Solar Powered Tanks

[Foxfyre]

Yes he said all. He STILL did not say solar tanks. That is just a fact.

It was a platitude no different than almost anything that ever fell out of Trump's mouth. BTW, climate friendly does not mean electric either. 'Friendly' is one of those politician words that can essentially mean anything.

Biden can barely find his own ass with a map, do you really think that such a statement is really commenting on making electric tanks? Of course not, no one actually thinks that is what he meant which is why I said what I did. You give others an easy out to the stupid by going straight to a nonsensical example.

Okay, so you hate Trump and want this to be about him. It isn't. He takes a common sense approach to climate change issues, yes, along with dedication to clean air, clean soil, clean water and he was proud of his administration's policies that improved all three. But he never said solar or electric tanks unless it was an entirely obvious joke, nor did anybody else except those of us having some fun with it, something the left maybe will never understand.

And no, Biden didn't say solar or electric tanks either. He didn't even offer a suggestion of what he meant other than he said they're spending billions doing it. So what's your best guess about what he did mean by making ALL military vehicles climate friendly? Please enlighten us.

Yes solar tanks is a fun way to discuss the subject with everybody agreeing that won't happen. But it is very reasonable to discuss that his idea of 'climate friendly' is likely not feasible for military vehicles anytime in the near future.

Even a 'climate woke' mag like "Popular Mechanics" pushes the idea and it is reasonable to discuss the subject now that Biden has brought it up. For example, an average electric 4 passenger car battery exceeds 2000 lbs so what size battery would a 62 ton M1 Abrams tanks require? The reason that is something to think about is Popular Mechanics suggests one way to manage electric tanks would be to switch out battery packs as needed and that would be safer than fuel trucks delivering fuel to the tanks on the battlefield. Imagine what it would take to switch out battery packs big enough to run a battle tank.

Future Tanks Could Be Powered by Electricity

Tanks are notorious gas guzzlers, but converting the need for power from petroleum-based products to electricity could simplify supply delivery—and save lives.

www.popularmechanics.com

In my opinion, whatever your politics, ideology, or who you admire or despise, any American who doesn't think we need a well equipped, competent, well trained, efficient, effective military in this dangerous world is simply nuts. And those who think making the military 'woke' and 'climate friendly' will accomplish that are even more nuts.

It is right and proper that we talk about these things.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yes he said all. He STILL did not say solar tanks. That is just a fact.

It was a platitude no different than almost anything that ever fell out of Trump's mouth. BTW, climate friendly does not mean electric either. 'Friendly' is one of those politician words that can essentially mean anything.

Biden can barely find his own ass with a map, do you really think that such a statement is really commenting on making electric tanks? Of course not, no one actually thinks that is what he meant which is why I said what I did. You give others an easy out to the stupid by going straight to a nonsensical example.

Eco friendly for war machines is your lord and saviors priority.
Historians will be laughing until the end of time.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know... But yeah they looked cool.


Unfortunately tanks are going to be really hard to make "eco friendly". To move that much weight, you need a powerful engine. POWERFUL. Our current MBT, The M1 Abrams, weighs between 60 to 70 tons, depending on the model. The engines may become cleaner, but they won't be electric or solar, at least not for a long time.

I don't have any problem with making them 'cleaner' if that in no way makes them less efficient, effective, reliable, affordable. The U.S. military has in the neighborhood a total of 39,000 armored vehicles worldwide. That's fewer vehicles than you find in a small city. There are more than 600,000 private and commercial vehicles in Albuquerque alone.

You could reduce every military vehicle to zero emissions and zero environmental impact and it wouldn't even be a teensy blip on the environmental scale. And I guarantee you it would not help the military be more efficient, effective, reliable, affordable. So what justification is there for spending billions of our tax dollars making the military 'climate friendly?'

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unlike Trumpist Luddites, our President is once again ahead of the curve. He is right. The US military needs to prepare for the future and the future is one where alternative energy and alternative fuels will rule. While our enemies will have to rely on fossil fuel supplies, the U.S. military will be prepared to be independent of such a supply chain.

Hey, Weatherman will have a fine career in the Russian military. They have need of his big brain.

If you think we are anywhere close to getting off fossil fuels, you were a clue fuck motherfucker. Biden's grandchildren will be dead before our military gets off fossil fuels.

Give it up. You're a dumb fuck.

 

[MisterBeale]

I think I once saw this post. . .

AIRCRAFT

Ultra-light liquid hydrogen tanks promise to make jet fuel obsolete​

​

A revolutionary cryogenic tank design promises to radically boost the range of hydrogen-powered aircraft – to the point where clean, fuel cell airliners could fly up to four times farther than comparable planes running on today's dirty jet fuel. Read more

I didn't even want to address the absurd stoopidity of where they are going to find the energy to get the liquid hydrogen.

These folks that unquestionably gobble up this green propaganda need they heads 'zamined.

They will probably produce MORE CO2 making the damn liquid hydrogen, than they will save by not using traditional jet fuel.

The idiocy of all this propaganda. . . insanity.

 

[Paleman]

Coming soon to a war near you.
China, please hold your launching any weapons at me, I have to recharge my Abrams tank…oh, and my F-35….i have to land and recharge it too…(its a ‘vehicle’….)

The stupid it burns….

Biden is a complete fool. This a**hole, or more likely his handlers are dumb as dirt. How to win a war in the age of electic-powered tanks? Just ignore the tanks and wipe out the power supply. Game over. They win.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Ladies and gentlemen! Err, birthing people and outie people! Joe Bidumb welcomes you to the first eco friendly air show of all time! We have beat climate change! We have secured our ze, zhe selves from climate destruction as well as re- Educated our military and you get to witness the awesome power of inclusiveness! Diversity! Equity! And a more environmentally friendly way of life!

Hims, hers, not committed or was him now her, or unicorn identifying people, or other non people due to choice or whatever you feel like today! I present to you our NEW zero carbon! All inclusive! Air Force at its best!

The Thunderbirds! Oh I’m sorry Thunder is scary, I do apologize.

The USAF lightly raining birds!

 

[Foxfyre]

Eco friendly for war machines is your lord and saviors priority.
Historians will be laughing until the end of time.

It occurred to me that one of those M1 Abrams tanks--I've read that it is the finest battle tank in the world at this time--can bulldoze a building, flatten other vehicles, and blow up pretty much anything it shoots at. It is designed and intended to inflict as much mayhem and catastrophe on the enemy as is necessary to win the battle. Just close your eyes and imagine how much destruction even one tank can do.

But by golly the enemy will be really relieved that it will be climate friendly when it does it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay, so you hate Trump and want this to be about him.

WTF?

No and I expect far better form you fox. Try again.

It isn't. He takes a common sense approach to climate change issues, yes, along with dedication to clean air, clean soil, clean water and he was proud of his administration's policies that improved all three. But he never said solar or electric tanks unless it was an entirely obvious joke, nor did anybody else except those of us having some fun with it, something the left maybe will never understand.

And no, Biden didn't say solar or electric tanks either. He didn't even offer a suggestion of what he meant other than he said they're spending billions doing it. So what's your best guess about what he did mean by making ALL military vehicles climate friendly? Please enlighten us.

And you are making this about Trump not me. It was just a reference to the fact that presidents generally say meaningless shit on a constant, unending basis.

You want to know what he meant by the statement. You know exactly what he meant, voters that care about climate change, support me because I am with you. That is what he meant. It was a platitude.

He will likely direct the DoD to investigate greener vehicles, they will spend a mountain of cash 'studying' and putting together proposals that will never work and will never be implemented but will ensure someone gets another star on their collar and be done with it.

Yes solar tanks is a fun way to discuss the subject with everybody agreeing that won't happen. But it is very reasonable to discuss that his idea of 'climate friendly' is likely not feasible for military vehicles anytime in the near future.

And who here is doing that?

No one. They are all whooping about green tanks and green aircraft. A winning political strategy, right? No.

Even a 'climate woke' mag like "Popular Mechanics" pushes the idea and it is reasonable to discuss the subject now that Biden has brought it up. For example, an average electric 4 passenger car battery exceeds 2000 lbs so what size battery would a 62 ton M1 Abrams tanks require? The reason that is something to think about is Popular Mechanics suggests one way to manage electric tanks would be to switch out battery packs as needed and that would be safer than fuel trucks delivering fuel to the tanks on the battlefield. Imagine what it would take to switch out battery packs big enough to run a battle tank.

Future Tanks Could Be Powered by Electricity

Tanks are notorious gas guzzlers, but converting the need for power from petroleum-based products to electricity could simplify supply delivery—and save lives.

www.popularmechanics.com

There is a reasons that you cannot switch out a battery on a car like you do with an ICE, the task is not something that can be one in the field. Electric tanks are simply not feasible and everyone knows that.

I care less what popular mechanics wants to pontificate about, the technology to scale energy storage and generation at that level simply does not exist for a mobile vehicle.

In my opinion, whatever your politics, ideology, or who you admire or despise, any American who doesn't think we need a well equipped, competent, well trained, efficient, effective military in this dangerous world is simply nuts. And those who think making the military 'woke' and 'climate friendly' will accomplish that are even more nuts.

It is right and proper that we talk about these things.

THAT WAS MY POINT. You were to hung up on the fact I made a reference to Trump to see the point was that taking something to an extreme like this just means that those on the other side can dismiss you as an idiot. And they will. You see any left wingers here addressing the topic? You see any actual discussion on why this is a good or bad idea or do you just see an echo chamber?

 

[FA_Q2]

Eco friendly for war machines is your lord and saviors priority.
Historians will be laughing until the end of time.

Whatever partisan hack.

You have no idea what I think about Biden because you lack the brain power to understand, well, anything whatsoever.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Whatever partisan hack.

You have no idea what I think about Biden because you lack the brain power to understand, well, anything whatsoever.

Don’t get mad at me that the guy (? I’m not a biologist) is a dementia poop pants who thinks the biggest challenge for the military is being eco friendly and sexual deviant enough.

 

[Foxfyre]

WTF?

No and I expect far better form you fox. Try again.

And you are making this about Trump not me. It was just a reference to the fact that presidents generally say meaningless shit on a constant, unending basis.

You want to know what he meant by the statement. You know exactly what he meant, voters that care about climate change, support me because I am with you. That is what he meant. It was a platitude.

He will likely direct the DoD to investigate greener vehicles, they will spend a mountain of cash 'studying' and putting together proposals that will never work and will never be implemented but will ensure someone gets another star on their collar and be done with it.


And who here is doing that?

No one. They are all whooping about green tanks and green aircraft. A winning political strategy, right? No.


There is a reasons that you cannot switch out a battery on a car like you do with an ICE, the task is not something that can be one in the field. Electric tanks are simply not feasible and everyone knows that.

I care less what popular mechanics wants to pontificate about, the technology to scale energy storage and generation at that level simply does not exist for a mobile vehicle.

THAT WAS MY POINT. You were to hung up on the fact I made a reference to Trump to see the point was that taking something to an extreme like this just means that those on the other side can dismiss you as an idiot. And they will. You see any left wingers here addressing the topic? You see any actual discussion on why this is a good or bad idea or do you just see an echo chamber?

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. You did bring up Trump in a way that can easily be construed that you oppose/don't like him whatever. If that was not your intent I apologize for drawing a wrong assumption.

And yes, I see a lot of people here discussing why a 'climate friendly' military is not a practical goal. If they incorporate a bit of hyperbole and humor into that, I see that as a good thing. If you did not intend to criticize the way they are doing it, again I apologize.

The point here and in my own thread I think is that we should protest stupid ideas that translate into waste of billions of taxpayer dollars most especially when it likely weakens the efficiency and effectiveness of our military power.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. You did bring up Trump in a way that can easily be construed that you oppose/don't like him whatever. If that was not your intent I apologize for drawing a wrong assumption.

I do oppose him. That has nothing to do with any of my statements.

I am not a partisan. My support or opposition of Trump does not effect my opinion of the current failure in the Whitehouse. We all stand on our own.

And I was only a little perturbed with you fox because I know you are one of the few here that one can actually have a reasonable conversation with. There are very few people here that think outside of partisan garbage and you are one of those rare gems

And yes, I see a lot of people here discussing why a 'climate friendly' military is not a practical goal. If they incorporate a bit of hyperbole and humor into that, I see that as a good thing. If you did not intend to criticize the way they are doing it, again I apologize.

Well, I am criticizing the manner they are doing it because that manner creates an echo chamber.

Back to my last question, do you see anyone from the other side here discussing this? I see very little value outside humor in hyperbolae that only happens in the echo chamber. Most of the 'discussion' in this thread is nothing more than a circle jerk. Echo chambers are not discussion, they are reinforcement mechanisms. Discussions would involve a conversation with someone that actually thinks Biden's comments were not moronic.

The point here and in my own thread I think is that we should protest stupid ideas that translate into waste of billions of taxpayer dollars most especially when it likely weakens the efficiency and effectiveness of our military power.

We certainly should. As I said in my original post on this particular point, Biden did say something monumentally dumb. However, the point is falling on ears that would say Biden was dumb if he said the sky is blue simply because Biden is a democrat.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do oppose him. That has nothing to do with any of my statements.

I am not a partisan. My support or opposition of Trump does not effect my opinion of the current failure in the Whitehouse. We all stand on our own.

And I was only a little perturbed with you fox because I know you are one of the few here that one can actually have a reasonable conversation with. There are very few people here that think outside of partisan garbage and you are one of those rare gems

Well, I am criticizing the manner they are doing it because that manner creates an echo chamber.

Back to my last question, do you see anyone from the other side here discussing this? I see very little value outside humor in hyperbolae that only happens in the echo chamber. Most of the 'discussion' in this thread is nothing more than a circle jerk. Echo chambers are not discussion, they are reinforcement mechanisms. Discussions would involve a conversation with someone that actually thinks Biden's comments were not moronic.

We certainly should. As I said in my original post on this particular point, Biden did say something monumentally dumb. However, the point is falling on ears that would say Biden was dumb if he said the sky is blue simply because Biden is a democrat.

Thank you and I have enjoyed a lot of your posts over the years too. But the reason I think so few leftists wander into a thread like this is because they really have absolutely no counter argument to offer because the whole idea of a 'green military' is absurd on the face of it. And there are participants on this thread that will call them out immediately if they use the 'your side does it too'/moral equivalency attempt to divert the subject.

And yes there are a lot of the usual insults and just blowing off steam stuff that happens in political threads. But here and there people are explaining WHY it is an absurd idea.

And why it matters to me is that I come from a military family with friends and family members I have known or still know in every war going back to WW I and II and some on active duty now or could be at any time. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things in order to defend something or acquire something. The only purpose of a military is to accomplish that or impress the world that it will be done if anybody messes with us. And I think our military deserves fully responsible leadership that equips and trains them to do that as effectively as possible with the least collateral damage possible on our side.

For decades now I have watched modern day Democrats disrespect, defund, and scale down our military forces in ways that in no way made it more efficient, effective, capable, combat ready. The emphasis to ferret out 'extremists' (defined as Trump supporters) and make the whole military PC, socially sensitive and 'woke' has done nothing to accomplish that and almost certainly has had the reverse effect.

And this 'climate friendly' military thing may never get off the ground, but if they are already spending billions to accomplish it as Biden said, this administration is just off the rails enough to go along with it and it certainly won't improve combat readiness one bit and likely will diminish it.

So yeah, maybe some aren't discussing it as you or I might prefer, but it dang sure deserves attention and discussion.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If I’m a country who doesn’t like the US I just won’t build charging stations. Attack foiled.

 

[Nostra]

Joe. Biden: Ima gonna make our F35s wind powered. The faster they go, the more lectricty they make…….so they can go faster.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Unlike Trumpist Luddites, our President is once again ahead of the curve. He is right. The US military needs to prepare for the future and the future is one where alternative energy and alternative fuels will rule. While our enemies will have to rely on fossil fuel supplies, the U.S. military will be prepared to be independent of such a supply chain.

Hey, Weatherman will have a fine career in the Russian military. They have need of his big brain.

Wow you're a real fucking ignoramus. Please, by all means, educate the class about all of these wonderful "alternative fuel sources" for aeronautical propulsion. Oh, nothing of the sort exists? Well then, perhaps you can link us to one of the viable prototypes being developed for a turbine/ramjet that is not powered by a petroleum-based fuel source.

Or do you think Joe "Ahead of the Curve" Biden is developing some sort of imaginary aerospace program that uses dilithium-powered warp engines? Lol I can just imagine Biden's Pentagon briefings: "no Mr. President, as we stated the last 50 times you asked, Zefram Cochrane does not work here, he is a fictional character...and before you ask again, no we do not have anyone named Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell in the U.S. Navy either."