NATO chief suggests battle tanks with solar panels as militaries go green

From The National

Here’s a fun one.

Nato should examine how it can power tanks and jets with alternative energy, such as solar panels, to reduce its carbon emissions, the alliance’s secretary general said.

Reducing reliance on fossil fuels would also make troops less vulnerable to attack because they would not have to rely on long supply lines getting fuel to the front line, Jens Stoltenberg said.

The Nato chief suggested that militaries should advance research into low-emitting vehicles because of the advantages they bring, at an online seminar titled New Ideas for Nato 2030.

“Nato should do its part to look into how we can reduce emissions from military operations,” he told the Chatham House event. “We know that heavy battle tanks or fighter jets and naval ships consume a lot of fossil fuel and emit greenhouse gases and therefore we have to look into how we can reduce those emissions by alternative fuels, solar panels or other ways of running our missions.”

Best line in the story.

He told the seminar that his background as a UN envoy on climate change helped with the proposals.

Willis commented about this news story on social media thusly

The stupid, it burns … an M1 tank gets 0.6 mpg. A gallon of diesel contains ~ 40 kWh of energy. A solar panel puts out ~ 1 kWh per day. A solar panel is about 17 sq. ft. You MIGHT fit four of them on an M1 tank without impairing the weapons and sensors. Then you’d need four Tesla Powerwall batteries, weight half a ton.With that setup, every ten days you could move your tank 0.6 miles …w.

The GWPF also covered this story with this excellent cartoon by Josh.

Full article here.

5 23 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 6:10 am

Methinks the good general is working for the enemy….

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 6:47 am

He is “secretary general”. Don’t know if he is a military general but I sure hope not.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 14, 2021 7:07 am

Jens Stoltenberg served in the army only for the minimum required by the Norwegian draft before entering university. His degree is in economics. He must never have taken a physics class.

John the Econ
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 7:35 am

…or an economics class.

Bryan A
Reply to  John the Econ
February 14, 2021 12:37 pm

Battle Tanks with Solar Panels…
War stops at night or on cloudy days

Just because you can put Solar Panels on a bicycle with a small electric motor and drive it across Australia doesn’t mean the technology works with something as massive as a Tank, in the world of EVs weight is primary Heavier isn’t better
But n the world of Tanks, heavier is demanded

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bryan A
February 15, 2021 5:00 pm

Just watched the movie T34 a Russian WWII film with tank warfare. Solar panels better be made of thick molybdenum steel!

Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 8:32 am

The generals are also considering equipping all the Main Battle Tanks with My Pillow Launchers because depleted uranium shells can hurt people.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Shoshin
February 14, 2021 10:40 am

My Pillow is out. Micheal Lindell is a Trump supporter and has been cancelled by the leftards.

Bryan A
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
February 14, 2021 12:50 pm


Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
February 14, 2021 2:10 pm

They can buy them from David Hogg, if he ever figures out how to make and sell pillows. Government contracts are the only way he could survive, anyway.
Pillows are for resting, not wokeness.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 8:40 am

He is the very model of a modern secretary general.

Rob Harrison
Reply to  R Taylor
February 15, 2021 9:32 am

A brilliant analogy by someone who is either old or was not educated in government schools. Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.

Jeff labute
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 10:30 am

If you’re not especially good at physics or economics, you become a Norwegian politician. Wasn’t he also a special UN envoy for climate change? He is probably obligated to say a great many dumb things in the name of the UN or at least ask for research money.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff labute
February 14, 2021 10:43 am

Uff da!

Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 6:32 pm

Stoltenberg is a pencil pusher and spends his time attending finger food parties with the in crowd so he can be noticed. He would have difficulty operating a .22 calibre rifle!

Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 8:54 pm

Sailing ships supplemented with rowing truly circumnavigated the earth. So we know NATO will be much better at sea than on land or in the air.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Leonard
February 15, 2021 2:08 am

If I remember correctly, in Nelson’s day, the battleships were non-metallic and used no fossil fuels. Gunpowder excepted!

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
February 15, 2021 8:04 am

Dudley, they were built of what some fossil fuels came from and given the right conditions burned very well.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 15, 2021 2:27 am

Most of Norway has NO or very little sun during winter. Just maintaining the tank warm enough for the crew would be impossible.
So if I would be the enemy when do you think I’d plan my attack ?

Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 6:53 am

Nothing says “woke” like flaming pink camo.

Reply to  Scissor
February 14, 2021 11:05 am

Actually pink camouflage was used in North Africa during WW2. The SAS more recently used Pink Panther Land Rovers in desert climates.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
February 14, 2021 12:53 pm

The Pink Camo is only “Flaming” because your Tank ran out of juice so the enemy was able to hit you with an incendiary device

John Tillman
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 7:13 am

Willis let the ignoramus Stoltenberg off easy.

On a US Army “flat road”, Abrams MBT mileage is 1.85 gallons per mile. On a standard “cross-country” course, it’s 3.50 gallons per mile.

Solar-powered high performance combat aircraft are even more idiotic.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 10:31 am

They want a Tesla MBT. All aluminium body!

Bryan A
Reply to  niceguy
February 14, 2021 12:55 pm

Just let them have the Cybertrucks, they have bulletproof glass No?

Reply to  niceguy
February 14, 2021 2:12 pm

Bring back the Sheridan! With Tesla batteries, so once it’s on fire it can’t be extinguished.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 12:54 pm

Would then brand him Doltenberg

John Tillman
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 10:11 am

Well, the image is of a Soviet T-55, MBT of NATO’s Cold War opponent.

Richard Page
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 10:30 am

As well as being the cheap tank of choice for than a few allied countries as well – it travels.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 10:59 am

Looks like it’s got some upgrades, on the turret. Maybe some reactive armor?

Richard Page
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 14, 2021 1:51 pm

Yeah there’s a fairly standard upgrade kit to add various armour packages either composite spaced or some form of reactive blocks. The electronics are usually upgraded with thermal sights and better optics but it’s still a T55 after all.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 2:36 pm

Are we talking about armor-plated solar panels. That doesn’t sound too practical.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 14, 2021 3:13 pm

I would love to see the education credentials on crackpot that believes this cr*p.

captain taffyapple
Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 15, 2021 1:33 am

yes your right did you know how long it takes to dig out the cobalt for batteries to be made and machinery they have to use

Steve Richards
February 14, 2021 6:24 am

It shows you how bad it has got that someone can actually say, write and publish this sort of stuff.

Have these people got no sense of scale?

Reply to  Steve Richards
February 14, 2021 7:42 am

I saw a recent article about a startup commuter airline in Florida using airplanes with “36 electric jets”, and have seen others. Of course they mean electric motors, but I have never seen anyone refer to actual engines as jets, only the generic “Oh look at that jet way up there” when it’s a generic term for a large airplane.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Felix
February 14, 2021 9:16 am

That just shows the education level intelligence level of the author of that article.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Felix
February 14, 2021 9:23 am

The best part is, they have regenerative braking. So when it’s falling from the sky, it will generate just enough electricity to power the black box for a few more seconds.

Reply to  Steve Richards
February 14, 2021 10:50 am

It’s the lack of shame which bothers me.

Reply to  Steve Richards
February 15, 2021 9:50 am

They have no sense – period.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 14, 2021 6:24 am

Atom bomb strength stupidity.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 14, 2021 6:29 am

I just looked at my calendar.
It’s not April 1st yet is it??
Is this Stoltenberg?
He always came across as quite sensible to me. Must’ve had a brain seizure.

Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 14, 2021 7:20 am

The brain of anyone who buys into the IPCC’s wealth redistribution scam must have seized up. Otherwise, I can’t see how anyone can accept the crazy BS the IPCC pushes as the ‘settled’ science in support of their agenda to strangle the developed world so that China can replace America as the dominate economic superpower.

Reply to  Brian Jackson
February 14, 2021 7:45 am

It isn’t actually quite as stupid as Willis makes it out to be. Military vehicles, especially those powered by gas turbines like the M-1, can wind up burning quite a bit of fuel even when sitting still, because they need to keep their batteries charged up to power the onboard electronics. In theory, slapping a couple of solar panels onto the roof of the vehicle might help with this. Of course, in practice, military vehicles are usually covered in dust and dirt, and a vehicle that is sitting still is probably going to be either under a camo net or under vegetation, all of which affect the efficiency of solar panels rather severely, so it probably wouldn’t help much at all, but I’m not an engineer to say for sure.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Steve
February 14, 2021 9:00 am

Yes, it is as stupid as Willis makes it and it’s even worse, in reality.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve
February 14, 2021 9:31 am

Camo nets, not so much, vegetation more likely.

They also fail to realize that soldiers and Marines put a lot of stuff on the outside of their vehicles, because there’s not a lot of room inside.

Having spent a lot of time in and around M113s, there is no place on top that a solar panel of any appreciable size will fit, except perhaps on the top cargo hatch.

I know the US Army probably doesn’t use M113s any more, except in support variants, but the point remains. I can’t imagine it’s any different with modern vehicles. There isn’t much un-used space where a solar panel would fit, and you can bet that space will be filled with something else after the fact.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 14, 2021 10:16 am

Not used as APCs, but still a lot in support roles. Totally replaced as personnel carriers by tracked Bradley IFVs and 8-wheeled Stryker APCs.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 10:42 am

The Bradleys came into service a couple years after I got out. M1s were just finishing testing. I saw a few at Ft Knox during Basic.

Reply to  Steve
February 14, 2021 12:47 pm

Military vehicles do not need to be run at night or when there is inclimate weather. Good to know.

Reply to  Steve
February 14, 2021 2:15 pm

“If you can’t find the enemy, look for the solar panels. They’ll be out in the sunlight.”
Chinese training manual, 2024.

Reply to  Steve
February 14, 2021 3:28 pm

So what you are saying is that, after a few minutes in the field, the solar panels will be worthless dead weight, and they’ll have to keep the engines running to charge the batteries…but you don’t think that’s stupid. Ok.

Reply to  Steve
February 14, 2021 4:55 pm

Apart from the fact the second it was hit with another tank round or even machine gun fire in combat the solar panels , no matter where they are mounted would turn into very expensive confetti in a millisecond . Ludicrous ! The embarrassment coefficient in this idiotic idea is off the charts .

Reply to  Don
February 15, 2021 9:52 am

Yeah – this is the sort of idea I would WANT an enemy to implement.

Reply to  Steve
February 15, 2021 7:20 am

The power requirement goes beyond electronics. During training exercises and in combat situations the tank will remain powered constantly. Turret traverse and main gun elevation are controlled hydraulically, and this system has an accumulator that slowly bleeds off pressure. When the pressure drops to a certain point a pump kicks on to bring it back up, and that pump draws a lot of power. So much in fact that every few hours or so a “Stand to” is called wherein all of the vehicles in the unit will simultaneously start their engines to recharge batteries making solar panels completely useless and unnecessary.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 14, 2021 3:01 pm

Who needs an atom bomb?
Just back with compressed CO2, enough to equal 1.000.000 Hiroshima Bombs!
Make the “magic molecule” our best defense!!!
(Yeah, that ougta’ scare ’em.)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 14, 2021 3:05 pm

(I hit “edit” but it doesn’t show anything to edit. Anybody else experience that?)
Should be “1,000,000 Hiroshima Bombs”, not 1.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 15, 2021 8:59 am

That “1,000,000” is in your comment. Now, the question is, how did it get there? 🙂

I have never had an instance where the edit page has no text. I’ve had a few other glitches but not that particular one.

February 14, 2021 6:28 am

That’s even dumber than Don Lemon asking if the missing Malaysian airline could have flown into a black hole.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Mickey
February 14, 2021 6:44 am

Or Guam capsizing.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mickey
February 14, 2021 9:31 am

That’s even dumber than Don Lemon”

Let’s just leave it at that.

February 14, 2021 6:30 am

No. Just no. I am so glad I have no relatives in the military now.

Tom in Florida
February 14, 2021 6:46 am

Let’s blow up the world, but do it environmentally.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 14, 2021 8:02 am

Iran’s reconnaissance is confused by all the solar panels moving about the desert.

Peta of Newark
February 14, 2021 6:52 am

Epic. No-one would trust this fool to babysit their pet bunny-rabbit, yet here he is in charge of Military Security for The Whole Western World.
just wow

No matter:
Tattoo those words onto to his forehead and make him Permanent (as in: Forever and Ever) NATO General of the Secretary General of the NATO Chief General General Secretary General General. Chief.
When he ‘passes away’, him him give one of those Lovely Green Burials we saw earlier around here.

  • Toss carefully place his corpse into derelict, unwanted and bone-dry scrub with no casket
  • Throw a huge rock at his body as a further sign of respect
  • Invite the World’s Press and everyone else who owns a camera of any sort, to come repeatedly, take a photograph and broadcast to the world

Repeat with this guy.
Do not, do not ever simply just sack them so as they return after a few days in the wilderness even more emboldened than before.
Boris and his mistress next….

In this world/universe, There Has To Be: Consequences

alastair gray
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 14, 2021 7:18 am

Peta of Newark sound like Joan of Arc, but on our side this time. Is Peta the maid of Burton on Trent or the Maid of New Jersey. And the former is not far from Sherwood Forest. I have a stout English longbow for you

Richard Page
Reply to  alastair gray
February 14, 2021 10:34 am

She’s not too far away from me, actually. Worryingly close, in fact.

Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 6:53 am

Are these people really this stupid?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 6:59 am

They may not be that stupid. However, the alternative is that he isn’t being honest and is hoping that everyone else is that stupid.

Curious George
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 7:38 am

He told the seminar that his background as a UN envoy on climate change helped with the proposals.
It is a Gretenism, not a mere stupidity. The time is out of joint.

Ian W
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 9:35 am

Yes these people are really that stupid
Think about it they also found people that would peer review it and accept it. So there is more than one of them that stupid

Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and higher education positively fortifies it.

Stephen Vizinczey, An Innocent Millionaire

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ian W
February 15, 2021 9:08 am

“Yes these people are really that stupid
Think about it they also found people that would peer review it and accept it. So there is more than one of them that stupid”

Good point.

I think this suggestion to run battle tanks on solar panels is just a political statement. I imagine the NATO head figures he will leave the implementation up to the generals, so he can make this statement without suffering any backlash, other than on forums like ours here.

And of course, the generals will laugh at the idea and will not implement it. The generals may start some pilot program just to satisfy the alarmists in the administration, but that’s all it will amount to because the idea of powering a battle tank with solar panels is absurd.

The NATO chief liked Trump very much. Trump got him a lot of money to spend on European defense by making the Europeans pay their fair share of the defense obligation.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 10:17 am

No not stupid. Yes, emotional (past family issues) & manifest entitlement (his father a big man) & ignorant supporters.

I can’t understand that he isn’t ridiculed and laughed out of any room he is in. I can’t understand that his supporters aren’t ridiculed and laughed out of any room they are in. There must be a massive bubble around these types of ‘leaders’.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 10:45 am

How many wars has Norway been in? Maybe he just needs some experience.

February 14, 2021 6:54 am

Get a career in the Corps of Electrical Extension Leads!

February 14, 2021 6:55 am

Latrine will now be known as latrina.

Michael Fitzgerald
Reply to  Scissor
February 14, 2021 2:05 pm


John K. Sutherland
February 14, 2021 7:01 am

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Leonard Weinstein
February 14, 2021 7:01 am

Willis, 1 Gallon is 4 kWh, not 40. In addition, the ICE conversion to output power is 25% to 40% (depending on engine and transmission), so the output is not much over 1 kWh usable propulsion. Electric storage and propulsion is near unity in output. Even with this near 40 times difference, your basic point is still valid.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
February 14, 2021 7:37 am

Willis, My mistake. The source I looked at slipped a decimal. I checked other sources, and the net usable with ICE conversion, results in the Gallon giving about 9 kWh usable output.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
February 14, 2021 8:26 am

Double check your calculation. I get41.3 kwh/gal.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  DrGEM
February 14, 2021 9:16 am

You left out the 25% ICE efficiency, which is the output I described.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
February 14, 2021 9:32 am

To be more specific, the fuel energy is 42MJ/kg=37kWh/Gallon (look at the density of the fuel). With a 25% ICE engine and transmission for a tank, this comes to 9kWh/Gallon for propulsion.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
February 14, 2021 10:48 am

So you think that electric motors and batteries utilize 100% of the theoretically available energy?

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
February 14, 2021 6:20 pm

No but it is much closer.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
February 23, 2021 5:14 am

Diesel engines are around 40% efficient. Gasoline engines are catching up to that.

Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 7:01 am

At 0.06 miles per day, maybe they should consider camouflage-pattern sails. It would be a lot cheaper.

alastair gray
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 7:12 am

On the serious side why would any of our young folks volunteer to fight and possibly die on the orders and whims of clowns like this. If enough military people see what is happening then maybe a military coup would redress a balance of sanity.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  alastair gray
February 14, 2021 9:04 am

That’s all we’ve ever fought and died for, but when young, such things aren’t obvious.

Richard Page
Reply to  alastair gray
February 14, 2021 10:42 am

In most western democracies, the military serve the people and answer to the heads of state. Most are proud to serve, although the stupidity of the elected leaders is somewhere between a source of amusement and anger. What they do not and will not do, is step over that line and take the law into their own hands; that is not what a disciplined, proud and capable military does. If you want a military that will start coups, you will need to find one that is poorly maintained, ill disciplined and poorly trained, coupled with endemic corruption throughout the society.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  alastair gray
February 14, 2021 12:26 pm

It was worse when the officers were from the aristocracy.

February 14, 2021 7:07 am

If they think of invading Irak, Syria, Gulf Saudi and N. Afrika or Mexico it might be OK. If they think that never rains in Russia or China or Capitol think again.

Reply to  Vuk
February 14, 2021 9:42 am


Not even in the sunniest place in the world would this work.


Coach Springer
February 14, 2021 7:07 am

The drawback to getting our partners more involved. Maybe Prince Charles can be the Supreme Commander.

Reply to  Coach Springer
February 14, 2021 8:13 am

HRH wasted many years talking to trees that ended as bio-mass.
PRINCE Charles shakes hands with every tree he plants 
Prince Charles shakes hands with trees he plants to ‘wish them well’, and royal fans call it most ‘British thing ever’

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Vuk
February 14, 2021 9:38 am

“Royal” fans are like Kardashian fans. Need I say more?

Reply to  Vuk
February 14, 2021 4:44 pm

I hears he only talks to burnt trees now.
Because black leaves matter.

Burgher King
February 14, 2021 7:09 am

Putin’s advice to the West Europeans on how they can reduce carbon emissions during their military operations is that they should conduct no military operations.

Giordano Milton
February 14, 2021 7:12 am

Being woke and being rational seem to be in conflict with each other. Maybe that’s why objective thinking is now demonized as “white supremacy”. Anything true is a threat to the woke house of cards.

February 14, 2021 7:13 am

Wow, imagine some of the greatest mobile weapons ever created, could defeated at the hands of a graffiti artist!

February 14, 2021 7:22 am

<<bugle over PA>>

Paging Sergeant Oddball !

He’ll know what to do.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  tomo
February 14, 2021 9:40 am

Oddball was actually effective, though. Except for that one time his loader loaded a paint round instead of AP when shooting a Tiger I in the butt at 50 feet.

Best movie EVER!!!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 14, 2021 11:11 am


I hadn’t noticed that the true story had been updated ….

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 14, 2021 3:45 pm

He was before his time! A round of paint hitting the top of a solar powered tank would be very effective. Just think, bomb carrying fighter planes could be replaced by crop dusters spraying paint.

February 14, 2021 7:24 am

Is today Valentine’s Day or April Fool’s Day?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  PaulH
February 14, 2021 9:07 am

Is there a real difference?

Reply to  PaulH
February 14, 2021 12:10 pm

It’s a climate modeled April Fool’s Day!

Alexander Vissers
February 14, 2021 7:34 am

Common sense is obviously not a prerogative for persuing a career in international organisations. Still how did het get there?

Reply to  Alexander Vissers
February 14, 2021 4:49 pm

If you get too smart, you get pitched down a stairwell.

Richard (the cynical one)
February 14, 2021 7:39 am

As long as the enemy deploys equally ineffective equipment, so they play on a level battlefield. Cheating will be frowned upon.

Bruce Cobb
February 14, 2021 7:41 am

When the enemy sees those things coming, they’ll die laughing. Win-win!

Nick Graves
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 15, 2021 12:51 am

So Stollencake is really Ernest Scribbler – manufacturer of jokes.

This is certainly weapons-grade something…

February 14, 2021 7:44 am

The General is an idiot.

John Tillman
Reply to  ScienceABC123
February 14, 2021 8:32 am

Secretary General is a politcal position, not military rank. Stoltenberg might have been a 2LT, tops!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 10:30 am

There’s nothing more dangerous than a 2nd LT with a clipboard.

Kai Dahlqvist
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2021 2:17 pm

Jens Stoltenberg was never more than a private soldier. And not a very remarkable one.!

February 14, 2021 7:46 am

Actually, this is a special ops campaign to cause a Putin heart attack—from laughter.

February 14, 2021 7:47 am

“Nato should examine how it can power tanks and jets with alternative energy, such as solar panels, to reduce its carbon emissions, the alliance’s secretary general said.”

This man should be mercilessly mocked for this statement until he resigns in disgrace. A combat loaded M1A2 Abrams weighs in at around 69.5 tons. It’s expected to climb hills and crash through obstacles like trees and buildings, and it’s expected to do it quickly. This cannot be done without burning large quantities of fuel. The M60A1 that I used to drive had a fuel capacity of about 380 gallons and burned about one gallon per mile. To achieve the same range the fuel capacity of the current M1 has been increased to about 500, and the power derived from 500 gallons of Diesel is never going to be replaced by solar. It’s frightening to think that someone with so little common sense is able to rise to such a position within NATO. I’m seriously worried about our future.

February 14, 2021 7:49 am

The fantastic military qualifications for Secretary-General who is Norwegian, the country that was neutral up until the Germans thought otherwise. The CV of Jens Stoltenberg (almost like cake) is: From Wiki, Jens Stoltenberg (born 16 March 1959) is a Norwegian politician who has been serving as the 13th secretary general of NATO since 2014.[1][2] A member of the Labour Party, he was Prime Minister of Norway from 2000 to 2001 and from 2005 to 2013.
In 2011, Stoltenberg received the United Nations Foundation‘s Champion of Global Change Award, chosen for his extraordinary effort toward meeting the Millennium Development Goals and bringing fresh ideas to global problems.[3]
The mission of Jens Stoltenberg as secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was extended for another two years. He is set to lead NATO until 2022 So you can see he is fantastically qualified to lead NATO militarily. One of the by-products pushed by the greens is world government as a way of stopping war. The tank’s weight with the batteries could only be compensated by removing the ordinance and even then hope that the opposition would pull back out of range and wait until the batteries are exhausted. This is based on the analysis of the Tesla Semi undertaken by Carnegie Mellon who calculated that an electric truck would never replace a large HGV as the overall weight would be double that of conventional diesel. That is twice the limits imposed by governments to safeguard their road infrastructure. But that doesn’t matter to the greens as their primary aim is to demilitarise the West. Can’t see China or Russia signing on for this, besides NATO Secretary-General is a political appointment.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Brian BAKER
February 14, 2021 12:34 pm

So, your are saying that he is an example of the Peter Principle in action!

Gordon A. Dressler
February 14, 2021 7:50 am

So, from the quotes given in the the above article, we now know that qualifications to become NATO secretary general do NOT include having an IQ above room temperature.

alastair gray
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 14, 2021 8:27 am

But only in Centigrade. Fahrenheit woud flatter them

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  alastair gray
February 14, 2021 10:32 am

They did it in Kelvin, so they all think they’re friggin’ geniuses.

CD in Wisconsin
February 14, 2021 7:52 am

I can see it now: NATO forces sending a message to the enemy asking them to hold off on starting the pending battle for a few hours while solar batteries are recharging on NATO’s battle tanks. Even worse, NATO’s forces might have to ask to cancel the battle because the sun isn’t shining.

If NATO’s winning of a battle (and a war) starts depending on whether the sun is shining, NATO can hang it up as a military alliance. If Installing battery re-chargers on the battlefield becomes a necessary prerequisite for NATO’s success on the battlefield and in war, then a lot of NATO’s leadership needs to resign.

They can all write a book on how to wreck the military.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 14, 2021 8:09 am

A few hours? More like a few weeks; if it’s summer and sunny.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom
February 14, 2021 10:33 am

Maybe the battles are all downhill.

February 14, 2021 7:56 am

“NATO chief suggests battle tanks with solar panels as militaries go green”
News flash: “Young Chinese boy with a catapult disables an advancing UK tank formation!”

Reply to  Peter Wilson
February 14, 2021 8:03 am

Further newsflash: “This same UK tank formation is lost in the dark!”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peter Wilson
February 14, 2021 10:34 am

Correction on page 23: “The catapult was actually a slingshot. Ok, just a largish rock.”

Reply to  Peter Wilson
February 14, 2021 2:52 pm

Catapult?? Sling shot!!

February 14, 2021 7:58 am

Okay, so add WW3 as an unintended consequence of the Climate Crusades.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 14, 2021 9:44 am

Wait a minute! . . . haven’t we known for some time now that all wars are the result climate change . . . and only climate change?

/sarc off

February 14, 2021 8:02 am

Or just wave a white flag

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Redge
February 14, 2021 9:12 am

Or drepeau blanc if you will.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 14, 2021 10:13 am

mais oui

Climate believer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 14, 2021 11:51 am

mais non, drapeau blanc.

February 14, 2021 8:05 am

Russia and China are loving this. The West are destroying their own economies and their defense forces. In 10 years Russia or China can waltz right in with a ‘liberating’ force for any random reason.

February 14, 2021 8:16 am

A good example of why AGW is so entrenched. People actually believe the world can run on solar panels and wind generators. And the MSM perpetuates that nonsense/propaganda.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  markl
February 14, 2021 12:38 pm

MSM: Know nothing wordsmiths with an agenda.

February 14, 2021 8:33 am

In my country the military high command are traitors an political bag lickers. There is lots of that in Nato.
Short lengths of rope are needed.

John Kelly
February 14, 2021 8:49 am

This is full on stupidity. No wonder China is winning.

February 14, 2021 8:57 am

In a combat zone, how are going to camouflage a tank, or other military vehicle? You’re gonna have to put solar panels out in the open to get enough sunlight. Perfect target. Also, the military needs to be ready to move in a heartbeat. “Sorry, general I’d love to come and save your but. All my tanks are down till sunrise and then it’ll be a couple hours till they’re recharged. Good luck.”

Sal Minella
Reply to  Alan
February 14, 2021 9:22 am

We won’t need the tanks or a ground-war at all if we just use solar-powered nukes and wind-powered missiles, some of which can be launched from our wind-powered subs. Actually the subs don’t even need wind-power; we can just mount a water-powered turbine on the bow and generate power as we go.

Richard Page
Reply to  Alan
February 14, 2021 10:49 am

I think you have underestimated the tank designers – of course the tank won’t just have the solar panels as primary means of propulsion – there will be a set of pedals for each of the crew in the tank! sarc

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Page
February 14, 2021 12:40 pm

Maybe they could add a turbocharger made from exercise wheels and a box full of hamsters or gerbils.

February 14, 2021 9:12 am




<*snort – chuckle*>




<deep breaths>


I haven’t laughed this hard in years.



Reply to  Detengineer
February 14, 2021 9:38 am

Then somewhere on the road a civilian dropped into 2nd place.

February 14, 2021 9:36 am

All this Global Warming Goodness has had a very serious mental effect on many, and they gravitate remarkably well.

D Cage
February 14, 2021 9:55 am

Just imagine the “I say chaps here come the tanks so put up the smokescreen and lie low for five minutes When they run out of battery we can wipe them out. Just remember keep clear of the pointy thing at the top they can’t turn without power and you will be fine. ” People forget green was just shorthand for cabbage brains. Nothing seems to have changed.

Kevin kilty
February 14, 2021 10:02 am

Maybe this is an error of translation here. Perhaps he means to use EV tanks as part of a stationary artillery battery — tanks that fire from a fixed location.

Richard Page
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 14, 2021 10:55 am

Fire? Oh dear me no. Firing any form of firearm or larger calibre weapon releases dangerous levels of CO2 into the atmosphere don’t you know. The military will have to turn over every single round that uses CO2 producing propellant or explosives. sarc.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Page
February 14, 2021 12:43 pm

And nitrous oxides!

Reply to  Richard Page
February 14, 2021 7:11 pm

No problem. Potpuff Research Institute (PRI) announced today their new Carbon Capture / Recycling Artillery Project (CCRAP), a carbon neutral system for modern armies in which propellant exhaust products from guns can be 100% captured, compressed, and stored in underground caverns.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 14, 2021 11:00 am

Solar powered artillery? That is supposed to be better than solar powered tanks?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 14, 2021 11:13 am

The Maginot Line worked so well in WWII.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 14, 2021 7:19 pm

Not a single German made it through the Maginot Line. It worked great.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
February 16, 2021 4:09 am

You are correct! They went over and around.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 14, 2021 12:35 pm

Stationary artillery is already a thing. Has been for hundreds of years. And, better yet, those Howitzers are already “climate friendly” because they use batteries to power their electronics and hydraulics. So even if the translation were off, it still makes no sense.

Richard Page
Reply to  leowaj
February 14, 2021 5:34 pm

Artillery that remains stationary on a modern battlefield is strictly a ‘one shot weapon’ – counterbattery fire will make scrap out of them in short order. There is a good reason why most modern artillery is self propelled, and they rigorously practice shoot ‘n’ scoot – it’s the only way they can survive.

Oh and yes – they do use batteries, as do all military vehicles; they need to be regularly recharged by using the main engine so no more climate friendly than any other military vehicle.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 14, 2021 7:22 pm

NOTE TO NATO: If Putin offers to winterize your vehicle batteries, just say no. Thought someone ought to warn you about that.

February 14, 2021 10:05 am

We seem to be going from frantic end of times to farcical future deployment.
Not the improvement its supposed to represent. 😒

February 14, 2021 10:05 am

As stupid as it is, the things we hear from the greens everyday are just as stupid. This stupidity at this level of stupidity all started with the phrase; “Yes we can” back in 2008.

John Tillman
Reply to  KT66
February 14, 2021 10:25 am

Ripped off from 1972’s “¡Si, se puede!”.

David Blenkinsop
February 14, 2021 10:12 am

I can’t help but think here of Elon Musk’s promotion of all electric long distance trucking. Significant people, experts even, appear to be buying into the trucking thing, despite the prospect of his new rigs having a very large battery volume and weight compared to the fuel on a regular truck of any kind of similar range. Presumably now, this NATO fellow has in mind some sort of Musk style tanks which are to run forever with no maintenance, and have magical near weightless long range batteries?

February 14, 2021 10:30 am

Can’t tell if “enemy” is from Saab or Dassault?
(And why would Macron and the EU not also force those to do green?)

Mike Lyons
February 14, 2021 10:30 am

So all infantry needs to do is shoot the solar panels to disable the thing? Brilliant.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mike Lyons
February 14, 2021 12:45 pm

No, the panels will be kept inside the tank, protected by the armor. I have seen the design produced by a Green committee.

February 14, 2021 10:37 am

Why not sugest using warp drive and phasers and photon torpedos? An M1 Abrams needs more than 1Mw. IF we had a 30% efficient solar panel which produces about 300 watts per square meter we would need more than 3,300 square meters of solar panels on a bright sunny day, per tank! A tesla battey with a max of capacity of 100 kWh could power a tank for no more than 6 minutes!

David Hartley
February 14, 2021 10:47 am

Play merry hell with the armours defence system.


February 14, 2021 10:57 am

Really? An openly socialist anti-war protestor is running NATO? As Willis so aptly said, the stupid, it burns.

February 14, 2021 11:10 am

They go Green as in blight, as in environmental arbitrage, as in sociopolitical myths, for laundered, renewable greenbacks. Not green as in vegetation, as in carbon dioxide-driven photosynthesis, as in hydrocarbon nutrients. Green is in democratic suffrage patterns, notably inclusive in their support for wars without borders, transnational terrorism, redistributive and retributive change, and catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (CAIR). I wonder if Biden will recycle Obama’s Iraq War 2.0 or greater Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia wars and elective coups forcing CAIR.

February 14, 2021 11:32 am

What’s he talking about not having to rely on long supply lines, what about ammunition, food and most importantly the extra medical supplies and body bags because the troops were sitting duck’s because it was cloudy or dark. Or perhaps they had a full charge when they were attacked but could only retreat half a mile. Madness.

February 14, 2021 11:39 am

The new anti-tank weapon: cheap, low-flying drones with cans of flat black spray paint. Psssht! The attack was repulsed sir! They deployed Taggers!

February 14, 2021 11:53 am

Assign four green crew members to each solar tank. No green draft dodging.

William Haas
February 14, 2021 11:59 am

There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Hence any reduction in CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. A better approach to all this is to take actions to reduce the need for armed conflict.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  William Haas
February 14, 2021 12:51 pm

There will no longer be a need for armed conflict when everyone gets their way and no one feels cheated or denigrated. That includes the people who are paranoid and insecure.

February 14, 2021 12:00 pm

Another Putin project inside NATO.

There is a great lidless eye that watches all from behind the walls of Mordor.

February 14, 2021 12:10 pm

This kind of stupidly exists at every level in the so called UN

February 14, 2021 12:11 pm

So, even if there were such a thing as a 500 kWh battery, it would power a battle tank for 34 – 24 minutes. Better hope the battle doesn’t last long!

<i>They are usually equipped with a 1,200–1,500 hp (890–1,120 kW) engine</i>

February 14, 2021 12:41 pm

Welcome to the EU and NATO, you’re going to like it here. honest

February 14, 2021 12:45 pm

The dark lord in the Kremlin sees all.

February 14, 2021 12:46 pm

So until all the wrinkles can be ironed out of the solar tanks, all tank from now should have regenerative braking systems, renewable exhaust catalytic converters, and tracks knitted from recycled and renewable materials.

Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 12:55 pm

I have read the claim that the average intelligence has been increasing over the past several decades. There is little empirical evidence to support that — in fact, quite the opposite! However, it does seem that the malady starts in Europe and finds its way across the pond, not unlike COVID-19.

Richard Page
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 2:06 pm

It seems that there is a mathematical relationship – the intelligence of officials is inversely proportional to the number of states in the organisation. If more states leave, the EU might get smarter!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 3:20 pm

It’s been a slow creep, but some that have gone through the educational process in recent decades might agree with “I have read the claim that the average intelligence has been increasing over the past several decades.”
More passing grades! Proof of increasing intelligence!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 14, 2021 4:02 pm

More and more I find myself thinking of this:

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding yourself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Richard Page
Reply to  jtom
February 14, 2021 5:42 pm

Good luck with that! Sanity is determined by the majority – if you’re in the minority, you’re insane, no matter how good your argument or reasoning is.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  jtom
February 17, 2021 12:01 pm

That is evidence that while our modern technology is vastly superior to Roman technology, the state of humanity has, at best, been static.

February 14, 2021 12:59 pm

Lol.. I lived in Sweden for a couple of years and there was two weeks of sunshine in three months of summer. Good luck with that.

February 14, 2021 1:13 pm

And we used to mock the French as “Cheese eating surrender monkeys”?

They look downright menacing compared to this guy.

February 14, 2021 1:24 pm

“Royal Air Farce Hover Jet”…

Helium is separated and captured from natural gas. No fossil fuels means no helium.

Of course, they could always use large amount of electricity to split H₂O and fill the balloons with hydrogen… That worked so well in WWI.

Then again, tanks with burning lithium batteries will revive an old derogatory nickname given to our M4 Sherman tanks GI soldiers, They were called Ronson, as in always lights the first timeRonson lighters.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ATheoK
February 14, 2021 3:01 pm

If helium gets in short supply we can still extract the helium from natural gas wells and just flare off the methane.

February 14, 2021 1:32 pm

Following the Solar-Powered Tanks, the Infantry will be replaced with battalions armed with Solar-Powered Light Sabres.

Gunga Din
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 14, 2021 3:12 pm

Equally plausible.
(A magnetic field to contain plasma. We just need some Jedi’s to teach us how to make one.)

February 14, 2021 1:43 pm

No wonder NATO is such a joke. It is run by clowns.

February 14, 2021 1:55 pm

Puts me in mind of the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, where the titular Evangelions (or “Evas”) receive power from massive power cables plugged into the back and can operate for no more than 5 minutes on reserves when the cable is unplugged or severed (which is a major plot point in many battles).

February 14, 2021 2:01 pm


February 14, 2021 2:03 pm

He is “secretary general”. Don’t know if he is a military general but I sure hope not.

February 14, 2021 2:03 pm


February 14, 2021 2:04 pm

good general

February 14, 2021 2:07 pm

We already have nuclear powered ships that don’t burn fossil fuels for propulsion.
Chrysler once proposed a nuclear-powered battle tank.
We already have the answer to the Greenies’ fears, but they don’t want it as it doesn’t cause other people to suffer.

February 14, 2021 2:13 pm

Musk is already thinking of a way to get government subsidies out of this.

February 14, 2021 2:14 pm

Greens don’t do math. It just doesn’t feel right.

William Haas
February 14, 2021 2:58 pm

Maybe they should change the entire design of the tank. Instead of steel they should construct them out of Aluminum, fibreglass, and plastic with only fake armor. Instead of The treds that they use they can use bicycle wheels and tires. They can reduce the main gun to not more then 20 mm, They can hence reduce the weight so they can be moved with a small electric motor.and hence will not need a very large battery to operate, As a weapon such a tank would be useless but it would be more energy efficient.

Gunga Din
February 14, 2021 3:34 pm

All we need is a UN treaty that everybody has to build tanks and planes powered by solar panels!
Treaties have worked so well in the past.
Germany built the Graff Spee and it’s sister ships (nominally) according to the Treaty of Versailles.
What could go wrong?

Richard Page
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 14, 2021 5:46 pm

What could go wrong?

The Washington Naval Treaty.

February 14, 2021 3:45 pm

Military planners should favour nuclear bombs since they are “zero emissions” weapons.
We all know that CO2 is more dangerous than gamma radiation and nuclear fallout so what are we waiting for.

February 14, 2021 3:50 pm

Military planners should favour nuclear bombs since they are “zero emissions” weapons.
We all know that CO2 is more dangerous than gamma radiation and nuclear fallout so what are we waiting for.

Besides, with all the global warming which is already “locked in” we need a few decades of nuclear winter to get us back to the ideal conditions of the Little Ice Age.

Start WWIII to “save the planet”.

BTW a General Secretary is a secretary, a pen pusher, not a general .

Low Functioning Philosopher
February 14, 2021 3:56 pm

How much energy does it take to power an Abrams battle tank just to keep the turbine engine running? The NATO secretary general and former prime minister of Norway must have greenhouse gasses in his head.

February 14, 2021 4:04 pm

If it snows can we ask for a ceasefire until the children know what it looks like?
World’s ‘solar and wind capital’ freezing due to snow ‘blanketing millions’ of solar panels (

Monna Manhas
February 14, 2021 4:07 pm

“Nato should examine how it can power tanks and jets with alternative energy, such as solar panels, to reduce its carbon emissions, the alliance’s secretary general said”

All you have to do is shoot out the solar panel, and the tank is worthless. End of story.

February 14, 2021 4:22 pm

about 3500 square meters of solar panels… per tank

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Prjindigo
February 17, 2021 12:04 pm

Plus a reserve for overcast days.

February 14, 2021 4:31 pm

What’s the next step beyond abysmal stupidity and outrageous ignorance?

February 14, 2021 5:17 pm

What BULL.

First they should figure out how to make the airliners fly with solar or wind power.

Or perhaps hydro?

Bad times ahead with BuckFiden leading.

February 14, 2021 5:33 pm

Only an idiot that had never served in any capacity where he/she could see the reality of how soldiers and their equipment really work, could write this BS. I guess they figure solar panels and reactive armor and the recoil of heavy gun fire are a great match. Dumb MFrs.

John Sandhofner
February 14, 2021 6:28 pm

“Reducing reliance on fossil fuels would also make troops less vulnerable to attack because they would not have to rely on long supply lines getting fuel to the front line” Instead you get to have a huge array of solar panels sitting on top of your tank which do nothing for you on cloudy days or at night. Even with batteries it will be next to impossible. Did any of these idiots think to ask how big would these solar panels have to be to propel at tank for an extended period of time? I would think its size alone would make this idea ridiculous. The other option is to have solar panels behind the line charging batteries that would need to be rushed out and exchange with those in the tank. These would be huge batteries.It takes a lot of energy to move around such a massive size vehicle. It is so easy to make such foolish suggestions having no idea how impractical they would be.

Reply to  John Sandhofner
February 14, 2021 6:48 pm

According to Wiki M1 and newer variants of our main battle tank:
:Fuel capacity504.4 US gallons (1,909 L)Operational
M1A2, road: 265 mi (426 km)
Cross country: 93–124 mi (150–200 km)[7]

According to another source:

A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon–four tanks–is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions.
0.6 miles per gallon.
60 gallons per hour when traveling cross-country
30+ gallons per hour while operating at a tactical ideal
10 gallons basic idle
A mine plow will increase the fuel consummation rate of a tank by 25 percent
Now can one of you smart fellows here convert that to electric energy needed for comparable performance.

February 14, 2021 6:47 pm

we met the enemy, and he is us

February 14, 2021 7:39 pm

next you’ll tell us that the US navy will purge its ranks from those not woke enough instead of focusing on purging the enemy…. oh…. wait…

February 14, 2021 7:40 pm

hope those solar panels are bullet proof and don’t get dirty from all the dirt blowing up around them

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  goracle
February 17, 2021 12:08 pm

They can put active, explosive armor on top of the solar panels to prevent bullets from penetrating!

This attorney general could find employment writing tax code.

February 14, 2021 8:00 pm

Anyone that has spent a tour as a field soldier knows that virtually everything issued is designed to be soldier proof and heavy enough to stand up to it’s use in tough conditions. The DMDG we used for encoding and decoding weighed about 20 times more than a unit that would do the same thing intended to be used in an office. It all has to be water and dust proof and impact resistant as possible.

February 14, 2021 9:22 pm

He’d make more sense if he said he wanted the tanks nuclear powered… I can’t believe anyone could think a tank could be an EV.

February 14, 2021 9:32 pm

Good lord, that has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve read in recent memory. And that’s pretty impressive, considering 2020 and 2021 so far.

I still remember several years ago some general was showing a new HMMV-style prototype truck off to Jay Leno. He was doing his spiel about about all of it’s requirements. But number one on the list was that it was “environmentally friendly” because it had a 2×2 foot solar panel on the back and was designed to run on bio-diesel or ethanol or unicorn farts. I forgot what number 2 was, but it was great to know that crew protection and survivability was their #3 item on the of list design objectives. I nearly threw my tablet at the wall. But I guess with the idiots in the Pentagon these days, I should be happy it made the list at all.

February 14, 2021 9:37 pm

I have to lodge a complaint about the cartoon as completely unfair and uncalled for. If we fulfilled our solemn pledges from the completely serious Paris Agreement by adopting such advanced climate friendly technology, it is impossible that any enemy would find it so easy to carpet bomb us as depicted. First it would take several days for our enemies to stop laughing and get control of their bladders before mounting an attack, and secondly I am sure that their bean counters would not allow such a waste of perfectly good ordnance, instead supplying their airforce with paint guns and spray paint to cover the solar cells. It’s dawned on me that about ten small rounds would be able to destroy each tank’s set of panels, so I will definitely yield the floor to anyone with the relevant information as to which method is the least expensive. Also anyone know the effect range of opera singers who can hit high C and shatter glass?

February 14, 2021 9:53 pm

The original article is also totally credulous and doesn’t have any challenge or rebuttal. Report is so exceedingly woke that his brain is totally asleep. It depresses me that any green article turns to be a ‘puff-piece’ or press release rather than proper journalism. If I wrote a April’s article in the local birdcageliner on the need to cut down all the national parks and put up combined wind-solar parks in their there place, I’m sure I would be praised for my bold action and visionary thinking.

February 14, 2021 9:55 pm

It’s way past time for a remake of ‘Dr. Strangelove’ – with a modern twist, switching out nukes for ‘renewable energy’.

February 14, 2021 10:46 pm

To put all this into perspective: 1kg of petrol or diesel fuel has the energy content of 53kg of lithium/ion battery (fully charged).
This is one of the main reasons why electric cars cannot match an ICE car’s range.
In a tank, the size and weight of any battery source would make the whole vehicle design implausible.

Flight Level
February 14, 2021 11:09 pm

Despite not having that type of training, to me, viewed from above, solar panels and windmills could be a textbook definition of “self acquiring targets” that simply can’t be missed.

Michael S. Kelly
February 14, 2021 11:22 pm

I don’t know. If CAGW/CC is the existential threat it is made out to be, and warfare is meant to be an existential threat to one’s enemies, I would think that the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine would have every military on earth gear up for the most fossil-intensive possible battlefield equipment. The more gas-hoggy, the better!

Richard A. O'Keefe
February 14, 2021 11:23 pm

It looks as though Einstein was wrong: it’s not WW4 but WW3 that will be fought with sticks and stones. Renewable sticks from sustainable forestry, of course.

This is what you get when the elite
(1) do not take the prospect of war seriously (hint: try not to lose; losing is bad)
(2) follow the postmodern idea that the function of speech is to exercise power, not to convey truth
(3) have limitless contempt for proles (such as soldiers).

Mike Ozanne
February 15, 2021 12:12 am

The equipment scales of what will come knocking if you aggravate NATO are indicated in here :

each of those formations requires the movement of thousands of tons of fuel, rations and ordnance a day once engaged…

Chances of running this on renewables two chances Sod all and none…

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 15, 2021 3:18 am

Obviously what the army needs is a Dinochrome Combat Unit.

February 15, 2021 3:50 am

I have a better idea, how about no more military interventions. Then we wouldn’t need this general, his identity politics, or his idiotic solar powered weapons. Why don’t don’t we just make a Sun-powered death ray, oh wait what’s this we have already it is called a magnifying glass.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bill53
February 17, 2021 12:12 pm

But a magnifying glass is more effective against ants than soldiers.

February 15, 2021 9:29 am

If they REALLY want a “green” military, why not just eliminate tanks and other war vehicles completely? Or better yet, just eliminate the military? After all, military conflicts are not exactly environmentally friendly, right? No combat at all is the REAL green alternative.

February 15, 2021 11:11 am

we have met the enemy, and he is us

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jan
February 17, 2021 12:13 pm

Pogo would be proud that you remembered what he said.

Gary Pearse
February 15, 2021 4:54 pm

How about shutting down Nato and the UN. NATO’S task ended about a quarter century ago and the UN has morphed into a néomarxiste Global Gov run by oldy moldy apparatchicks. That would improve the climate immeasurably and cut the pressure on our “disposable” income.

Verified by MonsterInsights