From Climate Depot
Via Military.com: The 50-page plan, which is an extension of the service’s overall Army Climate Strategy released earlier this year, offers a series of ambitious goals to meet Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s 2021 call to “immediately take appropriate policy actions to prioritize climate change considerations” as the Pentagon points to several instances of climate change-related events that have affected the services.
The Climate Strategy Implementation Plan said: “While the Army cannot address all or even most GHG emissions, the right initiatives, investments, and policies can significantly reduce Army GHG emissions while at the same time enhancing readiness.” … The Army is looking to further reduce that consumption, while battening down the hatches for the damage climate change will likely bring. …
“As extreme weather becomes commonplace, the Army must adapt its installations, acquisition programs, and training so that the Army can operate in this changing environment and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth in a Wednesday press release.
#
By: Admin – Climate Depot
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/10/05/army-releases-new-plan-mitigate-climate-change.html
Excerpt: The Army on Wednesday released its new plan describing how it intends to combat climate change built around trying to survive increasingly extreme weather while limiting the service’s contribution to the problem.
While the plan offers ways to reduce climate change, it does so without directly acknowledging the military’s hand in exacerbating the problem as one of the largest industry emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.
As the Pentagon pushes through what many experts describe as likely irreversible impacts to the planet resulting from emissions, the service’s plan is founded on one very Army word: mitigation.
The 50-page plan, which is an extension of the service’s overall Army Climate Strategy released earlier this year, offers a series of ambitious goals to meet Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s 2021 call to “immediately take appropriate policy actions to prioritize climate change considerations” as the Pentagon points to several instances of climate change-related events that have affected the services.
“Dangerous levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) have already accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere,” the Climate Strategy Implementation Plan said. “While the Army cannot address all or even most GHG emissions, the right initiatives, investments, and policies can significantly reduce Army GHG emissions while at the same time enhancing readiness.”
“In climate change terms, this is known as ‘mitigation,’” it continued.
One area where climate change is causing challenges for the Army is by creating increasingly extreme weather.
“The effects of extreme weather exacerbated by climate change have already had profound impacts on the DOD,” a Pentagon press release said Monday, going on to describe damages to military installations as a result of extreme weather and rising sea levels.
In 2018, Hurricane Michael demolished at least half of the structures on Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, costing $5 billion to fix, according to the release, one example of the potential impact of extreme weather on military facilities.
The increase in extreme weather will also put a strain on the National Guard‘s disaster response abilities, the Pentagon said, as the country watched Guardsmen rescue people from extreme weather in Kentucky and Florida recently.
The Army also included an ominous warning about the broader risks that climate change poses for the military.
“Indeed, climate change has been described as a ‘threat multiplier,’” the plan said. “Extreme drought and flooding will displace individuals and communities, increasing the potential for human conflict and the demand for Army humanitarian relief and disaster response at home and abroad.”
“For the foreseeable future, climate impacts will disrupt Army activities and increase the frequency of crisis deployments,” the plan added.
But in trying to explain the impact and countermeasures the military will take, the services have generally been reticent to address the scale of military emissions.
As of 2019, the military has released over 1,000 million metric tons of greenhouse gases since 2001, according to a study from Brown University’s Watson Institute.
The Pentagon produced a total of “527 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent from 2010 to 2017, an average of about 66 million metric tons per year in this period, roughly the same greenhouse gas emissions of 14 million passenger cars driven for one year,” according to the study.
The military was also the single largest consumer of energy in the United States at the time, although as the Global War on Terror has come to a close, the energy consumption levels have steadily dipped over the last decade.
The Army is looking to further reduce that consumption, while battening down the hatches for the damage climate change will likely bring.
“As extreme weather becomes commonplace, the Army must adapt its installations, acquisition programs, and training so that the Army can operate in this changing environment and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth in a Wednesday press release. “This climate implementation plan will improve our resiliency and readiness in the face of these changes.”
Some of the Army’s goals outlined in the Climate Strategy Plan include the introduction of an Electric Light Reconnaissance vehicle next year — the first in what the service hopes to be a long line of rechargeable combat vehicles by 2050. Additionally, the Army wants to provide “100% carbon-pollution-free electricity” for all its installations by 2030; achieve a reduction of 50% greenhouse emissions for all Army buildings by 2032; and achieve “net-zero” emissions for all installations by 2045.
The plan released Wednesday is meant to provide guidance on how to support those goals. Instructions include “using existing Army processes” to reach the goals, tracking emission closely, and allowing subordinate units to participate in “technology assessment and demonstration programs which provide resources to test and validate new ideas.”
The Air Force released its own climate action plan a few hours before its sister branch, promising a net-zero emissions goal by 2046, according to NBC News.
— Drew F. Lawrence can be reached at drew.lawrence@military.com. Follow him on Twitter @df_lawrence.
Related: Army Lays Out Ambitious Goals to Combat Climate Change, Including Electric Tactical Vehicles
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This should be an entertaining thread. I’ll be back.
Regards,
Bob Tisdale
Someone ought to instruct these Yahoos on the art and facts of Warfare…something which can’t be waged with EVs on the battlefield.
Tank battle for 20 minutes then need to stop and recharge overnight for the next 20 minutes skirmish.
Or…
A well placed depleted uranium armor piercing round and the battery pack erupts destroying all assets within
Someone aught to instruct these yahoos on the facts of so-called climate change and teach them what if any effect CO2 has on the temperature of the planet.
I suspect they are learning the lesson. The hard way.
And point out to them their “As extreme weather becomes commonplace …” is a flat-out lie. Tell them to consult the studies contained in the UN IPCC AR6 showing no increase in the frequency, intensity nor duration of adverse weather events.
There are so many Trojan Horses lining up it seems like it’s going to be a humdinger of a derby.
It’s been said that one of the prime reasons that our nation has been dragged into so may wars since WWII is, the believed need to have a hardened cadre, fully schooled by fire in the art of war.
So much for that excuse.
Now that they have an EV Hummer, I read it takes four days to charge it back to full, so it would seem that charging a tank which had run for 20 minutes and then run out of juice, a whole lot longer than overnight to charge. Maybe tanks have better batteries or….?
Whatever a tank weighs, replacing the diesel engine and fuel tank with a battery will add considerably more weight. It remains to be seen how long said battery will last with the discharge rate necessary to move such behemoths.
Hence my 20 minute guesstimate
The only thing for certain is that, if it runs on Batteries, it’s TANKless
A single, well-placed Barrett .50-caliber DU round would short out the battery.
I’d use a tungsten penetrator round over DU for preference and an M2HB not the Barrett. The main reason the USA uses DU instead of Tungsten, despite Tungstens slightly better performance, is that the US has tons of the stuff hanging around as a cheap byproduct and very, very little Tungsten. During the 80’s the USA couldn’t pay people to take it away then some bright spark suggested using it in armour defeating rounds and tank armour, and a new industry was born.
I understand that when DU fragments it also spontaneously ignites from the heat and increased surface area.
It can but it is also far more brittle than tungsten and friable – it has a tendency to occasionally fragment instead of penetrating. The tungsten penetrator would be far more reliable but if you use DU then use something with a higher rate of fire to offset the rounds that don’t penetrate. DU can ignite upon impact, not fragmentation, which would be a completely irrelevant property when you’re trying to hit a device that has a tendency to self-ignite without any help anyway.
That’s if the tank doesn’t spontaneously ignite its own batteries first
How about a nuclear winter? Would that help?
Right after armageddon.
FJB and F Leftists.
I can see it now—a battalion of solar powered tanks moving into battle during a snow storm
And infantry support will armed with M2A1 assault snow shovels!
Once upon a time it was common practice to suspend hostilities while winters and other adverse conditions prevailed. This is all part of returning to the pastoral practices of yesteryear that are to be forced upon all the peasants.
Only fight in the Summer.
I thought snow was now a thing of the past
I don’t think shooting clouds will help.
Wilhelm Reich certainly thought it was a good idea.
That’s why he created his Cloud Shooter.
That’s terrific. The Army should put those on their tanks — and the Navy on their ships — and the Air Force on their jets … but only if they’re solar or wind powered.
At least they’re finally acknowledging water vapor is a GHG.
Next after going Carbon Free and Nitrogen Free will DHMO Free!
Pure virtue signaling.
No, this is impure virtue signaling.
No. This, like EVERYHING the left does is a make work project for leftists.
For crony capitalists of all stripes.
No, like EVERYTHING the left does, this is a make rich project for Lefty politicians and their rich pals who will kickback some of the green dollar bills which is what these climate nutters really care about.
Yes, prioritize as in Obama putting solar panels on the roofs of VA hospitals while VA employees falsified wait list numbers for services inside the buildings.
As Obamy’s seaside mansion got solar power or a wind turbine?
He installed 1 or 2 very large propane tank
It was two and I’ve seen many pictures of the Obamas mansion and have never seen a single solar panel anywhere. I’ve never seen any boats on the grounds, either, so I wonder how they are going to escape the rising sea we are told is coming?
This is another item I hope the brave Ukrainians are not seeing now.
That’s probably why Biden sent the weapons to Ukraine and left a load in Afghanistan – the US Army won’t need them for the war on climate change!
Biden and Obama ran the U.S. military out of ammunition during the Obama administration. Trump said on his first day in office, the Defense Secretary came to him and told him the military was critically short of ammunition.
Joe and Democrats don’t pay much attention to defending the United States. They have other priorities that distract them, like turning the United States into a Democrat Dictatorship.
The US Army is going to prioritize climate change??? The Chinese must be delirious with glee.
WTF!!
Yes, we have a bunch of fools in charge of handling our national defense.
You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that this unreasonable fear of CO2 is indeed unreasonable, and there is no reason to believe that any mitigation will be required.
It’s not good when your military leaders are living in a false reality. And it’s really bad when they act on it. Our military leaders are divorced from reality when it comes to CO2. What else are they confused about? Nuclear war?
The US Army has fought in all sorts of “extreme weather” over the years – deserts, mountains, jungles, Arctic.
I don’t recall them needing a Climate Strategy during World War II or in Vietnam!
And Washington would never have dared to cross the Delaware .
The Vietnamese and Taliban fought low carbon wars. Barely a tank or aeroplane between them. And they kicked the west out both countries.
Maybe there’s something to be said for low carbon conflict.
An armored division was used by North Vietnam to capture Saigon.
The North Vietnamese renewed hostilities and rolled their tanks into Saigon inspired by the treachery Democratic Party who voted in congress to sever the resupply of American armaments to the South Vietnamese Army …..I wonder how Joe voted ?…….Watching the fiasco in Afghanistan was almost deja vu
Joe voted against South Vietnam.
The irony is when the North Vietnamese made their final push into South Vietnam, they created a traffic jam in northern South Vietnam to the point that their whole Army was stuck in place. Perfect targets for American B-52 bombers.
American generals finally had the North Vietnamese Army out in the open where American generals like to fight, but by this time there was no way the Democrats were going to send U.S. forces back into South Vietnam, even though they were morally and legally obligated to do so under the peace agreement that was signed.
Never depend on a radical Democrat to defend you. They won’t do it. They’ve proven it time and time again. You can’t count on them when the going gets tough.
“The Vietnamese and Taliban fought low carbon wars. Barely a tank or aeroplane between them. And they kicked the west out both countries.”
You are implying that the U.S. military was defeated in both countries. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The one who was defeated in both wars was Joe Biden, the Appeaser. He was instrumental in creating the human tragedies in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Perhaps by “west” you meant the political leadership. You would be correct in that context to an extent. Biden and the other Democrat appeasers were not kicked out of Vietnam or Afghanistan, they volutarily left and threw the Vietnamese and the Afghans to the wolves without a second thought.
Joe Biden was a congressman in 1972 who voted to defund the South Vietnamese military and voted to pull all U.S. troops out of South Vietnam. This was back when the Democrats had complete control of both Houses of Congress, to the point that they overrode President Ford’s veto when the Democrats slashed South Vietnam’s military budget.
And of course, now this appeaser is president, and we saw what he did in Afghanistan. The man has no soul.
D-Day is one example where the threat of weather didn’t rule the day.
Actually, the threat did play a role. They just got lucky because they didn’t rely on CO2-biased computer weather models. They relied on slide rules and human judgement.
😎
Nor did they need a Cliimate Strategy for Iraq War I or Iraq War II in which our son fought and I have it on his authority that Iraq is really, really hot except when it’s really cold. I got an emergency call from him when the heater in the hanger where he was a Crew Chief for the chopper he was on went out. The very nice man I ordered it from who did ship to military addresses wouldn’t charge me for the shipping.
Boggles the mind that your son had to get you to order a heater that for some reason the military couldn’t do.
Is it a wonder that Putin wasn’t afraid to invade Ukraine??
The US army has had to withdraw it’s new ultra safe rifle the ‘woke1’. Front line troops complained that many enemy combatants didn’t understand the English word ‘BANG’ that unfurled from a stick and as a consequence the rifle offered little deterrent. Further research revealed that in close combat the stick could ‘have someone’s eye out’ and the rifle is to be withdrawn.
Prudent!
And the soldiers are cautioned not to run with bayonets.
As a Drill Sgt., to my trainees: “What is the purpose of the bayonet?” “To kill, Drill Sgt., to kill!”
You were a drill sgt., Dave? What branch?
During that period, the Army Reserves. It was a hoot!
After two years as a draftee and graduating college I joined the Army Reserves to go to officer’s candidate school (OCS) to get some supervisory credentials for resumes. By the time I finished unit-required Drill Sgt. training, I had already obtained a supervisory position. I was having so much fun as a Drill Sgt. I never did go to OCS.
Don’t laugh, you’re closer to the truth than anyone would think…
Quote:”A council rejected planting fruit trees in a public place amid fears windfalls could be “used as missiles”.
From Auntie B of course. It’ll be in the grauniad also
To be fair to the BBC, for once even they are taking the piss out of this in that article.
Woke2 has been designed to address it’s predecessors shortcomings.
The unfurling ‘Bang’ flag will be replaced with a rainbow equivalent.
The really hurtful percussion deployment will be replaced with a virtually silent compressed CO2 expulsion unit which will be tracked by the combatants battlefield cellphone.
It will monitor the users carbon credits and, via his/her/its digital banking app and adjust the users ability to buy food, chocolate (It’s not food, it’s a necessity) water and gasoline accordingly on his/her/its return to civilian life.
Ve muzt learn zat vatever ve do haz ze conzequenzes on ze planet. Ze conflictz politicianz inztigate muzt be fought rezponzibly. Bitch Zlapping iz ze crime againzt humanity.
Everyzing iz your fault.
(Bezt I could do Tim. Not a shade on yourz but
tanksthankz for the inzpiration.).Reminiscent of a Star Trek episode with computer-simulated war and real deaths.
So the modest 18 cm of sea level rise and 1° C temperature increase over the last century which has no discernible effect on “extreme weather” or droughts; to which humans have easily adapted as they did to even more extreme conditions over the last 20,000 years with primitive technology; is a “priority” for the U.S. Army? Odd. I always thought defending the U.S. against all enemies, foreign and domestic with the best training and equipment available, was the priority.
I don’t think you’re the right man for the job, Lloyd. Give Putin a call. He seems to hire a lot of feckless military leaders.
Try selling this bullshi! to the Ukrainians .
The damage that Putin has inflicted on the Ukraine will cost billions to rebuild and must have released millions of tonnes of green house gases.
The army in any country is there for one purpose and that is to defend their country from aggressors.
The world knows that the US army has fought many small wars around the world to try and help keep world peace .
You would think that climate change would be very low on the armies list of essential missions.
The world has gone woke which will not end well .
Payton once said they “Your goal is not to die for your country; it’s to make the other some of a bitch die for his”.
The job of the military is to serve as a deterrent. Failing that, its job is to kill people and break things.
General George Smith Patton Jr., US Army
Ooh. Just saw that. I hate Typos.
The job of the military is to defeat the enemy by any and all means possible, killing is often counter-productive to it’s job.
Wounding/maiming an enemy soldier ties up more of the enemy’s resources than k!lling a soldier.
That’s one reason that the Army downgraded from 7.62mm M14s to 5.56mm M16s, contrary to what one reads in the MSM.
But the 5.56mm does not work as well as a nice 7.62mm round.
Though I have read a 6mm is a good mid choice.
From what I have read, the military is now exploring such a ‘Goldilocks’ round.
“The world knows that the US army has fought many small wars around the world to try and help keep world peace.”
Is that why we have fought so many wars since WWII, to keep peace? Huh. It doesn’t seem to be working except for the four years under Trump. Maybe they should put this Climate money into keeping the peace instead of worrying about the weather? Not fighting more wars would do wonders for reducing CO2 and the real climate.
Just a thought.
A Woke military is an ineffective military. How the Marxists convinced the military to carry their flag is beyond me.
Blowing a tranny used to mean you had to get your car repaired.
+42X42^42 It actually made me laugh out loud.
Like the old joke about the rainbow-colored electrons going around blowing all the fuses.
The didn’t have to do any “convincing”.
The Democrats have been installing Marxists in positions of power for a few decades.
After installing Marxists in most of the General and Admiral positions, the rest was easy.
A Marxist as CIC, helps too!
“A Marxist as CIC, helps too!”
That’s the key. Then the generals at least have to sound like they agree with him, if they want to keep their jobs.
I’m not sure how many military leaders actually believe that humans are causing the climate to change. Let’s hope it’s just the leadership kowtowing to the boss’ delusions, while simultaneously keeping the military in good shape.
It used to be that the military put more guns in the hands of 18 year olds than anybody else, and taught them how to use them. I guess that one is out the window too.
Groom 5th column recruits from childhood.
The military takes orders from the Commander in Chief, ‘respectfully’ known as Airhead I.
I don’t know why I feel an urge to laugh, because it’s not funny.
Pompeo has a few things to says about USAF climate change policy.
– – – – – – – –
Mike Pompeo blasts Air Force climate plan that would see bases operate at net-zero emissions by using ‘ultra-efficient’ planes and electric cars:
‘China’s Air Force is not obsessing about green energy’
The U.S. Air Force and Space Force released a climate action plan Wednesday
The plan includes a goal of operating bases at net-zero emissions by 2046 by using ‘ultra-efficient’ planes and electric cars
But former secretary of state Mike Pompeo blasted the plan: ‘I can guarantee you that the China’s Air Force is not obsessing about green energy’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11290347/Mike-Pompeo-blasts-Air-Force-climate-action-plan.html
An “‘ultra-efficient’ plane” is a hangar queen—zero emissions.
I don’t think you’re supposed to say “queen” anymore.
There has to be a reason China hasn’t attacked. Our military is certainly of little deterrence. We are under-manned, under-funded and too much equipment lacks spare parts.
But don’t worry, what does run will have no fuel due to Brandon draining the Political Petroleum Reserve.
I always thought an efficient military plane went very fast and had efficient and accurate weaponry. But what do I know?
“Dangerous levels of greenhouse gases” no such thing. As of 2019, the military has released over 1,000 million metric tons of greenhouse gases since 2001. Like carbon dioxide never gets sequestered or absorbed by water molecules. Ridiculous figure and article.
So the military is going to round up “climate deniers”. OK then
Even the military has drank the cool aid. It is completely wrong-headed to try to stop climate change, because that is what climate does – always. It is foolish to assume it is caused by humans, and it is even more foolish to spend money on emission reductions, since that will not affect climate in the least.
Where money should be spent is in mitigating the effects of (inevitable) climate change. We should be strengthening our energy systems, not dismantling them. All of these billions of dollars being spent will not help us confront ‘real’ climate change. Since we are in an interglacial already, the next change will be a glacial period. Crops will fail, snow won’t melt all year, and ice will accumulate. THAT is what we need to prepare for, not reductions in emissions, which will accomplish exactly nothing but a reduction in our readiness for ‘real’ climate change.
Look at the bright side: We get rid of New York City, Boston, Chicago & etc.
Does that include Detroit? An Ice Age might be worth it if it did.
It appears so.
John, the military and the President might want to worry about feeding Military families. It’s reported their wages are so low, they can’t afford food with the rising prices. Last I heard, they are considering Food Stamps. I would have thought they could get them already. Surely the Gov. doesn’t deny Food Stamps to the Military, or do they?
Of all the jobs people do, I can’t imagine one that deserves more pay more than the US Military but, I guess the Democrats don’t agree.
I saw a report the other day where military families are having to resort to Food Stamps.
That’s not a very good recruiting tool.
Biden and the other radical Democrats are spending 370 billion dollars on “climate change” while military families go hungry.
I must say, I’m not surprised. This is just what I would expect radical Democrats to do. They are completely divorced from reality.
What is really worrisome is that if the Biden administration does not replace the weapons sent to Ukraine, then it is an underhanded way to disarm the USA.
Just a follow-up to Afghanistan. Could anybody really be that stupid? It must have been done on purpose.
I think Biden could be that stupid. He set a due date to get out of Afghanistan, and damn the consequences. That’s just what I would expect him to do.
I’m surprised he is hanging in there in Ukraine as long as he has. His appeaser mindset does seem to still be active as he still refuses to give the Ukrainian military all the weapons they need. He’s still holding back. So is Germany from reports, but that’s not surprising as they are rather pacifist after what they have been through in the past.
A few kids with slingshots smashing the solar panels could defeat an army …
proper David & Goliath !!!
Repetitious trash. Makes me ashamed to have been a soldier. These morons need to stand in a field and show us how CAGW is hurting them. Then someone needs to shoot them and they can explain how much worse the climate was for them. To say nothing of grenades, mortars, artillery or bombs. What a sorry bunch of POS they are, they all need to be fired immediately.
What concerns me, Bob, is how long will it take the guys to apply makeup and put on false eyelashes before they are ready for their 11:00 am engagement with the enemy?
And another thing… is the supply Seargent making sure there are enough solar nails ready to deploy in case they break a nail in combat?
“MEDIC!!! Major lipstick smear over here!”
[edit: cleanup on aisles 3, 4, and 7]
The civilian leadership of our military is disgraceful, I’m afraid the same can be said about some of our generals. It’s revolting.
Is this a fake or is this what they have in mind?
Well, it’d cost less than the “geo-engineering” schemes.
The nukes are already paid for.
“Could a small nuclear war reverse global warming?”
–
–
There’s no such thing as a “nuclear dust up” or a “slight disagreement with nuclear weapons”.
–
I’d expect that anything nuclear would tend to quickly get out of hand.
I take it you don’t subscribe to the Zelensky method of warfare, then? This is his latest demand.
Zelensky calls for ‘preemptive strikes’ from NATO to keep Russia from using nukes
https://bit.ly/3ymjrKo
10/6/22
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on NATO to conduct “preemptive strikes” against Russian targets to prevent their use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
The president said these strikes “are needed so that [the Russians] know what awaits them if they use nuclear weapons” on Thursday during an event with the Australian think tank the Lowy Institute. “Not the other way around, waiting for Russia’s nuclear strikes and then saying, ‘Oh, you’ve done that, then get this…’”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zelensky-calls-for-e2-80-98preemptive-strikes-e2-80-99-from-nato-to-keep-russia-from-using-nukes/ar-AA12GwHJ
I can think of no better way to guarantee that Putin will use nuclear weapons. Whose side is Zelensky on?
The only redeeming factor is that apparently only about 60% of the Russian missiles have performed as expected. So, the effective size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is likely to be 60% of what we think it is.
Oh that certainly is a relief, to think I was worried there for a moment. So Russia has 6,300 warheads and missiles but only 1,588 ready-to-fire missiles; so only 953 of the ready missiles will do what Putin wants, the other 635 will do something frickin unpredictable? Well I am so amazingly reassured by that information, you have no idea!
Given that the US nuclear deterrent launch/guidance systems were, pretty much, last upgraded in the 1970’s (and still uses 8″ floppy discs in it’s 1970’s era computers), are the US missiles much better?
Let’s hope we don’t find out!
Amen to that sentiment!
Good pic – I’d like to see the infamous F35 landing, skidding, on these PV tiles!
Get a grip, pilot!
No wonder why Army recruitment is down 25%!
With the only recruits welcome in the military being the wokerati democrat-voters, and they are really, really not keen on serving, getting shot at, waking up before noon or not having 8 hours a day to spend on their phone, is it any wonder recruitment has dropped. If it wasn’t for all the nerds playing ‘Call of Duty’ it’d drop to zero.
Not only is requirement down, but they are busy kicking well-trained personnel out of the services for declining to take a vaccine, for a disease that is on its way out. We are so screwed.
recruitment, not requirement. sorry.
Per this article, recruitment is down way more than that. It’s at 52% of their goals.
Military recruitment numbers are down. Are ‘woke’ politics to blame? – Deseret News
9/11/22
https://www.deseret.com/2022/9/11/23342879/army-airforce-navy-recruitment-numbers-down-are-politics-to-blame
…While the official reasons given by the military — including fewer face-to-face recruitments during the pandemic, and fewer young people who meet the physical standards required — likely play a role, some say it’s because the military is too “woke,” turning off its normal constituency of young, conservative recruits.
…“The Army is facing its most challenging recruiting environment since the all-volunteer force’s inception in 1973,” said Brian McGovern, deputy director of public affairs for U.S. Army Recruiting Command.
The Army is only 52% of the way towards its recruitment goals for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. McGovern said the Army expects to face a shortage of 12,000 to 15,000 recruits this year.
“One area where climate change is causing challenges for the Army is by creating increasingly extreme weather.”
Not a challenge at all. Just do nothing and wait. When the climate data record catches up with the expected new distribution of extreme hot and cold and wet and dry conditions, it will be normal again. Problem solved!
(Not that I expect it to do so in reality.)
The big (provable) lie: “… increasingly extreme weather.” They can’t keep the facts hidden forever.
If that is true, a good strategist would see that the road to victory is determined by being able to fight in any and all kinds of weather.
And the Army can’t figure out why they missed their recruiting goals by 25% this year.
BS like this causes people with common sense to go a different direction.
Down 48% when there was less than a month to go to meet goals for their fiscal year which ended 9/30/22.
https://www.deseret.com/2022/9/11/23342879/army-airforce-navy-recruitment-numbers-down-are-politics-to-blame