> Modern armies need even more oil as jets are thirsty. Oil and gas infrastructure is critical to modern warfare at the moment, and I don't really see electric tanks or jets on the horizon. So that's not going to be an area where will be reducing much CO2 any time soon.
Well, we could just not maintain military bases all over the goddamn planet, and retain a mostly defensive military. More realistically, I suspect that significantly reducing overseas deployments would also significantly reduce the military's carbon footprint.
I do concede that this may not be geopolitically realistic. I also agree that nuclear seems like a realistic solution for carriers and combat ships. Just eliminating diesel-powered aircraft carriers would probably go a long way, I would guess.
Hey, I'm all for reducing the presence of U.S. bases abroad. I don't think we should be policing the world.
But at the same time, let's not kid ourselves - this will result in more wars, except it wont be U.S. ships and planes burning the fossil fuels, the fossil fuels will be expended by foreign troops and all the rebuilding necessary as a result of more conflict.
Here is an article in the WSJ about the significant increase in coups in Africa as a result of the U.S. pulling back and Europe also easing off of its policing role due to covid:
Well, we could just not maintain military bases all over the goddamn planet, and retain a mostly defensive military. More realistically, I suspect that significantly reducing overseas deployments would also significantly reduce the military's carbon footprint.
I do concede that this may not be geopolitically realistic. I also agree that nuclear seems like a realistic solution for carriers and combat ships. Just eliminating diesel-powered aircraft carriers would probably go a long way, I would guess.