Global warming and the arms industry

[Anders Lindman]

I was thinking, the weapons/military industry is the BIGGEST industry in the world. Military vehicles, ammunition, bombs, military natural resource consumption, ships, airplanes, helicopters, etc are not exactly environmental-friendly. How will they cope with that? How will they manage to defend the need for zillion dollar military exercises and budgets against the demand for reducing global warming. If global warming REALLY is as serious as they claim, then they cannot ignore this problem.

[umbrex]

I was thinking, the weapons/military industry is the BIGGEST industry in the world. Military vehicles, ammunition, bombs, military natural resource consumption, ships, airplanes, helicopters, etc are not exactly environmental-friendly. How will they cope with that? How will they manage to defend the need for zillion dollar military exercises and budgets against the demand for reducing global warming. If global warming REALLY is as serious as they claim, then they cannot ignore this problem.

Right.

And do you honestly believe the US military industrial complex gives a shit about global warming ?
Let alone being affected by it. Greenhouse gas global warming is a scam anyways which they most probably are aware off, so why bother ?

[Anders Lindman]

That's exactly it. The global military industry will not likely join the global warming camp, but if the claim that global warming is a serious problem as politicians and mainstream media feverishly promote, then in order for them to remain credible they will have to deal with the enormous military industry complex.

[umbrex]

That's exactly it. The global military industry will not likely join the global warming camp, but if the claim that global warming is a serious problem as politicians and mainstream media feverishly promote, then in order for them to remain credible they will have to deal with the enormous military industry complex.

So here we are, imagine this:

The US has been in global warming denial for the past decade. Fiercly denying it, since the republicans have owned congress for 10 years, but now they have to do something about it since the polls show they'd better do something or their political future is over.
They need to take small steps and make sure it comes along in a steady pace. Do you then think that those initial steps will be cutting down on the military complex ? i think not, and with America as primus motor, i just don't see that in the cards. Try thinking it through m8. Do you really think any superpowers are that daft that they will risk their security for a few degrees ? i think not.

And another thing. The military industrial complex emmisions are, even though its huge, nothing more then a fraction.

Imagine how many tanks there is. Then think about how many civilian vehicles that are about.

[december]

Europe will breath easier as soon as it gets rid of American millitary bases.


http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/Bush-Nuclear-Holocaust22feb06a.gif

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/Bush-Nuclear-Holocaust22feb06.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2005.png

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

[umbrex]

Europe will breath easier as soon as it gets rid of American millitary bases.



to bad that the only way to actually get rid of them was if someone nuked Europe xD

[magicmerlin]

Let's face it though, it's a big fat lie but you are correct, if they want to say it's all man made then they need to start reporting the Carbon Toll of the Iraq invasion, I'm sure the weather has got hotter since they invaded :D. Seriously though, I'm just fed up with the pathetic lies of the NWO or whoever makes them up. Global warming on Mars anyone - why isnt this reported etc etc. The media are both stupid and ignorant. Changing the subject but last night the news reporters were laughing about a police force who were reporting increased violent crime during full moons, then they said of course there is no science or reason behind it - excuse me?! Where the hell do they think the word LUNAtic comes from!

[Anders Lindman]

"A report by a Canadian research institute states that the armed forces of the world are the single biggest polluters on the planet. Science for Peace Institute at the University of Toronto found that 10-30 percent of all global environmental degradation can be attributed to military activities. The world's military forces also use up enormous amounts of environmental and human resources while they use huge amounts of energy.

The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of petroleum in the the world. Some figures show that the U.S. military uses enough oil in one year to run all of the U.S. transit systems for the next 14-22 years. In less than one hour a U.S. F-16 fighter jet uses twice as much fuel as the average U.S. auto driver. One-quarter of the world's jet fuel is consumed by the world's military. And worldwide the military consumption of copper, nickel, aluminum and platinum exceeds that of the Free World."

From: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/schrinrj.html

[umbrex]

"A report by a Canadian research institute states that the armed forces of the world are the single biggest polluters on the planet. Science for Peace Institute at the University of Toronto found that 10-30 percent of all global environmental degradation can be attributed to military activities. The world's military forces also use up enormous amounts of environmental and human resources while they use huge amounts of energy.

10-30%??????
That's a whopping errormargin.
Take 2003 as the base year and sure, then you can attribute a large part of it to military, but u have to remember that it's the people who makes the statistics who determines the conclusions of these and i don see anything to back it up.


The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of petroleum in the the world. Some figures show that the U.S. military uses enough oil in one year to run all of the U.S. transit systems for the next 14-22 years. In less than one hour a U.S. F-16 fighter jet uses twice as much fuel as the average U.S. auto driver. One-quarter of the world's jet fuel is consumed by the world's military. And worldwide the military consumption of copper, nickel, aluminum and platinum exceeds that of the Free World."


Pentagon might be the biggest single consumer of petrol in the world, but add the billions of motorised commuters and i would think it seem less impressive.

And then there is this statement:

Military activities have also significantly increased air pollution and ozone depletion. For instance, West Germany's Air Force produced 58% of the air pollution generated by all air traffic in the country

Which utterly destroys any credibility this article might have. Imo u found a bigous article ranting on how evil the military is in regards of polltuion.
I'm not buying it.

[Anders Lindman]

I'm not buying it.

I guess you are right. Non-military greenhouse emission must be much larger. But if we look at the overall energy consumption, then the military part is huge. I read that: "According to Steve Martinot, “The military is now connected and conjoined to roughly 50% of all economic activity in the US.”" I don't know if that is a correct figure, but nonetheless it must mean a huge energy consumption, leading directly or indirectly to global warming.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12705

[umbrex]

I guess you are right. Non-military greenhouse emission must be much larger. But if we look at the overall energy consumption, then the military part is huge. I read that: "According to Steve Martinot, “The military is now connected and conjoined to roughly 50% of all economic activity in the US.”" I don't know if that is a correct figure, but nonetheless it must mean a huge energy consumption, leading directly or indirectly to global warming.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12705

I can agree with you that the military has some responsibility in all this my friend, but i feel that this debate is rather pointless since:

a) Greenhouse gasses are not the primary reason for the heating of the earth.

b) I don't see any government having any interest in reducing their GHG outlet in that specific sector.

c) The US government knows GHG aren't the primary reason for global warming.

I can recommend this movie about GHG's:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

And here is something on the heating up of other planets in our solar system:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

You need to focus on the lies and getting the truth out, not buying into it. Think of global warming as another tool to enslave people with their favorite chains: fear.

[Anders Lindman]

a) Greenhouse gasses are not the primary reason for the heating of the earth.


But isn't that what politicians and mainstream media are claiming? And if so, for them to remain credible in their position, they will have to look at the bigger picture and they will not easily be able to get away with demanding a global warming tax for ordinary citizens while at the same time not demanding the same global warming tax for the military complex.

Personally I don't know if global warming created by humans is a real problem or not. I will check out the video.

[umbrex]

But isn't that what politicians and mainstream media are claiming? And if so, for them to remain credible in their position, they will have to look at the bigger picture and they will not easily be able to get away with demanding a global warming tax for ordinary citizens while at the same time not demanding the same global warming tax for the military complex.


This is the logical assumption, but u forget to take into account that the US are already the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gasses and there is literally tonnes of cuts they can make in the public and private sector.
Cutting on the military means; less firepower, less horsepower, less mobility and i can go on and on. Their obligation to protect their country and police the world will superseed the demand of cutting CO2 emissions everywhere.

Personally I don't know if global warming created by humans is a real problem or not. I will check out the video.

Guess u have the tools to find out now =P

[december]

Europe will breath easier as soon as it gets rid of American millitary bases.


http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/Bush-Nuclear-Holocaust22feb06a.gif

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/Bush-Nuclear-Holocaust22feb06.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2005.png

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

to bad that the only way to actually get rid of them was if someone nuked Europe xD


Protesters demand U.S. base closure amid State Dep. official's visit

07/ 06/ 2007


BISHKEK, June 7 (RIA Novosti) - Activists advocating the closure of a U.S. airbase in Kyrgyzstan took to the streets in the capital Bishkek Thursday to call authorities' attention to their agenda amid a visit by a senior State Department official.

Several dozen champions of the withdrawal of the Ganci, or Manas, base rallied outside the American University in Central Asia, where U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher is to appear at some point during his current official visit.

Rally participants, who represent political as well as public movements, said they had expected Boucher to show up at the university Thursday, and had gathered in the hope of putting their demands across to him. But Bakyt Beshimov, the institution's vice president, said the U.S. official would arrive Saturday to attend a diploma awarding ceremony.

Public pressure to shut down the Ganci base, set up in 2001 to support the U.S.-led military operation in neighboring Afghanistan, has been mounting following a series of incidents involving American service personnel.

Last December, a U.S. airman shot dead a Kyrgyz truck driver employed at the base, allegedly after the local threatened him with a knife, but Washington refused to strip the American national of his immunity so that he could stand trial in Kyrgyzstan.

Also, a military tanker aircraft from the Ganci base, located some 17 miles east of the Kyrgyz capital, collided with a Kyrgyz commercial aircraft last year, causing substantial material damage and putting the life of passengers at risk.

Nevertheless, the Kyrgyz government reaffirmed its commitment to maintain the U.S. airbase on its territory after the Americans agreed last year to pay higher rent. Some $150 million now comes into the impoverished post-Soviet state's coffers in annual rental fees.

Last Saturday, several dozen activists called for the base's closure at a rally in front of the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek. They demanded that the airman guilty of killing the Kyrgyz driver be brought to justice and that the base's impact on the environment be assessed in an independent inquiry.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070607/66838450.html

[december]

And they call China a threat ...

By David Isenberg

WASHINGTON - As threat documents go, the latest version of the Pentagon's annual report, "Military Power of the People's Republic of China", released last month, is actually a fairly reassuring document.

In contrast with its now-distant predecessor, "Soviet Military Power", put out during the administration of the late president Ronald Reagan to justify increasing US military expenditures by magnifying the Soviet military threat, this report presents a picture of a state that seeks to increase its great-power status. Insofar as alarming developments are concerned, that is not one of them.

As a global threat, China simply doesn't compare to the old Soviet Union. The new Pentagon report acknowledges China's limited military ability:

The People's Liberation Army (is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration, high-intensity conflicts against high-tech adversaries - which China refers to as "local wars under conditions of informatization".

China's ability to sustain military power at a distance, at present, remains limited but, as noted in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, it "has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional US military advantage".

Some of what is passed off as potentially or actually disturbing is laughable. For example, the report states, "Actual Chinese defense expenditures remain far above officially disclosed figures." One could say exactly the same thing about the United States.

For example, the US administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request of US$439 billion marks an increase of about 27% in real terms since September 11, 2001. That figure does not include $21.8 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) spending on nuclear-weapons activities.

Nor does it include spending on the wars it is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. When these costs are added in, military spending for 2007 exceeded $600 billion - a figure that surpasses the spending heights of both the Reagan military buildup and the Vietnam War in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The report notes some military developments in China without giving the full background. For example, it states that Chinese nuclear forces are enhancing their "strategic strike capabilities", as evidenced by the DF-31 intercontinental ballistic missile achieving "initial threat availability" in 2006.

But as the Arms Control Wonk website observes, because of debate over the 1996 National Intelligence Estimate on ballistic-missile threats, political pressure on the intelligence community led to the creation of a designation of "initial threat availability" to signal a missile that has been successfully tested but not deployed. So even if a missile has been tested just once, it can have an "initial threat availability" status.

READ MORE -

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IF08Ad01.html

[Anders Lindman]

And they call China a threat ...

By David Isenberg

Some of what is passed off as potentially or actually disturbing is laughable. For example, the report states, "Actual Chinese defense expenditures remain far above officially disclosed figures." One could say exactly the same thing about the United States.


I think that the U.S. should keep having a strong military force. I'm scared shitless about the idea of China becoming the new military world police. :shudder:

[december]

I think that the U.S. should keep having a strong military force. I'm scared shitless about the idea of China becoming the new military world police. :shudder:

Anders Lindman, you are begging to think just the way the Illuminati (whoever they are) want you to think...

:)

Actually the point of that article is that China does not come even close in their millitary spending to US millitary budget.

[umbrex]

Anders Lindman, you are begging to think just the way the Illuminati (whoever they are) want you to think...

:)

Actually the point of that article is that China does not come even close in their millitary spending to US millitary budget.

As i understand it China is the sleeping bear i regards of military spending. Atm they are focusing on developing infrastructure, urbanization and developing the western parts of the country.

It will come eventually when China will start spending vast amounts of cash on the military. And that's what so great about the Chinese/asian mentality. The are based on confutsius mentality where the society is above the individual and time is on their side.

[Anders Lindman]

Anders Lindman, you are begging to think just the way the Illuminati (whoever they are) want you to think...

:)

Actually the point of that article is that China does not come even close in their millitary spending to US millitary budget.

Yeah I know my fear-based thinking in this case is the usual sheeple-mode. Still I can't shake off the fear of China as a military world bully.