Sustainability is the strongest defense, military experts say

Comments

I did not know...

... that new urban developments are bullet proof.  Is it the art museums that protect them from missiles?  Do pedestrians make a suitcase nuke ineffective?  Or is it the sidewalks alone?  Less pavement?  More trees?  Great streets - the awnings, perhaps? 

NO, NO, I know - it is the more economically diverse residents!  And the Leed platinum condos! 

Wow.  The strongest defense, militarily speaking.  I AM FLABERGASTED!

 

Places worth defending

As Kunstler says, if you don't have a place worth defending, who is going to defend it in the long run?

the 99%

I might not condone the "occupy" demonstrators, but they do have a point.

"retiring baby boomers and millenialists want to live in walkable, affortable communities...close to institutions of higher learning" and pay for the millions spent on their self promoting philosophies.

I am part of the 99% that will not benefit from their efforts.

My children will be the foot soldiers that will protect the elite in their cloistered sustainable utopian vilage.

GET REAL with the rest of the world.

You miss the point

The article talks about millenials, not millenialists. Millenials are young people, like me, who are in the 99%. Many of us want to live in cities near where we work. I used to drive 45 minutes to work like my parents. Now I bike 20 minutes to work, or take a bus and read.

I'm not the elite and I don't live in a utopian village. I live in a medium-big city on a moderate salary. I and my generation are tired with the old suburban model.

And, the more people that drive less, the less oil we need to take from the Middle East (+ Venezuela, etc) - so the less we need our armies there. That's great news for my friends who are serving in the military - and great for me since it's less likely they'll die fighting for resources for our lifestyle.

bringin' it all back home

One of the reasons that we're up to our necks in the Mid-East is our dependence on foreign oil.  Reduce/eliminate that dependence, increase our security at home. It's that simple.

Demonizing suburbs

This is not entirely true:  "those suburban communities are now both unsustainable and undesirable."  They are desirable because people continue to live in them, take care of them, enlarge houses in them, and buy houses there.  They are sustainable in that many of them are heavily insulated, have deciduous trees on their southern sides (which cuts down air conditioning use), have high tech windows, efficient heating systems, modern high efficiency applicances, high tech lightbulbs, and hybrid cars in the driveways.  Their gardens, lawns, greenways, playgrounds, golf courses, and parks provide land banks.  Many of their residents walk their dogs, jog, exercise, and ride bicycles.  A fair percent of those suburban residents telecommute at least one day a week.  A fair percent of those houses include "boomerang" college students and graduates, and mother-in-law apartments, which makes for multi-generations living under one roof.  One good way to help ensure national security is to stop flagellating ourselves because some of us like to live in houses.

Go to the source

Here is a link to the report itself, which is a long but VERY worthwhile read. 

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf

Here's a video of the authors describing the work and how it came to be.

The authors arrive at their conclusion not from the perspective of urban planning, military tactics, or domestic economic policy.  Instead they come from the viewpoint of military and national security strategy.

It's rich stuff, and difficult to compress into a brief news article, but definitely worth reading and discussing.

Source=Globalism & Article=Disinformation/Confusion

The 'source' referred to above does not discuss U.S. national security; rather it is an argument for globalism.  It is not written by military experts.  Arguments for global utopia don't fly, though socialists find it a useful red herring.

The original article names military people, and then quotes someone else - either classic disinformation or classic confusion.

Fluff stuff does not provide either (1) interesting, or (2) useful, discussion regarding national security.  Of course, one does not look to this source for anything on that topic.

So, guys, absurdity is great, but it is not serious.  This publication should be serious about design. 

 

Source=globalism

Denise,

Did you read the article that Frank provided the link to, A National Strategic Narrative? I would say that actively serving military officers, one of whom is a top aide to the joint chiefs of staff, qualify as military experts. I'm not sure what you call globalism, but I don't see how one can write comprehensively about national security, as these writer do, without dealing with global issues.

Re: go to the source

Frank,

This is a great article — really top notch. This is a hard-headed analysis that is broad in scope and challenging. It covers a great deal more than what we call "smart growth," but the idea of "smart growth" at home is key to our credibility and influence abroad, the authors contend. In an article that looks like it runs about 5,000 words, here are the passages that specifically mention "smart growth."

"We often hear the term “smart power” applied to the tools of development and diplomacy abroad empowering people all over the world to improve their own lives and to help establish the stability needed to sustain security and prosperity on a global scale. But we can not export “smart power” until we practice “smart growth” at home. We must seize the opportunity to be a model of stability, a model of the values we cherish for the rest of the world to emulate. And we must ensure that our domestic policies are aligned with our foreign policies. Our own “smart growth” can serve as the exportable model of “smart power.” Because, truthfully, it is in our interest to see the rest of the world prosper and the world market thrive, just as it is in our interest to see our neighbors prosper and our own urban centers and rural communities come back to life."

And also:

"Only by developing internal strength through smart growth at home and smart power abroad, applied with strategic agility, can we muster the credible influence needed to remain a world leader.

Comments