Bombing Iran: Carbon Neutral?

[tvashtarkatena]

Nowadays, we should be asking this question about everything we do. So let's take a look at bombing Iran. Would it be good for the planet?

 

 

A B52 burns 3300 gallons of fuel per hour and has a top speed of 650 mph. The nearest B52 base to Iran is Moron, Spain; a 6400 mile round trip. That means each B52 burns about 32000 gallons of fuel per sortie.

 

The average Iranian uses about 1 gallon of oil per day.

 

Once released into the atmosphere, the CO2 emissions from both of these activities stay airborn for an average of 100 years.

 

The B52 sortie is a one time release of 32000 fuel gallons worth of emissions. The average Iranian and their offspring, generously assuming zero population growth, burns about 35000 gallons of oil over a 100 year period, roughly the same as a B52 sortie.

 

These figures indicate that a B52 sortie need only kill one Iranian to be carbon neutral. Each sortie would, of course, kill many times that.

 

Bombing Iran is better than carbon neutral; it's practically the greenest thing we can do.

[Choada_Boy]

A LH2/LOX fueled ICBM would save far more polar bears.

[tvashtarkatena]

Now let's just take a looksie at that.

 

A Minuteman ICBM costs $70 million sans payload.

 

A single B52 can carry a much higher payload to target for (assuming 3x fuel costs) for about $500,000. You could send 140 B52 sorties for the price of just one ICBM.

 

It's not just about the polar bears, ya know.

Edited November 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[kevbone]

You have really thought this through.......

[tvashtarkatena]

It gets better. A Minuteman ICBM's payload is limited by the START I Treaty to a single MK 12 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 170 kilotons. A single B52 can carry as many as 50 B61 thermonuclear bombs, each of which can be configured for the same (or less) yield.

 

Anyway you look at it, the B52 is the much more frugal delivery option.

[tvashtarkatena]

Now, a properly targeted 170 kiloton device can easily kill 100,000 individuals, er, excuse me, collateral targets. Each B52 sortie, then, could easily reduce the planet's population by 5 million, regardless of how tweaked out the crew is on uppers.

 

We save the planet even more when we bomb countries that use more oil per capita than Iran. Six B52s could pretty much take out Canada, for example, which is the next country below the U.S. in per capita consumption. Peferably when a strong southerly is blowing.

 

Per capita oil consumption by country

 

Bermuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, hey, that's just a back yard milk run. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and, oh yeah! Saudi Arabia; I would think pilots would be fighting over who gets that one.

 

The solution to Global Warming is right in front of us, but do we have the WILL to execute?

Edited November 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

Anyway you look at it, the B52 is the much more frugal delivery option.

 

 

If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

[tvashtarkatena]

So the bottom line is this: The U.S. can, within a short period of time, deploy about 10,000 thermonuclear warheads with an average payload of 170 kilotons each. That's over nine times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb, which neutralized over 100,000 collateral targets. Assuming each warhead, if properly placed, could double that to say, 200,000, the United States could reduce the population of the world's most oil gluttonous nations (ourselves excepted, of course) by 2 billion people in very short order.

 

Such a 'correction' would eliminate global warming for centuries to come while allowing Americans to continue to burn as much oil as they want, in addition to making virtually all of the world's remaining oil reserves available to use practically free of charge. \

 

Think about it, people. Cruisin' up I 5 to the state of Canada (once it's cooled off a bit) in a '63 Fleetwood convertible sloshing with $.49 a gallon gas. No more fuckin' Iranian this and Saudi that in the paper. All you'd need to do is flip to the entertainment section: Where's the fuckin' party, man!?

 

FUCK.

 

YEAH.

 

Write your congressman today.

Edited November 14, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

Here's a thought: can nuclear winter counteract global warming?

 

Think about it.

[No. 13 Baby]

Well I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard come over a set of earphones.

 

Edited November 14, 2007 by No. 13 Baby

[Fairweather]

Nowadays, we should be asking this question about everything we do. So let's take a look at bombing Iran. Would it be good for the planet?

 

 

A B52 burns 3300 gallons of fuel per hour and has a top speed of 650 mph. The nearest B52 base to Iran is Moron, Spain; a 6400 mile round trip. That means each B52 burns about 32000 gallons of fuel per sortie.

 

The average Iranian uses about 1 gallon of oil per day.

 

Once released into the atmosphere, the CO2 emissions from both of these activities stay airborn for an average of 100 years.

 

The B52 sortie is a one time release of 32000 fuel gallons worth of emissions. The average Iranian and their offspring, generously assuming zero population growth, burns about 35000 gallons of oil over a 100 year period, roughly the same as a B52 sortie.

 

These figures indicate that a B52 sortie need only kill one Iranian to be carbon neutral. Each sortie would, of course, kill many times that.

 

Bombing Iran is better than carbon neutral; it's practically the greenest thing we can do.

 

How much fuel is burned by a Boeing 757 during a round trip from Seattle to, say, any number of Caribbean nations where a certain guy who "does whatever the fuck he wants when he wants" goes kayaking? How much fuel is burned by a Boeing 747 or DC10 during a multi-staged flight from Seattle to Nepal where a certain guy "who does whatever the fuck he wants when he wants" goes trekking. Both are pointless pursuits that leave an enormous carbon footprint all in the name of quenching the ego of the most pompous ass to ever slither around these parts of the web. I'll let the audience guess who this hypocrite is.

 

BTW; Diego Garcia is probably closer.

[tvashtarkatena]

ARE WE BOMBING YET?

[Fairweather]

CARE TO ADDRESS YOUR BLATANT HYPOCRISY?

[tvashtarkatena]

HUG YOUR CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS

[Fairweather]

BURN KEROSENE BY THE TON AT YOUR 34,000 FOOT HIGH LEISURE IN THE PURSUIT OF SELF GRATIFICATION WHILE PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT AN ANTHROPOGENIC FICTION.

[ClimbingPanther]

bombing iran? i had that idea like several hours before you.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

GzROXViBl7k

[Choada_Boy]

The choice is clear. We must bomb ourselves.

[tvashtarkatena]

GLORY BE 52

[ZONK]

I think Your Bombers would come out of Guam or North Dakota. The Base in Spain has fewer B-52's less weapons and Guam with Cruse Missles and a larger stock pile Nukes !

[ericb]

CARE TO ADDRESS YOUR BLATANT HYPOCRISY?

 

FW....I think a better analysis is to how much time he spends screwing around on this site vs. actually taking action to remedy the victimization by the govermental system that he rails against. If Tvash donated half the time he spends bitching on this site to organizations that actually are working to fight poverty and injustice, he could truly make this world a better place. As it is, his big contribution to "the cause" will be 45 minutes of his time next November.

[rob]

How often do you volunteer, eric?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How often do you volunteer, eric?

 

I'm sorry, is Eric posting 50-100 diatribes a day covering just how bad our various institutions are, the lack of proper action by the government and citizens, and how it all must be fixed?

[rob]

Nope. He seems to pretty much think everything is A-OK.

[ericb]

How often do you volunteer, eric?

 

I used to work with highschool youth ~ 4 hours per week, but since the new baby (and my more than full-time employment), not too much right now. My wife and continue to contribute financially to water and HIV related projects in South Africa.

 

Why do you ask?