Stardate 20020926.2336

(Captain's log): I'm in an uncomfortable position here. The emails I've received and posts I've made over the last few days about alternate energy sources were really not something I wanted to spend time on, and I've felt as if I've been unwillingly dragged into it.

The original article where this entire thread started was a response by me to the contention by my correspondent "M." that if we were to shift to the use of innovative domestic energy sources and by so doing eliminate our imports of oil from the Arabs, that we would harm them sufficiently commercially so that it would no longer be necessary to fight a war against them.

My answer was twofold: that it isn't possible for us to do so, and that we'd still have to fight them even if we did.

The point of all this discussion of alternate energy sources was to demonstrate that we are not capable of ceasing to import oil in any kind of time frame which would affect the progress of this war.

But even if we could, it still wouldn't matter. Even if we ceased buying oil from them, and even if everyone else in the world did, and even if that deprived them of nearly all their foreign currency through trade, they would still represent an intolerable danger to us and we would still have to take the war to them, in order to prevent them bringing it to us. That's because terrorism is a very capital-unintensive form of war, and even the most impoverished nation on earth still has enough money for it, let alone non-governmental organizations like al Qaeda. It's unlikely that the entire attack a year ago cost even a million dollars. Nor is there any reason to believe that ceasing to buy their oil would remove the rage they feel towards us caused by their failure in the world. (In fact, by making their failure even more complete, it might well make them hate us even more.)

That is the aspect of this I am interested in. It's really the only aspect of it I'm interested in. I never really wanted to spend a lot of time talking about things like methane hydrates, which three people have now sent me letters about. What I wanted to point out was that we can't win this war by switching to alternate energy sources. Once that point's established, then for me any further discussion of alternate energy sources was a distraction which pulled me further and further away from what I want to think about: this war, how we have to fight it, where we'll have to fight it, against who, and what we'll eventually need to do in order to win it.

But the mail keeps flowing in, and four times now I've tried to write The Last Post About Obscure Energy Sources to make the point that they're not going to be able to help us avoid combat, so as to close the subject and let me get back on track, and each time I failed and the letters kept flowing in. So I'm reduced to begging you all to please stop sending me mail about alternate energy sources. Even if any of these energy sources are credible, they don't have anything to do with fighting this war.

We're not going to defeat Saddam Hussein by switching to biodiesel. Once I know that Saddam won't be defeated by switching to biodiesel, then it doesn't matter too much to me whether he won't be defeated with biodiesel that comes from oil discarded from McDonald's French fry makers, or instead that he won't be defeated with biodiesel that actually comes from genetically engineered soybeans which are specially grown for the purpose. He still won't be defeated by switching to biodiesel no matter where it comes from, and that's really all I care about it.

The only forms of energy which will substantially affect the outcome of this war are jet fuel, helicopter fuel, tank fuel, truck fuel, U-235 in the nuclear reactors in our carriers and submarines, fuel for all the other ships, and high explosives. I hope those are enough, because if they aren't then we'll have to rely on the energy of plutonium and tritium to win it, and I'd really rather not do that.