Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The strategy (if there is one) appears to be to downplay the reality of Peak oil (for fear of frightening the horses and leading to panic price increases now) whilst at the same time do some little belated groundwork towards preparing for that reality.  Obviously reducing private demand is key to that, but would be outside the remit of a military report.  

What is interesting is that they are beginning to accept it would impact even on military expenditure and capabilities which have been ring-fenced from all cutbacks until now.  Can you imagine the uproar if the next generation of battle tanks/fighter jets/battleships were selected based on their fuel consumption rather than increased capabilities?

War is incredibly degrading of the environment and fuel inefficient.  Can you imagine foreign policy (and military) options being evaluated based on their impact on fuel supplies and costs?  It's happening now in relation to evaluating options against Iran and Iranian control of the Hormuz.  The deterioration of relationships with Netanyahu may not just be due to continued settlement activity, but also a US refusal to play hard ball with Iran (from a Likud perspective) for precisely that reason.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 07:19:36 AM EST
Can you imagine the uproar if the next generation of battle tanks/fighter jets/battleships were selected based on their fuel consumption rather than increased capabilities?

It's all about logistics, isn't it?

The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 07:28:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Always has been.  But I was thinking more of the Mail/Torygraph headlines "Army Top brass put lives at risk to save fuel" - (if a Tory Government in power.  If Labour still in power it will read: "Brown puts lives at risk to appease tree huggers").

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 07:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The US has nuclear carriers, cruisers and submarines, but no nuclear aircraft, destroyers or cargo ships, etc. Perhaps this is the reason that Obama recently was posed in front of a "Green Hornet", an F-18 that flies on bio-fuel. I wonder how many thousands of acres of farmland the Navy has under option. There is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but it cannot, in a crisis, both be used to keep domestic prices low and to provide oil for a long war, nor can it prevent the futures markets from going crazy. The USA used to have Naval Reserve oil fields. Teapot Dome was one, but there were many others. I had an uncle who worked at one in Hominy, Ok. when I was a child.

Perhaps the US can convince Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Yemen to build a pipeline that delivers oil from the Gulf coast to an Indian Ocean port. I recall discussion about a pipeline to the Red Sea. But, from a strict war-fighting perspective, the less oil the US imports, the less disruption a Mid East war would have on our economy. So bring on Burce's Brawny Recovery. It is a "National Security Issue".

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 07:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is interesting is that they are beginning to accept it would impact even on military expenditure and capabilities which have been ring-fenced from all cutbacks until now.

That's one way of reading it.

Another way of parsing the quote in Melanchthon's first comment is that it will take a Great Depression to cut back military expenditure (and then only maybe).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 03:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series