Powering Our Military

It’s always open to speculation how wars will be fought in the future. But there is one sure bet. The way that our armed forces are powered will change. Part of the problem is that America consumes a lot of fossil fuels but doesn’t produce that much. What that means it that we would be extermely vulernable to an energy shut off in a future global conflict. The Armed Forces Journal offers two thoughtful pieces on the subject in their current issue. In the first article, John Nagl and Christine Parthemore declare that the military needs to seek to enter a “post-petroleum” era by the year 2040. In another article, Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Glen Butler and Colonel Robert Rice declare that the military needs to look seriously at using more nuclear power to reduce our energy independence on foreign sources. But what helpful alternative seems off the table. Unfortunately, “nuclear” remains a dirty word in the military. It’s something we better get over soon, if we want to serious about reducing our dependence. Biofuels, thermal, and solar, offer little real promise in the immediate future. An excerpt:

“America consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but has less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. The Defense Department spends approximately $20 billion — and the overall nation almost $1.23 trillion — on energy each year. Even before the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico brought energy issues to the forefront, there was no doubt that alternative forms of power production are necessary.

Even so, as U.S. armed forces parallel the business world with increasing investments and interest in all things green and “sustainable,” there remains a dirty word many of our military leaders have yet to utter with serious consideration: nuclear. Long the readily dismissed yet oft-misunderstood stepchild of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, nuclear energy today is finally undergoing the beginning of a renaissance in political and entrepreneurial circles. But even as our commander-in-chief and energy secretary deliver guidance and vision for a U.S. future that includes expanded nuclear energy, our service chiefs have yet to embrace the potential watershed opportunity. This is a mistake. Our military forces should take a hard look at the promise of modern nuclear energy technology as integral parts of their long-term plans for installations’ sustainment across the homeland.”