Eco friendly weaponry

[Yuri Nalyssus]

One of the four riders of the apocalypse has gone green as revealed in this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6081486.stm).

Reduced-lead bullets and recyclable explosives are among the developments being put forward by arms manufacturer British Aerospace (BAE) as part of a major investment in ecologically-sound weaponry... "The idea behind the lead-free bullets, for example, is that if they get lodged in the environment, they "do not cause any additional harm".
The article also mentions the "bang free bomb" (heaven forfend that someone might suffer hearing impairment prior to being vapourised) and fuel efficient jet fighters (doubtless with factory fitted child seats). To any one caught up in conflict it will come as a great relief to know that the bullet that is ripping through their vital organs was manufactured from recyclable materials - wonder if they'll have that cute little logo with the arrows on?

Don't know whether to laugh or cry really.

Yuri

[Ashles]

That is... amazing...

"We all have a duty of care to ensure that from cradle to grave products are being used appropriately and do not do lasting harm."
Weapons designed to not "do lasting harm"!!!???

she cited explosives that eventually turn into manure, which essentially "regenerate the environment that they had initially destroyed."
So landmines will be a good thing because post-war roses will be well fertilised?

This takes the concept of cynical nod to green issues to almost unimaginable levels.

Who exactly are they trying to impress?

I'm sure anyone in the market for weapons doesn't exactly have environmental concerns as a key priority.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Weapons designed to not "do lasting harm"!!!???Maybe they only kill people for a while, then they get better.

Yuri

[jmercer]

That is... amazing...

So landmines will be a good thing because post-war roses will be well fertilised?



Blood already does that quite well, Ashles, my friend. :(

[drkitten]

This takes the concept of cynical nod to green issues to almost unimaginable levels.

Who exactly are they trying to impress?

I'm sure anyone in the market for weapons doesn't exactly have environmental concerns as a key priority.

I'm not so sure. One of the major problems with many kinds of weapons is their persistance in the battlefield, which makes the battlefield itself less useful.

Think of it this way -- if you need to farm the land after you've captured it, you don't want your serfs to be poisoned or blown up, yes?

[I less than three logic]

Who exactly are they trying to impress?
Militant environmentalist?

... PETA?

[jmercer]

I'm not so sure. One of the major problems with many kinds of weapons is their persistance in the battlefield, which makes the battlefield itself less useful.

Think of it this way -- if you need to farm the land after you've captured it, you don't want your serfs to be poisoned or blown up, yes?

Yes, indeed. People are still dying from minefields in locations where the conflict has been over for years. Unexploded mines and shells, and so forth.

The best way to prevent this is to not have wars. An impossible wish, perhaps, but a worth-while one.

[phildonnia]

Anyone remember the Neutron Bomb?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[drkitten]

Yes, indeed. People are still dying from minefields in locations where the conflict has been over for years. Unexploded mines and shells, and so forth.

The best way to prevent this is to not have wars.

Um,.... yeah.

Pass me the (cough, cough) doobie, will ya? And another Twinkie?

Since "not having wars" is not going to happen, how about we look for a second-best way to prevent this?

[Ashles]

I'm not so sure. One of the major problems with many kinds of weapons is their persistance in the battlefield, which makes the battlefield itself less useful.

Think of it this way -- if you need to farm the land after you've captured it, you don't want your serfs to be poisoned or blown up, yes?
So you have to wait 20 years? And then you'll trust the mines to have deactivated?

I can't really see that happening.

And will these mines be cheaper than normal mines?

Because, and call me cynical is you will, but if someone is planning some form of war I can't see them paying extra to buy the nice degradable mines that will allow them to reuse land in some 20 years.

[ImaginalDisc]

Um,.... yeah.

Pass me the (cough, cough) doobie, will ya? And another Twinkie?

Since "not having wars" is not going to happen, how about we look for a second-best way to prevent this?

Ah, pacifist = pot smoking idiot.

Can we continue this conversation without insults? What is this, P &CE?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Anyone remember the Neutron Bomb?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Oh, yes...Kill the poor (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dead+kennedys/kill+the+poor_20038160.html)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Oh, yes...Kill the poor (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dead+kennedys/kill+the+poor_20038160.html)

Oh, nostalgia. Just went and ordered the CD to replace my old vinyl version.

[drkitten]

Ah, pacifist = pot smoking idiot.

No.

But pacifist who allows "the best" to become "the enemy of the merely good" = idiot.

Whether you smoke pot or not.

[geni]

One of the four riders of the apocalypse has gone green as revealed in this BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6081486.stm).


The article also mentions the "bang free bomb" (heaven forfend that someone might suffer hearing impairment prior to being vapourised) and fuel efficient jet fighters (doubtless with factory fitted child seats). To any one caught up in conflict it will come as a great relief to know that the bullet that is ripping through their vital organs was manufactured from recyclable materials - wonder if they'll have that cute little logo with the arrows on?

Don't know whether to laugh or cry really.

Yuri

A lot of weapons are fired on practice ranges. It is convient if pratice ranges do not become overly contaminatated.

[ImaginalDisc]

No.

But pacifist who allows "the best" to become "the enemy of the merely good" = idiot.

Whether you smoke pot or not.

You might try reading what JM actually wrote.


The best way to prevent this is to not have wars. An impossible wish, perhaps, but a worth-while one.

[Roboramma]

You might try reading what JM actually wrote.

Well, so far these "eco-friendly weapons" seem silly, but JM seems to be implying that since the best thing to do is not to have wars, we shouldn't bother with what Dr. K calls the "second best" in this case land-mines that deactivate themselves, and all the rest.

They may or may not turn out to be worth the extra expense. However, the fact that not having wars would be better than having wars that do less ecological damage is a poor argument for not trying to limit the ecological damage that one does in war.

There might be others - it could make you less likely to be sucessful, the amount of damage that goes undone because of these weapons might be miniscule, etc.

JM's argument might make sense if resources that could be devoted to pasifism were instead being devoted to "eco-friendly weapons", and if you could show that pasifism was a better use of those resources. But I doubt that either of those things are true.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think second best has to be for the U.S. (and a relatively small number of other countries) to sign and adhere to the Land Mind Treaty (that bans the use of anti-personell land mines).

"Smart" mines and time-limited mines or eco-friendly mines are way down on the list, IMHO. There are plenty of amputees who can attest to that.

[ponderingturtle]

That is... amazing...


Weapons designed to not "do lasting harm"!!!???


So landmines will be a good thing because post-war roses will be well fertilised?

This takes the concept of cynical nod to green issues to almost unimaginable levels.

Who exactly are they trying to impress?
.

The people who are so worried about all the uranium on the battlefeild. So they introduce special tungstun rounds but I have not heard if they are less toxic or not.

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, pacifist = pot smoking idiot.


You mean the amish and quakers are not the number 1 suppliers of pot?

[ponderingturtle]

I think second best has to be for the U.S. (and a relatively small number of other countries) to sign and adhere to the Land Mind Treaty (that bans the use of anti-personell land mines).

"Smart" mines and time-limited mines or eco-friendly mines are way down on the list, IMHO. There are plenty of amputees who can attest to that.

and that is not going to happen as long as north korea keeps up its actions

[Ziggurat]

and fuel efficient jet fighters (doubtless with factory fitted child seats)

Screw environmentalism, THIS one has rather direct military and economic advantages. More fuel efficiency means it's cheaper to operate and to train pilots (and training time is a MAJOR factor in pilot ability in combat), it can have a longer range, it can patrol for longer time periods, and the burden on supply chains to keep such planes running while deployed can be reduced. Those are all direct military advantages.

For example, the new F-22 has what's called Supercruise: it's the first fighter which can operate at very high speeds (above Mach 1.5) without afterburners. Afterburners are very fuel inefficient, and cannot be used for prolonged periods without running out of fuel. They're used when the aircraft enter combat, but generally not when the aircraft is trying to get from point A to point B. Supercruise means that getting from A to B can happen a LOT faster, so the plane can effectively cover a whole lot more area. Fuel efficiency has major military implications quite aside from environmentalism.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, so far these "eco-friendly weapons" seem silly, but JM seems to be implying that since the best thing to do is not to have wars, we shouldn't bother with what Dr. K calls the "second best" in this case land-mines that deactivate themselves, and all the rest.

They may or may not turn out to be worth the extra expense. However, the fact that not having wars would be better than having wars that do less ecological damage is a poor argument for not trying to limit the ecological damage that one does in war.

There might be others - it could make you less likely to be sucessful, the amount of damage that goes undone because of these weapons might be miniscule, etc.

JM's argument might make sense if resources that could be devoted to pasifism were instead being devoted to "eco-friendly weapons", and if you could show that pasifism was a better use of those resources. But I doubt that either of those things are true.

You also seem unable to read JM's post. JM quite clearly says the best soltuion is no wars, but of course, that's likely impossible.

[Roboramma]

You also seem unable to read JM's post. JM quite clearly says the best soltuion is no wars, but of course, that's likely impossible.
Hey, ID. I guess I can see your point. I just wonder what he was trying to say, then? Anyway, I'm happy to let it go, and I think all the valid points that regard the actual topic have been made.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you JM.

[luchog]

The people who are so worried about all the uranium on the battlefeild. So they introduce special tungstun rounds but I have not heard if they are less toxic or not.

Yes, tungsten is significantly less toxic than depleted uranium. It's also less effective; but in the sort of wars happening right now; the differences are minor.

I can guarantee that if we end up seeing wars involving the latest tech on both sides, there will be a resurgence in the use of DU rounds, regardless of how loudly and stridently environmentalists may complain about it. Immediate effectiveness and even minor advantages will always give way to secondary concerns.

[Soapy Sam]

Lets just shoot the environmentalists. Problem solved.
Aren't they all communists anyway?

[Ziggurat]

Aren't they all communists anyway?

Not all, but a lot. We call them watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

[The Painter]

she cited explosives that eventually turn into manure, which essentially "regenerate the environment that they had initially destroyed."

"It blew my house up, but my lawn has never been so green."