PDA

View Full Version : Eco-friendly...bullets?



tofuman80
07-31-2005, 04:45 PM
Found this a few minutes ago...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/29/green.bullets.ap/index.html

The article talks about how these "green" bullets, having been researched for six years now, are not all that enviormentally friendly. But whats really bugging me is that the military, instead of spending this extra money to help protect our soldiers, is finding new ways to protect the enviroment. WTF?!?!?!?!?? I'm not that big of an eco-freak (ok, wrong word, enviromentalist) but don't you think this is going a little overboard?

Random Guy #1: F$ck! I got shot!
Random Guy #2: Well, at least the enviroment's safe! *smile*

sonsaku
07-31-2005, 05:36 PM
Do you know how much the government spends on each area of study, from weapons development to personel safety?

Random guy 1: I don't do enough research!
Random guy 2: Dood, you're a product of a North American education!
Random guy 1: Whoa man...that's like, so totally narrow minded....what were we talking about..dood?

Gunner07
07-31-2005, 05:45 PM
interesting and stupid....maybe they'll use this slogan for it:

kill as many people as you like and keep the environment clean!

...something in there sounds a little off don't you think? :p

Kikklik
07-31-2005, 06:08 PM
every little bit helps here and there.

Rigby
07-31-2005, 06:12 PM
UH what are you talking about. Lead is hazardous to young children. It is a real ***** to clean up warzones, lead just adds a lot more trouble because you can never find almost any bullets. So much for spreading democracy and good will to the people of the country being invaded.

Like the USA would care about making less environmentally hazardous bullets anyway.

You want to protect the soldiers, don't put them into situations that find them not in favor.

Fusilier
07-31-2005, 06:45 PM
Like the USA would care about making less environmentally hazardous bullets anyway.


Last I heard they were considering switching out the DU penetrators for Abrams tank shells into tungsten ones similiar to those of European nations. Now,DU is a fairly dangerous thing when in dust form, but what I want to know is how they're going to make up the loss in effectiveness which would come to switching to Tungsten. Perhaps adopting the new 120 L55 cannon from Rheinmetall?

virtual_mage
07-31-2005, 07:07 PM
they dont have a choice in a way,i live close to a military base here in quebec,and we have a trouble a residential area close to the basse have all is water contamined whit lead ,the soil is contamined to,just becausse of the training bullet,so i understand why they do that ,and they have to,sure the best way would be to stop wars but well......people that start it hide and will never fight anyway so why they should care?

Denamic
07-31-2005, 07:25 PM
Lead is poisonous. If we plan on killing each other a lot in the near future, we might also end up poisoning ourselves, or the people that live/will live in whatever old warzone. Though why you'd want to make bullets, whose original purpose is, in fact, inflicting death upon a second party, less deadly is beyond me.

Fusilier
07-31-2005, 08:31 PM
Probably the costs of lead clean up.

That's why a lot of old firing ranges were closed IIRC. All those bullets eventually containminated the area and made it unself for people, so they were closed off. New ranges employ stuff like slanted walls so that used ammunition could be collected and disposed of without any shell fragments and the like. Pretty clever stuff if you ask me.

Of course ex-battlefields do not have such luxuries.

nodoka
07-31-2005, 11:38 PM
I think the point of researching it was to stop the costs of cleaning up the lead in their military training bases, as that costs a lot, and also halts progress of training. Also, if the lead reaches their water supplies, then their soldiers will fall ill or something... and that wouldn't be good for their defence or their military power in general. Thus, I believe that there IS a reason behind researching it, just that they haven't exactly given the main reason why...

Karis Fra Mauro
08-01-2005, 08:37 AM
The article talks about how these "green" bullets, having been researched for six years now, are not all that enviormentally friendly. But whats really bugging me is that the military, instead of spending this extra money to help protect our soldiers, is finding new ways to protect the enviroment. WTF?!?!?!?!?? I'm not that big of an eco-freak (ok, wrong word, enviromentalist) but don't you think this is going a little overboard?

Random Guy #1: F$ck! I got shot!
Random Guy #2: Well, at least the enviroment's safe! *smile*

Hmm, I don't think the environment should come at the expense of soldier safety... Hopefully they have enough funds to do both. I think it would be a good thing for public relations purposes though. The US is of course number one at winning battles, but to win an actually war you need "hearts and minds". Basically, there's an opportunity here if you ask me. I mean, you think Al-Queda is putting much effort into these sorts of things? Lead is really dangerous after all, although for a wimpy country like canada that's more a factor in hunting than reclaiming battlefields.