<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Frame Wars</title>
	<atom:link href="http://redteamjournal.com/2009/08/frame-wars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://redteamjournal.com/2009/08/frame-wars/</link>
	<description>Red teaming and alternative analysis for national security and business advantage.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:48:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://redteamjournal.com/2009/08/frame-wars/comment-page-1/#comment-1441</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://redteamjournal.com/?p=1900#comment-1441</guid>
		<description>I agree that climate change in itself is not a national security threat, but the consequences are. I argue that the U.S. Military has always had some capacity to handle climate change consequences. I also agree with you that the environmental movement has not done a good job of articulating the need.

Peak oil on the other hand is an important national security challenge that the environmental groups should ride along to get a comprehensive renewable energy policy enacted. Right now nobody is making a coherent argument.  There are so many dissenting viewpoints that everyone is talking over each other and sadly nothing is accomplished. 

My opinion is that the a real argument for oil conservation in the civilian sector can be made in lite of operating the military. So far there is no viable alternative to oil to run the war machine.  It is a long row to hoe, but our military can not maintain the current OPTEMPO with electric cars. Until there is a viable option, the military will have to use oil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that climate change in itself is not a national security threat, but the consequences are. I argue that the U.S. Military has always had some capacity to handle climate change consequences. I also agree with you that the environmental movement has not done a good job of articulating the need.</p>
<p>Peak oil on the other hand is an important national security challenge that the environmental groups should ride along to get a comprehensive renewable energy policy enacted. Right now nobody is making a coherent argument.  There are so many dissenting viewpoints that everyone is talking over each other and sadly nothing is accomplished. </p>
<p>My opinion is that the a real argument for oil conservation in the civilian sector can be made in lite of operating the military. So far there is no viable alternative to oil to run the war machine.  It is a long row to hoe, but our military can not maintain the current OPTEMPO with electric cars. Until there is a viable option, the military will have to use oil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.616 seconds -->

