When the 1973 Oil Embargo hit, one of the chief concerns was the vulnerability of the US military to such an embargo. There was a lot of debate on how to ensure that our domestic supply would be adequate in the event of a war and the loss of foreign supplies. This same thinking was evident in the 1991 Gulf War, when George Bush (the First) responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in knee-jerk style by sending in the military and then made up one excuse after another for why he didn't just sit back and watch. One of his first excuses was the strategic need to defend our supply of oil, but it the public understood that we'd be able to purchase oil from the Iraqis just as easily and reliably as we had been purchasing it from the Kuwaitis so he had to move on to another excuse. Eventually he concocted the notion that we needed to stop Saddam Hussein -- whom nobody had heard of and fewer cared about and had actually been considered a US ally up to that time, which led to an after-the-fact PR campaign to convince us all what an evil tyrant Hussein was. But, I'm getting off track.
Keeping our national defense strong and able is important. But just how important is petroleum to that defense today, and why? The answer is: very important, and for bad reasons.
Most of our military machines are designed to run on petroleum products. The exceptions include nuclear-powered ships and submarines, and missiles that are fueled with propellants of either petroleum or non-petroleum origin. All our aircraft and land vehicles must use petroleum, and a war today in which the supply is cut would be disastrous.
Most of our aircraft, as well as the M1 Main Battle Tank, cruise missiles, and several other craft, have gas turbine engines. The gas turbine engine can be configured to run on any liquid fuel, and even on weird stuff like coal dust slurries and gaseous hydrogen. But all of the gas turbine engines in the US arsenal are designed to run on petroleum derivatives, often very specific derivatives, and no substitutes. Most jet aircraft are designed to use JP-4 (Jet A) fuel.
On the scale of military budgets, it would cost only a pittance to configure the fuel systems of these gas turbine engines to run on any flammable liquid you pour in the tank, from lighter fluid to 180 proof Vodka -- and, importantly, including ethanol which could be produced within our borders in the event of a war in which overseas supplies of petroleum are cut off. So why hasn't it been done? In my opinion, it's because the US military is run by idiots. These people spend $200 on a hammer and $12,000 on a coffee pot, but cannot see the tactical benefits of being able to run on alternative fuels. I once worked at P&WA, a major supplier of military jet engines, and nobody there even considered the idea of alternative fuels. Never mind how much the option would cost -- they never even asked how much it would cost!
Regardless of the ineptitude of the US military, sooner or later they will have to switch to alternative fuels, just as the rest of us will. Whenever they do, they will have to address the tactical implications. There really is no tactical reason to be concerned about an "energy crisis", especially since the supply of petroleum will gradually diminish as opposed to suddenly disappearing, and the military will be able to phase into alternative fuels the same way the rest of us will.
Back to the 1973 Oil Embargo
Back to Petroleum: a limited resource
Back to Alternative Fuels
Back to the introduction
Return to Kirby Palm's home page.
Of course, if you have questions or comments, you are welcome to send e-mail to me at palmk@nettally.com.