Military readiness low – wind farms and outdated radar tech
Gage 7/2/10 (Deborah, SmartPlanet, “Do wind farms lower military readiness?” http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/do-wind-farms-interfere-with-us-military-readiness/4637/, WRW)
Members of a House Armed Services sub-committee this week listened to complaints from both the FAA and the DOD about the spinning blades of wind turbines and how they interfere with radar signals that detect flying aircraft — a problem if these aircraft are flying by a wind farm, and an even bigger problem if the wind farm is located near a military base. The radar may detect spinning wind turbine blades as a 747, and the signals from smaller planes are drowned out. The FAA also complained that wind turbines confuse next-generation weather radar, which interprets the spinning blades as storms and makes it harder for air traffic controllers to tell pilots what to expect if they’re flying near a wind farm. Emotions on wind farms and radar ran especially high in March, according to Dr. Dorothy Robyn of the DOD, when the FAA halted construction on the Shepherd’s Flat wind farm in Oregon — projected to be the largest land-based wind farm in the world — even though the project was already more than five years old and new wind turbines were about to go up. NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command feared that the turbines would interfere with their long-range surveillance radar, Robyn said — and hence, the defense of the U.S. homeland. Shepherd’s Flat’s backers — General Electric and Caithness Energy — which had already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the project, were not pleased. On April 30, after intense discussions, the defense agencies withdrew their objections. They decided the new turbines’ impact on their radar wouldn’t be as bad as they thought. But they’re also expecting scientists at MIT’s Lincoln Lab to come up with new ways to handle radar interference before the new turbines are up, 18 months from now. The real problem here, according to wind turbine manufacturers, who are also talking to Congress, is that 80 percent of U.S. radar is badly outdated. It’s 30 to 60 years old, and it needs to be upgraded or replaced. The U.S. is also behind on technology to capture wind, they say — stealth composite blades, for instance, which absorb radar signals, are used in Europe but are not validated for use in the U.S. Other technology can help reduce environmental noise so radar can read objects more accurately.
No – morale
Morale low – Afghanistan
Davis 7/15/10 – lawyer at Lanny J. Davis & Associates, Former member of President Bush’s Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board in 2006-07 (Lanny, “Time to Get Troops Out of Afghanistan-Now,” http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/15/time-to-get-ground-troops-out-of-afghanistan-now/)
It feels like 1975. That was the year when left and right came together and we got our kids out of harm’s way in Vietnam … forever. Back then, we all heard intimidating rhetoric against critics of continuing U.S. involvement in Vietnam — i.e., that it was “dangerous” or even “unpatriotic” to criticize war policy when there were “GIs at risk during wartime”; or, worse, that it was unpatriotic to “cut and run,” which would mean “50,000 had died in vain.” Those ugly charges didn’t work then, and they won’t work now. Americans were smart enough then to realize that we could honor every one of those GIs and still not want a single additional life lost in a war that both the left and right had decided was no longer worth fighting, albeit for different reasons. The left saw the war as wrong and immoral. The right saw handcuffs on the military due to political and diplomatic considerations and thus, it said, “If we can’t win, get out.” So in 1975, a Republican president (Gerald Ford), facing legislation forced through by Democratic members of Congress cutting off all funding for continued U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, finally ordered all U.S. ground forces out of the country. Doesn’t this feel very familiar? Just recently, more than 100 liberal House Democrats voted to cut funds to pay for U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan. Conservatives like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan on “Morning Joe” have questioned why we are still spending billions and losing American lives to “nation-build” in a country where there are few al Qaeda terrorists. And the spokesman for the Democratic National Committee — of all people — came very close to questioning the patriotism of Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, claiming Steele was undermining U.S. troops’ morale when he described the Afghan war as President Obama’s “war of choice.”I believe we may now, as in 1975, be approaching a critical mass of American public opinion that, after nine years in Afghanistan, there is no apparent mission that can justify a single additional U.S. life or casualty.
No – recruitment
Military recruitment will decrease in the future – kids are eating unhealthily, dropping out, and getting arrested
Huff 7/19/10 (Ethan A., NaturalNews, “US military says school lunches are a threat to national security,” http://www.naturalnews.com/029226_school_lunches_national_security.html, WRW)
(NaturalNews) A group of retired military officials recently expressed concern that school lunches are a threat to national security. According to them, the food being fed to children at public schools is making them "too fat to fight", leaving a potentially considerable gap in militaryrecruitment. "Mission: Readiness", the non-profit group of over 130 retired military leaders that is calling for healthier federal food for children, is expressing support for new legislation that would outlaw junk food from schools so that more children will qualify to enroll in the military. The group believes that "national security" is America's top priority, so it is doing everything it can to increase military enrollment, even if that means supporting and passing federal food restriction legislation. According to the group's report, roughly 75 percent of all young Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 do not qualify for military service because they do not finish high school, have criminal records, or they are not physically fit enough to serve.