Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Humboldtsnee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Humboldtsnee

Oh hey, low carbon emissions!

I genuinely cannot believe they tout that in their marketing.

This is a machine to kill people, is anyone worried about its carbon footprint.

(Is this page satire I fell for?)

View on HN

If you’re trying to sell to other NATO countries, like Canada, Denmark, the UK, Germany, who are actively trying to reduce their emissions, yeah it might matter. A plane with lower emissions is just going to be more competitive.

Everyone who buys this or any other fighter jet is really hoping they don’t have to use it to kill anyone. The primary use case is as deterrence. These things will spend a lot of time just patrolling—and that uses a lot of fuel and emits a lot of carbon.

> This is a machine to kill people, is anyone worried about its carbon footprint.

Well, yeah, the people buying “machines to kill people” seem to see that as a concern:

https://www.defense.gov/spotlights/tackling-the-climate-cris...

Killing people is an excellent way to reduce global carbon emissions.

I was going to say, "hey, maybe nuclear winter can help too!" but it sounds like maybe that whole thing was overstated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Yeah the model they based it on had a lot of flaws, a lot of which got called into question after Gulf War 1 fires in Kuwait. Not a ton of research since then, either.

I think you meant 'efficient' instead of 'excellent'? ;)

Your point is well made but I stand by my rampant misanthropy.

Killing the right people, efficiently at the lowest cost :p

See? Someone else gets it.

May have some trouble killing people with an aircraft which doesn't carry any weapons. This is a reconnaissance drone.

This isn't satire. Environmental footprint of the military is one of the primary concerns in the time of peace, which is most of the time. Depleted uranium ammo, toxic fuel leaks etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com