[Clintonfatigued]

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

[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)

[Rodney King]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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?

[Alberta's Child]

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.