Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Addiction to oil is U.S. defense issue
The Evansville Courier & Press ^ | May 10, 2007 | Nino Cocchiarella

Posted on 05/10/2007 4:00:03 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued

I've written about the latest congressional report warning of our lack of preparedness for peak oil. Check it out. It's pretty scary. But then again, these guys are just congressmen what really is their agenda, right? Now there is a new study ordered by the Pentagon itself. The Pentagon is by far America's largest energy (for logistics) consumer. This study warns that "the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil will make the U.S. military's ability to fight around the world unsustainable in the long term."

The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation and Resources contracted LMI, a consulting firm, to produce the report titled "Transforming the Way DoD (Department of Defense) Looks at Energy."

Bryan Bender of The Boston Globe reports:

"The study concludes that the military must fundamentally transform their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. The study found that it is imperative that the Pentagon apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations."

The key words here are "immediate," "dwindling supply" and "unsustainable."

So now whom do you agree with?

We, the taxpaying citizens of the United States, are spending billions of dollars each year simply to safeguard oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. It may well be taking all that we gain in access to oil simply to protect it. More than 50 percent of all Defense Department expenses are for fuel. Eighty percent of all materials transported to the battlefield are fuel. Last year the Air Force spent $5 billion just on fuel.

This report is yet another big warning flag that we all need to heed. This country is by far the most vulnerable to declining global oil production.

(Excerpt) Read more at courierpress.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/10/2007 4:00:09 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SandRat; ExTexasRedhead; NonValueAdded; SJackson; NeoCaveman

This is something that does need to be addressed. One can only hope that the Pentagon makes it a priority.


2 posted on 05/10/2007 4:01:03 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (If the GOP were to stop worshiping Free Trade as if it were a religion, they'd win every election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Not that we shouldn’t wean off oil, but if the Pentagon needs liquid hydrocarbons to fight a war, you can be sure they’ll get it or make it (Coal-to-liquid, oil shale, biodiesels, etc)


3 posted on 05/10/2007 4:03:45 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

There may be something useful here, but I didn’t get past the headline. We are not addicted to oil. We choose oil as the least expensive portable energy source.

That is a choice, not an addiction. The answer, of course, is to find a better choice.


4 posted on 05/10/2007 4:03:48 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

We need to drill in ANWR and drill off the coasts, East, West and Gulf. We need to become a net exporter of oil and tell the muslims and OPEC to pound sand.


5 posted on 05/10/2007 4:03:59 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

There is no problem.

Should something arise to threaten national security, rationing would drop automobile fuel consumption 90% overnight. Production within the USA could easily keep up with military demand and necessary civilian travel.


6 posted on 05/10/2007 4:05:33 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Peak oil is nonsensical on it’s face. But if you want alternative fuels, there is always coal and nuclear. We have a lot of both.


7 posted on 05/10/2007 4:05:55 PM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Not that we shouldn’t wean off oil, but if the Pentagon needs liquid hydrocarbons to fight a war, you can be sure they’ll get it or make it (Coal-to-liquid, oil shale, biodiesels, etc)

Good God all mighty, It better not be at the cost of one single Spotted Owl or Beluga Whale! /s

8 posted on 05/10/2007 4:14:28 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS; AuntB; colorado tanker; T.L.Sink

” It better not be at the cost of one single Spotted Owl or Beluga Whale! /s”


9 posted on 05/10/2007 4:15:39 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (If the GOP were to stop worshiping Free Trade as if it were a religion, they'd win every election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I have a great idea - lets build breeder reactors in the deserts to make fuel and lots of regular nukes to supply our cities!

/wishful thinking


10 posted on 05/10/2007 4:17:37 PM PDT by Little Ray (Rudy Guiliani: if his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
Peak oil is nonsensical on it’s face. But if you want alternative fuels, there is always coal and nuclear. We have a lot of both.

Political expediency dictates that an energy source without agenda is out of the question!

11 posted on 05/10/2007 4:17:45 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
I would venture to guess that fuel has been the biggest cost item in every military campaign since aircraft and naval vessels replaced cannons and guns as the most powerful weapons in our arsenal.

Unless anyone can come up with a cheaper way to fuel these things, this article doesn't make a lot of sense. Rising fuel costs and "scarcity" (whatever that means) would affect all parties in a conflict, wouldn't it?

12 posted on 05/10/2007 4:22:26 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

In certain applications, the Pentagon has already done what’s needed. The transformation from diesel-powered to nuclear-powered ships is a perfect example of this.


13 posted on 05/10/2007 4:24:11 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I have a great idea - lets build breeder reactors in the deserts to make fuel and lots of regular nukes to supply our cities!

/wishful thinking

It is wishful thinking.

Don't you realize that although it has never happened, nuclear power plants could decimate our nation IF something were to happen.

Coal has been labeled as a "nature" destroyer so we are moving away from that.

Oil, well I need not explain...

What we truly need to do is convert cockroach excrement to a safe and usable fuel for that is the one energy source that will outlast us all. (until PETA promotes "squatters rights" for cockroaches)

14 posted on 05/10/2007 4:25:50 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The transformation from diesel-powered to nuclear-powered ships is a perfect example of this.

Yep, and it is a well proven energy source in helping to guarantee our freedom.

15 posted on 05/10/2007 4:33:20 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
” It better not be at the cost of one single Spotted Owl or Beluga Whale! /s”

You are spot[ted owl] on! If the libs in Congress really believed our national security were in danger due to "overdependence" on foreign oil, then we would be drilling ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf, exploiting fenced-off domestic natural gas fields and developing nuclear energy.

Of course, "peak oil" is more junk science that not even libs appear to take seriously.

I think some of them think if they starve the US of oil, they can hasten the day when oil becomes so expensive that we will be forced to turn to environmentally friendly sources. Of course, what they haven't figured on is that two sources would be much cheaper than solar, wind, biofuels or even fuel cells - coal and nuclear! LOL!

16 posted on 05/10/2007 4:34:13 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Trillions of barrels of oil exist in the Alberta tar sands. Pipelines bring it to us every day.


17 posted on 05/10/2007 5:53:14 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
Ah, my inventive mind takes the challenge! Massive hovercraft, powered by nuclear generators (the type used in subs - hmmm how to cool them - skip that) some like battleships, loaded with charged particle weapons, updates of some of the lasers constructed for Reagans “Star Wars” programs. Others built to be an airborne aircraft carrier for a swarm of unmanned aircraft to be used as scouts and escorts and targeting devices. Maybe some as massive troop carriers, or capable of off-loading large equipment.

Reminds me of an article one might have read in an issue of Popular Science circa 1965.

18 posted on 05/10/2007 7:02:04 PM PDT by free_for_now (No Dick Dale in the R&R HOF? - for shame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fedora; Fred Nerks; ...

The Navy is working on fusion energy...


19 posted on 05/10/2007 8:59:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated May 10, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson