How can war be fought differently to help avoid "climate change"?

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:35:26 -0500

It matters not whether you believe in "climate change", an order is an order. So tell me, how would you fight (or have fought) war differently to help avoid "climate change"? Inquiring minds want to know...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

Pentagon orders commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions

The Pentagon is ordering the top brass to incorporate climate change into virtually everything they do, from testing weapons to training troops to war planning to joint exercises with allies.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Feb 8 at 2016 10:42 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:42:01 -0500

Very good question! I don't have an answer right now, need to think on this one.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 10:42 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:42:10 -0500

There are plenty of ways. Not idling vehicles unless required by the mission would be a good start.

Response by LTC Stephen Conway made Feb 8 at 2016 10:58 AM

LTC Stephen Conway — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:58:11 -0500

This is not easy to do since there will be fires as a result of combat. I read years ago about vehicles creeping along on battery or fuel cell technology part of the way as a part of stealth. what happened to those? I guess diesel engines and turbine engines will get more efficient just like my 2015 Dodge Challenger sxt plus with a 3.5L V6 305 horsepower engine is as fast as my 1967 olds 442 with a 400 but this small engine can get 28 mpg on the highway. It is not a Hellcat but my point is you can have a happy medium even in the dirty sooty diesel vehicles..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxD-etKBj5s#t=51

2012 Dodge Challenger SXT Plus vs. Hellcat Challenger

Obviously my 305+ Horsepower Challenger was no match for the 707 horsepower Dodge Challenger Hellcat. But just seeing one is rare. So I decided to follow him...

Response by MSgt Aaron Brite made Feb 8 at 2016 11:05 AM

MSgt Aaron Brite — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:05:13 -0500

I don't believe that we can affect climate change on a tactical level. Simple actions like fuel efficiency/conservation in our equipment usage is important for logistics but piddling in climate change. There is value to switching from high carbon energy to low carbon energy in availability and supply stability as there is in efficiency. More worrisome is climate change your impact to the battlefield and infrastructure. While the article points to a decided lack of increase in storms, even a small increase in number or intensity can have a outsized impact on operations and installations. It takes one to ruin a base like Homestead AFB. Even sea rise will place installations in a bind if they can not adapt such as ports. Some battle fileds will change as they go from cities with beach fronts for landings to cities with urban dock fronts. Huge difference in tactics and equipment to do our job in those locations. In the administration's less than clear direction , I think effort toward adapting to these challenges has clear value and paths forward. At least until the "guidance" is clearer as to what he admin expects.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Feb 8 at 2016 11:15 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:15:14 -0500

Use cleaner fuels? JP fuels are crap. Synchronized breathing to cut back on CO2 emissions. Meetings will be limited to 15 minutes max, and powerpoint slides are no longer than 10 slides at a minute each. We will enact AWS or alternate work schedules so the troops aren't driving their cars as much. PT formation will be held via Facetime on iPhones. Staff Duty/MP's will ride Segways. We will begin the rapid issuing of laser weapons. Marines will give up the traditional sword and have the option of caring a light saber. Counseling statements will be written on MRE paper to maximize time and effort and not waste trees. Due to the harmful gasses that come from MRE heaters, they will be scrapped and the MRE will be eaten cold unless they're heated from the exhaust of a vehicle (yes plenty of troops have done that one for real). We will have DARPA begin testing on Flux Capacitors to power vehicles and possibly large items. We will stop having JE's burning sh*t in 55 gal barrels. We will save it and use it to power buildings and the methane gas can power vehicles. Tough times require extreme measures. Harvesting passed gas from humans would give tons of methane gas that again could power small buildings, and is a natural energy source. The older you get the more pungent the gas, and we need that.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 11:17 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:17:24 -0500

Oh good. We are creating more panels and policies. Because hot air doesn't cause climate change.

I have a lot of opinions on this, but I will say this much - I believe that this directive is not motivated by any concerns about climate, but rather budgetary concerns. By embedding this controversial item in the Defense Budget, it doesn't get the same scrutiny and likely rejection that it would face on the floor in Congress.

Response by SGT William Howell made Feb 8 at 2016 11:30 AM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:30:07 -0500

We can use the Air Force Rockets and tie a really long rope to them, then launch them into space. Then we can pull the Earth away from the Sun. Because the only way we are going to fix, "Global Warming" is to defy the natural gravitational pull of the other planets in the solar system and to stop the natural effect that has went on for about a billion years. It amazes me that people think the earth moves around the sun in a circle when it is oblong and other planets determine that distance.

500 years from now people are going to laugh at everybody now for global warming, just like we did for people that though the world was flat.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Feb 8 at 2016 11:31 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:31:19 -0500

Clear objectives based on vital national interests. Overwhelming, annihilating combat power focused on enemy COGs. Basically, the Powell doctrine. Reasoning: A 6 month war of absolute violence and destruction, vs a 10 year war of drip-drip attrition will do far more to avoid climate change than any marginal improvements in efficiency we gain by reducing pollutants produced by tanks, airplanes, and ships.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 11:32 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:32:05 -0500

This is an administration policy pushed down to the pentagon which is mired in ideology, not facts.
http://tinyurl.com/nzx9zoa

EXCLUSIVE: Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is 'not melting', says global warming expert

THE North and South Poles are "not melting", according to Dr Benny Peiser a global warming expert.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Feb 8 at 2016 11:34 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:34:13 -0500

To be honest the only way I could think of which would actually reduce "climate change" would be to go back to sticks and stones CPT Jack Durish. Of course these sticks and stones would have to by lying on the ground so as not to disturb a "precious" ecosystem. This in a tongue-in-cheek response. I think it is beyond ludicrous to attempt to wage war in such a way that the poobahs of climate change theory would be satisfied that the warfare would not "impact the climate."
It has been difficult to get our adversaries to adhere or agree to the Geneva and Hague conventions. I would love to see the expressions on the leaders of ISIL, North Korea and Iran when a diplomat presents the climate change warfare limitation agreement for their signature.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 8 at 2016 11:49 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:49:50 -0500

This is PC run amok.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 11:50 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:50:03 -0500

I'm going to second what Col Lenertz said. A 6 month war of overwhelming absolute violence and destruction is far better for the climate, (and a number of other items) than a 10 year long-term war.

Response by SPC David S. made Feb 8 at 2016 11:50 AM

SPC David S. — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:50:53 -0500

Very interesting topic being that the Pentagon is the single largest industrial consumer of fossil fuels. Additionally I find this interesting as many attribute the Gulf War Syndrome on Saddam Hussein's oil fires all the while we bomb oil refineries in Syria in an attempt to cripple the oil revenue stream to ISIS.

While it would be nice to transform all kinetic military action into a game of horseshoes I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Something I have often wondered about is how we have framed or boxed in arm conflict via the GC and similar constructs. We seem to always beat around the bush instead of establishing a zero tolerance policy with armed conflict. We have just simply relegated war as an acceptable behavior for mankind. When you take away any incentive in armed conflict - ruin all land resources and total annihilation of the population - it makes little sense in resorting to such action. With an excessive use of force approach the tone in curbing the violence and ebbing climate change rings resolute. I only say this in looking at how quickly WWII came to a close with Japan. I bet dropping 20 nukes on Syria and then asking if anyone else is feeling froggy would force the world to reexamine the use of force as a means in resolving any impasse in conflicting geopolitical policies or ideologies. I think if the world survived such an act of aggression it might force us to do away with war as we know it today. More of a philosophical approach in climate change due to war.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 8 at 2016 12:02 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:02:51 -0500

We could just surrender and move back to the dark ages. Ride camels and burn camel dung, oops burning camel fund produces green house gas. Stay cold Infedels.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 12:14 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:14:54 -0500

Modernization would be the best option in a perfect world with no budget constraints... think about it: we have c-130's that have been flying since the 70's, replacing them with j models would not only help in fuel consumption, you'd also get an increase in range, loiter time, fuel consumption, power, weight reductions, etc. not to mention all the HAZ waste you'd eliminate from reduced maintenance ( MCR of most Legacy model units is around 75-80%, while the J's are upwards of 98%, link below.)
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/c-130j-is-earning-its-keep-in-tough-operating-conditions-199534/

C-130J is earning its keep in tough operating conditions

The USAF's Air Mobility Command is a very happy customer - not only is the workhorse Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules proving itself, it is doing so in a 'no kidding' shooting war.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 8 at 2016 12:20 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:20:09 -0500

Simply put.... the realization that the military is designed to be EFFECTIVE not EFFICIENT.

When we speak about things like "Climate Change" we are talking about measures of Efficiency, or more specifically increasing efficiency. That is counter to our culture. We're not good at that.

We are very good at Effectiveness. Getting things done. We tend to do that by sacrificing Efficiency.

Therefore, if we want more Efficiency, we are "likely" to give up Effectiveness. I'm not saying that is a certainty, however since the US Military is a machine, and a bureaucracy, I "think" my assessment is probably correct.

I'm sure there are things we can do. Actually, I know there are. But we don't care enough to do them. LTC Private RallyPoint Member pointed out a great option (not idling vehicles). I'd suggest not spray-paining #%^#$& rocks is another. Our Base Beautification projects are probably a third that can go the way of the dodo (to some extent). Washing tactical & admin vehicles every time we turn them into the motor pool falls into this category as well. The amount of "pretty work" we do that affects the environment is probably pretty high (whether or not it is noticeable from a global scale is another matter).

Response by SN Greg Wright made Feb 8 at 2016 12:55 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:55:02 -0500

CPT Jack Durish I'm not sure I accept the premise that warfighting is a significant contributor to climate change. Not relative to all the combustion engines and farming (methane), which have significantly more contribution.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Feb 8 at 2016 1:57 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:57:45 -0500

Use green bullets. That ought to make some idiot happy.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Feb 8 at 2016 2:44 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:44:14 -0500

From the minds of morons! I'm sorry if my comment offends anyone by using a currently politically incorrect term. However, "Moron" is a term once used in psychology to denote folks with a mild intellectual disability. Clearly, anyone who thinks that prioritizing "Climate Change" into war fighting decisions, is at best intellectually challenged and at worst is hiding their political and/or economic motives.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 8 at 2016 2:49 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:49:01 -0500

You mean Conservation of Forces which means a lighter better trained and armed fighting force that creates less waste and less use of fuels, which should result in less burn pits. Also need to cut the PORK too at the Pentagon; given them guns and send them to the front.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 8 at 2016 4:52 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:52:26 -0500

BLUF: Try to pack light, move fast and live off the land. These are normally good operational techniques throughout history.

1. Solar panels and high capacity batteries replacing generators where able can both reduce environment impact and reduce logistic and supply chain risk.

2. Water purification of local sources as much as possible can both reduce environment impact and reduce logistic and supply chain risk.

3. Lighter footprints (literally less armor, more foot-based movement) more integration with local militaries and populations can both reduce environment impact and reduce logistic and supply chain risk.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2016 5:13 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:13:34 -0500

Nothing the military does or have done will impact the planet overall (unless we drop a shit-ton of nukes all over the place) our methods of fighting wars have evolved over time and will most likely continue to evolve. Our impact on a global scale is imaginary. For our President to make statements “global climate changes are not open to debate” ARROGANCES at its best. The planet is more vicious than man could ever be and that’s a well-documented fact, just look at the fossil records. Again, the educated, stupid people in this world, sit around a think up crap so they can validate their self-worth.

George Carlin said it best (not word for word) but you get the point...

There is nothing wrong with the planet! I believe the planet is fine. However, PEOPLE are screwed! Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. The planet has been here four and a half billion years give or take a few years? Did you ever think about the arithmetic of that? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, maybe a hundred thousand years? Or two hundred thousand years depending on who you talk to. And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And WE have the ARROGANCE to think that somehow we're a threat?

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 8 at 2016 9:06 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 21:06:45 -0500

If climate change is the most significant national security threat we face, what is our role in enforcing this worldwide? If a developing nation refuses to curb its pollution (e.g China), does that make them a direct threat to us? If so, what is the military's role in this? Do we have a right to declare war on nations that pollute? Just some questions that come to mind when I read this.

Response by Daniel Pothier made Feb 8 at 2016 10:04 PM

Daniel Pothier — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:04:09 -0500

The climate is always changing, and always will. Global warming is a hoax, as for war if we have a clear entrance, objective, and exit plan. Strike fast and well. Then get the hell out.
We minimize environmental impacts.

In carrying out the task assigned . . . you will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without good prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage on the enemy. - Nimitz

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Feb 8 at 2016 10:19 PM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:19:53 -0500

Cyberwarfare.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 9 at 2016 12:07 AM

LTC Jason Mackay — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:07:35 -0500

I think this was misunderstood and not communicated well. If the globe warms, and ice caps melt, there are some changes that will occur in a very practical sense.
- a northern passage could potentially open on Canada's northern coast that was not there before. This poses a new maritime domain. what role does the U.S. And NATO Naval forces play in that?
- Nations have been jockeying to control the Arctic and Antarctic as there is evidence to suggest oil and gas may be on the ocean floor that is exploitable once the ice is gone. Who controls it and how? We are among those claiming nations.
- coastal areas will change drastically. Commerce routes will likely change. The navy has the mission to secure freedom of navigation and access to the global commons, securing significant tonnages of our and allied trade that has direct impact on what the average American pays for consumer goods.

So why the directive? Even though it may be decades away, the money and programming process starts now. I believe the intent was to spur COCOMS to develop plans and joint capabilities requirements and in turn, service chiefs to think through service contributions to those joint capabilities. Acquisition processes must trundle forward. Appropriations must be made, withdrawn, refunded, projects cancelled, restarted because it is in someone's district, and hands wrung.

Maybe the Army revisits amphibious warfare and needs more boats. Maybe the Army needs more boats to support Marine Corps operations under their title X responsibilities. Maybe the Air Force needs atomic seaplanes. Perhaps this is the signal to under take a mass abandonment of fossil fuels down to the tactical level via room temperature fusion, capacitance gel, hydrogen cells, bio mass or some other exotic means. Perhaps we need more satellites. Perhaps Littoral Combat Ships are too big and we need super hover barges with laser beams or more sea based platforms to operate off of.

That is just a smattering of impacts, just around sea changes. I imagine there are others that we have not thought of. Many places in the world have significant challenges maintaining secure sources of drinking water. Rivers will dry up or change course. Lakes may form or disappear.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Feb 9 at 2016 2:43 AM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 02:43:21 -0500

I laughed when I saw the question. Now I'm ready to cry. The fact that someone in a position of power is seriously considering it and making other people address the question is so mind-numbing, so insane... I can't come up with an adequate word to describe it. It's like asking the question, how can we conduct a war without death and destruction? (Do it all online, I suppose.)

It's based on the premise that we can somehow stop or avoid climate change -- as if the world has had the same climate ever since it came into existence, and the only thing that ever changed it was humans starting the industrial revolution. It's stupid, moronic, idiotic, insane, nuts.

Damn, I'm glad I retired.

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Feb 9 at 2016 5:00 AM

LTC Eric Coger — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 05:00:30 -0500

Sign a treaty requiring the wars be fought with pre-industrial tech only. We will use the Roman or Spartan model. National Defense is all about the green movement right? Wars should be limited to 6 weeks in the summer between the planting and harvesting seasons; all nations will voluntarily cull their populations to self-sustaining agricultural levels. Ban all pesticides, GMOs, electricity and machines. Let's go Amish and we will all be too busy working the land to wage significant wars. This will also cut down on budgets and the use of fiat currency...

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 9:15 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 09:15:01 -0500

Well, dropping those two nukes on Japan in 1945 didn't help things. I think we have an obligation to care for the environment. I also think that the science behind man-made global warming is undecided. I can remember when I was a kid these same scientists were predicting an ice age. It then turned to global warming, and when that was pretty much debunked we relabeled it "climate change". Is/does the climate change? Sure. It is likely what killed off the dinosaurs, and caused a min-ice age around the time of the American Revolution. Do people cause climate change? I'm not sure, and I am equally sure that science isn't sure either. I am sure that there is big money in the "science" of climate change and that is likely driving the continual debate. At the end of the day we execute the orders given to us and try to do our part to keep the world we live in as healthy as possible.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 10:12 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:12:50 -0500

I shake my head at all the hubris. Weather vs Climate, politics and AGW, science vs. anecdotal weather out- breaks, the confluence of terms and holocaust. Politics are not science. Period. What Obama, the Pentagon and Bill Nye the Science (cough) Guy, are saying are just OPINIONS. Have the deserts of the Southwest USA, changed? Where has all the sand went? Are the Great Lakes still there? Have they evaporated?

What I am saying is that weather events are highly modified from their source regions. The local environments (as in China) have affected micro-climates but not source regions. Weather climates are produced by Weather Observations, and weather forecasts are derived from Climate Types, which we use to make those forecasts. Our models have wide variations, based upon current events and those climate models are based on our own models. What's more alarming is that Climate Models are extrapolating forecasts out to 100 years, based on our own limited data?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/12/fact-checking-mark-carneys-catastrophic-climate-claims/

Metorologist
Mike Scott ( Larry)
35 years experience.

Fact Checking Mark Carney's Catastrophic Climate Claims

Guest essay by Steve Kopits Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, touched off a firestorm of criticism by claiming that catastrophic climate events are in store. In a speech given to the i...

Response by Craig Hatch made Feb 9 at 2016 5:51 PM

Craig Hatch — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:51:10 -0500

Well war is war, whether we bomb, launch nukes or invade. The only way to effectively fight a war differently is to utilize technology that can alter the course of war. I don't think you really can change much as far as war goes. War is after all a armed conflict that results in causalities, whether cyber or on the ground warfare! I don't know if that makes sense. However, the only thing I would change is how the media plays a role!!! Keep the media in the dark you keep your enemies in the dark!

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 9 at 2016 7:58 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:58:25 -0500

I am just glad CPT Jack Durish I am out... But, but this is nothing new... In my days it was EPA, and environmental protection and stewardship, not climate change. When I was Lieutenant, we would do oil changes in the field, and dump the oil on the ground... By the time I was Captain, it was an EPA event if you spilled a drop of diesel... Over my career, we just learned to make this part of our planning, just like we did for safety and risk mitigation. By the time I was a GC, it was all about recycle, no bottled water, and renewable energy sources.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Feb 9 at 2016 8:01 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:01:27 -0500

Sir,by reducing the need for our troops to deploy to every crisis and using the existing troops in neighboring Nations to help their neighbor.Or station NATO units around the world.Diplomacy and Not targeting resources.

Response by CSM Chris McKeown made Feb 10 at 2016 12:30 AM

CSM Chris McKeown — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:30:22 -0500

I joined the military not the EPA! When the EPA gets into the trenches on the battlefield in large numbers then maybe I will believe they are serious about this topic.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 7:41 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:41:51 -0500

All you need is love ... lol bomb that explore with water and not burn their victim ... or generate high concentrated oxygen that oxidize their victim ... how about freezing bomb too ... biological weapon!!!! that is a good one.... the best way is to .... surrender ... better one ... let them kill you ...

I can keep going ... if you wish. lol

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 10 at 2016 10:02 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:02:25 -0500

What happened to the Neutron Bomb? Package it as a tactical weapon and a solution for all.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Feb 10 at 2016 11:27 AM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:27:12 -0500

This is a bit ridiculous, but ok fine. If you want to conduct your military action to minimize perceived climate change risks there is one simple solution. Conduct your operations with overwhelming force and violence of action. End them quickly and decisively. When the targeting of infrastructure is required it should have the aim of disruption versus destruction, which is only viable if you can insure control over said infrastructure relatively quickly following strikes.

Put simply, don't pussyfoot around. Set your objective, take/destroy it, and move on. Don't get drawn into a war of attrition.

Long term: More nuclear powered ships. The navy burns 1.3 gallons of fuel a year keeping those boats paddling around the oceans. You want to reduce that carbon footprint, start investing in nuclear power on more of the ships in the fleet. Nuclear power for everyone.

Then put a new engine in the F-35. One that doesn't suck. A variable cycle engine could save 15% fuel burn on what is to be the backbone of our combat air fleet for the next 30 years. That adds up quick.

Also, ditch the extra layer of bureaucracy, it does nothing but produce hot air.

Response by SPC Darren Koele made Feb 10 at 2016 6:15 PM

SPC Darren Koele — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:15:11 -0500

Clear objective(s), ruthless execution, then get the hell out.
Political correctness and war do not mix.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Feb 11 at 2016 10:21 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:21:55 -0500

Given that manmade climate change is a hoax, no.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2016 2:34 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:34:58 -0500

Well, I've been banned by another fanatic who can't browbeat me into accepting his "religion." I regard that as a compliment.

No names. The guilty are known by their store of personal facts, lack of research, and unwillingness to consider anything that conflicts with their religion.

Response by Maj John Bell made May 22 at 2016 9:30 PM

Maj John Bell — Sun, 22 May 2016 21:30:40 -0400

If it has come to war, I don't give a damn about greenhouse gases. That is the province of people who are not concerned with surviving the day, or not concerned with their subordinates surviving the day.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 24 at 2018 6:02 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:02:59 -0400

Sir how does ca war in current times affect climate change compared to 9 billion Chinese and their smog?

Response by SGT Mary G. made Aug 10 at 2021 12:58 AM

SGT Mary G. — Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:58:05 -0400

Oh, my. Had to laugh. That's a question for the ages. Some nations, in some instances, that signed onto the Geneva Conventions don't formulate plans around not violating them. so how would any directives that are intended to not exacerbate climate change in combat, be any different? I would be happier to see a concern and discussion about limiting toxicity, and cleaning it up - not only during and after combat anywhere, but also at U.S. base everywhere they are located.