King Pyrrhus of Epirius fought in a war with the Romans more than two thousand three hundred years ago, and though he won the battle against Rome, it came at such a cost that the ancient historian Plutarch reported King Pyrrhus had said:

“If we are victorious in one more battle against the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

That was just after the victory at Asculum. Not too long after, Pyrrhus faced the Romans once more with his soldiers at the Battle at Heraclea, in which he too won but could not continue his campaign as he had too few soldiers, and ended up losing the war against the Romans because his victories came at too high a cost.

From this, a military term was born which is still used today: a “Pyrrhic Victory.”

At its most base level, this sort of win could be described as, “a win that comes at such a cost, it is a defeat.”

Pyrrhic Victories are to be avoided, as what purpose would losing soldiers gain you for ten miles of land, if after you take it, you wouldn’t have the men to defend those ten miles and lose it quickly thereafter? No, the only people who enjoy or seek Pyrrhic victories are the spiteful or the willfully stupid. You wouldn’t even have to be Sun Tzu to choose to avoid any “wins” that come at such a cost; it is defeat.

If, for the sake of this mental exercise, we imagine someone in our lives who we know to be exceptionally spiteful. This particular person was in their backyard, gazing at the rather large tree they had noticed over the past few years, which has been deteriorating noticeably. He rightly mulls over paying an arborist to trim it and then take it down, but he also believes in his own abilities and regards his understanding of tree felling to be good enough to possibly do it himself. However… he was leaning towards hiring that arborist….

Then the neighbor the man hates walks up to the fence and remarks hiring “a professional” to cut down the ugly, dying tree.

The spiteful man holds back a snarl but not a mouthy remark and chooses to cut it down himself. There in that spite is a moment of feeling victorious, even before the end and the result: that no matter the result, the spiteful man is gaining pleasure from what he perceives as an act of defiance. The tree falls on his own house.

“Spite” is a poor but common human emotion, and though not all Pyrrhic victories are born from spite, spite often results in such ends.

Strangely, the Federal government seems to be a gleeful, spiteful man. (As reported by NPR) they called up NASA and said, “Hey, those $705,000,000 satellites that you use to detect carbon (from which scientists service global temperature readouts), we want you to shut them down.” At least that’s my paraphrase from what NASA Scientist David Crisp, who had worked there for a long time, said. Other NASA scientists who have asked to remain anonymous have repeated the same messages, saying they were told if it got out, the Trump Administration wanted to order (my paraphrase again:) three-fourths a billion dollars’ worth of taxpayers’ hardware to burn up in the atmosphere, “they would be fired”.

Should someone presume it was done out of spite, based on previous actions of the Trump administration regarding reacting harshly to what they believed were oversteps, or beliefs held by Democrats and Liberals? Such as the belief that Democrats and Liberals were funding programs with taxpayer dollars that shouldn’t be funded, and that they were misusing funds? Instead of a healthy investigation, the Trump Administration fired tens of thousands of U.S. government employees and was then forced to hire many back either by the courts or because it turns out that those jobs were needed and couldn't be filled by other people.

Those spiteful actions likely supplied a momentary feeling of relief or smugness, but because they were hasty via spite, DOGE and the Trump administration saved no money for taxpayers. It is no secret that the bulk of conservatives do not believe in global warming, and it is another point of contention with Democrats. Would it not be reasonable to assume that the Trump Administration doesn’t like data indicating the global warming levels?

Elsewise, the $705,000,000 satellites the government wants to burn up in the atmosphere are also regularly used by farmers… and maybe Republicans don't really care as much about farmers as they have claimed throughout the years? Farmers use the data provided by these CO2 satellites in clever ways:

A: to measure the chlorophyll that plants release, which directly tells farmers the health of the crops (and is sometimes an early indicator of pest infestations).

B: These satellites identify disease and drought before it is visible to the eye or even by any other space-based satellites. Thus, with this information, farmers can better allocate fertilizer and water so as not to waste either (ask any farmer how expensive both of those things are).

From NPR, as explained by retired climate scientist Scott Denning:

“NASA and others have turned this happy accident (the activation of the carbon monitoring satellites) into an incredibly valuable set of maps of plant photosynthesis around the world. Lo and beyond, we also get these lovely high-resolution maps of plant growth and drought monitoring and forest mapping and all kinds of things, in addition to the CO2 measurements.”

It is clear Republicans do not believe (or care to believe) in global warming. This article isn’t a judgement either way, but it is a lambastment of the Pyrrhic Victory they are achieving if the assumption is ‘because the satellites monitor carbon levels, and thus global warming, they should be decommissioned’, (though the funding is already there to continue to run the program until the end of the year). Otherwise, if it is not about blind global warming hate, it must be the assumption that they wish for water, fertilizer and crop waste, and an increase in plant diseases and pests.

What a spiteful move, no?

To spite any so-called ‘Deep-State Global-Warming-Bois’, you are also doing so at the cost of cutting-edge farmer aid and cropland protection.

It could be supposed that the Trump Administration doesn't know this is one of the very best tools available to farmers right now, which private agriculture firms and the U.S. Department of Agriculture utilize to supply their data to farmers, but that would suppose that his administration didn’t do their research before ordering these CO2 satellites shut down. But like the law, ignorance isn’t a protection.

So, it might be a victory against the Democrats, but this Pyrrhic cost is too absurd to the future U.S. taxpayers who will have to pay more for water and food when simply keeping these satellites active would actively reduce the cost of both crops and water.

This is clearly a Pyrrhic Victory, for the cost to the current taxpayers is $705,000,000 USD.

Talk about cutting off your ($705 million) nose to spite the rest of your face (liberals, future taxpayers [your children], and all farmers).

“A win that comes at such a cost, it is a defeat."

Austin Petak is an aspiring novelist and freelance journalist who loves seeking stories and the quiet passions of the soul. If you are interested in reaching out to him to cover a story, you may find him at austinpetak@gmail.com.

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.