn't a technical marvel, but it was pushed out way too quickly and designed completely wrong. While it does incorporate the latest technology, none of it was ever tested properly and the code that runs it is still full of bugs. That's the primary reason for such a high cost and the cost overruns.
The biggest downfall of the concept of the F-35 is that it was supposed to serve the three main branches of the military. The thing is, each branch has different requirements. As a simple example, the Navy requires it to be able to work at sea. As a side note to this, the Marine Corps (actually part of the Navy) required STOL (Short Takeoff Landing) ability, essentially to act like a Harrier. The Air Force required other specifications. The Army required it to provide close support to eventually replace the A-10.
The problem is, no one aircraft can perform and execute each mission reliably. It might work well for the Air Force right now, but it won't last on a Navy ship.
The real mistake was ordering them to be built before it was fully tested to carry out the specifications that were required. In the long run, even though the F-22 was expensive, it was already in production. Had the order been filled we wouldn't be as weak as we are now militarily.
Quote:I dunno, mining the rare earth metals and resources it takes to build a solar panel and giant batteries is hundreds of times worse for the environment than coal, oil, and natural gas.
It takes a very long time for a solar panel to be more environmentally friendly, in addition to the actual costs.
True. The worst part is the battery technology.
Quote:I won't argue that the F-35 isn't a technical marvel, but it was pushed out way too quickly and designed completely wrong. While it does incorporate the latest technology, none of it was ever tested properly and the code that runs it is still full of bugs. That's the primary reason for such a high cost and the cost overruns.
The biggest downfall of the concept of the F-35 is that it was supposed to serve the three main branches of the military. The thing is, each branch has different requirements. As a simple example, the Navy requires it to be able to work at sea. As a side note to this, the Marine Corps (actually part of the Navy) required STOL (Short Takeoff Landing) ability, essentially to act like a Harrier. The Air Force required other specifications. The Army required it to provide close support to eventually replace the A-10.
The problem is, no one aircraft can perform and execute each mission reliably. It might work well for the Air Force right now, but it won't last on a Navy ship.
The real mistake was ordering them to be built before it was fully tested to carry out the specifications that were required. In the long run, even though the F-22 was expensive, it was already in production. Had the order been filled we wouldn't be as weak as we are now militarily.
I agree it was a build as you go multi-role (Air Force, Navy, Marines). The Army was not a factor as the Air Force provides their CAS outside of the roto world. In any case, contrary to belief, the airframes really are quite different between the versions. This is where a lot of cost overruns came in. It is essential three planes for the price of one. When you add in the costs for systems developed for the ground up and for future innovations, yeah expensive. Wait until the start the airframe re-skin process!
Quote:I dunno, mining the rare earth metals and resources it takes to build a solar panel and giant batteries is hundreds of times worse for the environment than coal, oil, and natural gas.
It takes a very long time for a solar panel to be more environmentally friendly, in addition to the actual costs.
Now you did it. liberal commies will be coming out of the woodwork to label you a nazi and all sorts of things. You are now an official enemy of the liberal vermin.
Quote:Fires also occur naturally doesn't mean people should be allowed to commit arson
Nature is in control. Not people.
There's your problem.
Quote:Nature is in control. Not people.
There's your problem.
Umm.. We have been setting 'nature' on fire a little too long to say that anymore, bud.
Who cares about climate change anyways? The earth is going to last a couple hundred more years...we should all be dead by then.
Quote:Who cares about climate change anyways? The earth is going to last a couple hundred more years...we should all be dead by then.
Trump launching the nukes in 3 months.
Quote:Trump launching the nukes in 3 months.
You're right. You should go hide in your nuke shelter right away. We will tell you when it is safe to come out again. Make sure to stay hidden until we tell you it's safe to come out again.
Quote:You're right. You should go hide in your nuke shelter right away. We will tell you when it is safe to come out again. Make sure to stay hidden until we tell you it's safe to come out again.
OMG!
You're hilarious! Have you tried stand-up comedy?
Quote:OMG!
You're hilarious! Have you tried stand-up comedy?
We all know it's just a matter of time before the madman presses the red button, right lib? I'm trying to help our intellectually challenged friend out and you're making jokes about it.
How incredibly insensitive of you. He probably doesn't like you very much anymore.