October 21, 2006
Socially Responsible Warfare
Check out the latest from the UK. I guess we're seeing the end of hot lead and loud noises on the battlefield.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From Reuters:
British arms manufacturer BAE Systems is planning to design 'green' munitions, including lead-free bullets and rockets with reduced toxins, Britain's Times reports. Also in the pipeline are jets, fighting vehicles and artillery without dangerous compounds which can "harm the environment and pose a risk to people," the company is quoted as saying.Just what's needed. Socially responsible warfare. No noise, no smoke, no lead sounds more like surrender than warfare."Weapons are going to be used and when they are, we try to make them as safe for the user as possible," said Dr Debbie Allen, director of the company's corporate social responsibility.
BAE Systems has full support from Britain's Ministry of Defence, which wants to see quieter warheads in order to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
02:55 PM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I saw a show on, I believe, the History Channel about green munitions. Our own armed forces are going to adopt them too. The goal is to literally get the lead out...of the battlefield, as it is toxic and can pollute groundwater, etc.
The new munitions are supposedly as effectively lethal as the current standard. We shall see.
The new munitions are supposedly as effectively lethal as the current standard. We shall see.
Posted by: Joab at October 21, 2006 04:09 PM (8Mue9)
2
And we wouldn't want to wake anyone with the noise pollution from the battlefield.
Posted by: Mike at October 21, 2006 04:23 PM (1n7nV)
3
The "green ammo" is a big deal. People who work at shooting ranges do typically show elevated lead levels. Soldiers shoot a lot of rounds too. That does get into your system. Long as it works when it hits people I'd prefer it isn't doing long term damage to me.
And on quieting vehicles and stuff, well, hearing damage is also a big deal and a tactical problem. Can't hear if a guy might be in the next room with a weapon if your ears are ringing.
And on quieting vehicles and stuff, well, hearing damage is also a big deal and a tactical problem. Can't hear if a guy might be in the next room with a weapon if your ears are ringing.
Posted by: Spade at October 21, 2006 04:30 PM (5iCK4)
4
At BAE we don't make the jihadists fall down.
We make the jihadists you knock down more eco-friendly!
We make the jihadists you knock down more eco-friendly!
Posted by: GI Joe at October 21, 2006 05:25 PM (0euLV)
5
Heading towards a Star Trek episode on a planet where warfare was all computer simulated. If an area was " hit " then those people would report to enter an extermination chamber. Then the rest of us could go on leading our peaceful lives.....
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 21, 2006 06:01 PM (Dd86v)
6
It's a widely-known truth (outside of America) that we can't keep fucking with the planet as if it doesn't matter. Provided they do the same job of splattering the enemy all over the local area (and thus, incidentally, providing vital nutrients to the soil), I can't think of any good reason why munitions developers should not be trying to avoid filling the environment with toxic shit. And as people have mentioned above, it's probably also good for the people firing the things...
Posted by: Jim Beam at October 21, 2006 06:18 PM (k9ls9)
7
if there has to be guns, then green munitions sounds like a good idea. And, you stupid machoism, isn't going to sway anyones opinion
Posted by: yermom at October 21, 2006 07:13 PM (6cnA/)
Posted by: davec at October 21, 2006 08:44 PM (QkWqQ)
9
You're making a mountain out of a molehill and you're on the wrong side of the milehill.
As an ex soldier and hawk, I'll tell you that chemical irritation is a minor, but sometimes annoying, part of soldiering. Like when you're coughing out a lung along with your buddies because you used smoke grenades indoors again. And of course exposure to chemicals is often cumulative and long term.
A soldier may fire but a dozen shots in battle, theoretically, in his career (or thousands more, but it will be but a small percentage of all the rounds he's fired in training) and at that time you're shooting to kill.
But if munitions are equally lethal, but with less dangerous chemicals, why does this bother you?
What advantage is it to cause lead poisoning and other chemical pollution issues in your soldiers and environment? Why subject civillians to more death and harm than necessary?
I am of the overwhelming force in combat school of thought. I accept collateral damage as a fact of war.
But why you want to unnecessarily subject your soldiers in training and combat and later occupation to more pollution "just because" escapes me.
This isn't a move toward non-lethal munitions. This is acknowledging that the variety and quantity of munitions is constantly increasing by a massive factor and why not use science to develop these so that, where possible, they don't have auxilliary negative effects that go beyond their main desired effect?
As an ex soldier and hawk, I'll tell you that chemical irritation is a minor, but sometimes annoying, part of soldiering. Like when you're coughing out a lung along with your buddies because you used smoke grenades indoors again. And of course exposure to chemicals is often cumulative and long term.
A soldier may fire but a dozen shots in battle, theoretically, in his career (or thousands more, but it will be but a small percentage of all the rounds he's fired in training) and at that time you're shooting to kill.
But if munitions are equally lethal, but with less dangerous chemicals, why does this bother you?
What advantage is it to cause lead poisoning and other chemical pollution issues in your soldiers and environment? Why subject civillians to more death and harm than necessary?
I am of the overwhelming force in combat school of thought. I accept collateral damage as a fact of war.
But why you want to unnecessarily subject your soldiers in training and combat and later occupation to more pollution "just because" escapes me.
This isn't a move toward non-lethal munitions. This is acknowledging that the variety and quantity of munitions is constantly increasing by a massive factor and why not use science to develop these so that, where possible, they don't have auxilliary negative effects that go beyond their main desired effect?
Posted by: Christoph at October 21, 2006 09:03 PM (L8rdZ)
10
Oh my yes, Go green warfare.....Good god, have we gone totally bonkers?
It's not bad enough we are killing people but now we want to kill them using green bullets.
God help us.
It's not bad enough we are killing people but now we want to kill them using green bullets.
God help us.
Posted by: civilbehavior at October 21, 2006 09:34 PM (fUXIe)
11
It sounds goofy, but it's really for the benefit of the people using said munitions, not for their enemies or bystanders. Okay, that crap about not harming the environment didn't really help their credibility, but from what I'm aware, mild hearing damage and lead poisoning are real issues for the troops.
As long as they're still just as lethal then that's fine. Our armed forces go through some serious hell out on the battlefield and I'm all for making their lives a little bit easier. Making it easier on civilians is kind of a neutral issue for me... it's good in one sense (the obvious sense), but not so good in the sense that it panders to the wrong-headed and dangerous expectation that civilians won't/can't be harmed in war.
Meh, who cares really... it's not as though they're forcing this stuff on anybody, they're just selling it. Free markets and all that crap, right?
As long as they're still just as lethal then that's fine. Our armed forces go through some serious hell out on the battlefield and I'm all for making their lives a little bit easier. Making it easier on civilians is kind of a neutral issue for me... it's good in one sense (the obvious sense), but not so good in the sense that it panders to the wrong-headed and dangerous expectation that civilians won't/can't be harmed in war.
Meh, who cares really... it's not as though they're forcing this stuff on anybody, they're just selling it. Free markets and all that crap, right?
Posted by: Aaron G at October 21, 2006 09:34 PM (N71Wr)
12
Some of you all against Green ammo, I wonder if you really know of what you speak. This is an actual long term hazard for soldiers.
A study done on Richmond, VA cops over 5 days of training at an outdoor range found their blood-lead levels went up 3X.
Now the use of FMJ rounds, like the military prefers for rifle and pistols (sadly) does reduce the exposure to the shooter compared to the JHPs etc that civies can use, but the primer is still a source. For guys assigned to ranges though, they're going to get exposure from both sources from the lead cores stuck in berms and the like.
Here's a short article:
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/feb97lead.html
If non-lead ammo kills people just as well as lead ammo, why not make the switch? At least for range work.
A study done on Richmond, VA cops over 5 days of training at an outdoor range found their blood-lead levels went up 3X.
Now the use of FMJ rounds, like the military prefers for rifle and pistols (sadly) does reduce the exposure to the shooter compared to the JHPs etc that civies can use, but the primer is still a source. For guys assigned to ranges though, they're going to get exposure from both sources from the lead cores stuck in berms and the like.
Here's a short article:
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/feb97lead.html
If non-lead ammo kills people just as well as lead ammo, why not make the switch? At least for range work.
Posted by: Spade at October 21, 2006 09:51 PM (5iCK4)
13
And as for noise reduction, that's why I want to buy a silencer for all my weapons. Go buy an AR-15, fire five rounds rapid without ear protection, and see if you can understand verbal commands over a radio. Battlefields are loud. That's not very helpful when you might have to yell at your own guys. Anything that reduces that increases effectiveness.
Also, think of a quieter artillery shell. Fuck noise pollution, you can now shell people and their buddies cross town might not know an attack is underway.
Also, think of a quieter artillery shell. Fuck noise pollution, you can now shell people and their buddies cross town might not know an attack is underway.
Posted by: Spade at October 21, 2006 09:54 PM (5iCK4)
14
What a bunch of crap. And I did fire thousands of rounds thru an AR-15. Is the entire world going sissy?
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 21, 2006 10:51 PM (iPzFO)
15
Regardless of what the bullets are made of, shot placement will have the deciding effect on what constitutes a lethal exposure.
On the other hand, quieter weapons may have a posible tactical advantage, and the less hazardous the materials our troops have to work with, the less safety crap they have to lug around. God loves the infantry, so he gave them APC's to keep their stuff in, but we shouldn't abuse the privilege either
I guess I don't know what to think. When anti tank rockets vaporize steel into gas, I'm sure you don't want to breath that stuff. I guess the bottom line has to be effectiveness.
If it costs the same, or less, to manufacture, and is not more difficult to handle as a logistical item, Ok. If it defeats the enemy as easily, or more easily, Ok. If it places no extra burdens, or reduces burdens on our troops who have to use the stuff, Ok. If our troops are as healthy, or healthier, because of the changes Ok. I say under those circumstances we can be 'green, and mean'. I would have to draw a line when it cuts into our fighting effectiveness, if it were up to me.
How do you make nukes 'green'? Or Sarin and other nerve agents? What about the development of sound based weapon systems which are ongoing? Will we someday decide that phasers are not enviromentally friendly, and not persue that technology? Will disintegrating the Borg cause bizarre electromagnetic pollution?
We need to be able to win. First, and foremost. Green is Ok too.
USA all the way!
On the other hand, quieter weapons may have a posible tactical advantage, and the less hazardous the materials our troops have to work with, the less safety crap they have to lug around. God loves the infantry, so he gave them APC's to keep their stuff in, but we shouldn't abuse the privilege either
I guess I don't know what to think. When anti tank rockets vaporize steel into gas, I'm sure you don't want to breath that stuff. I guess the bottom line has to be effectiveness.
If it costs the same, or less, to manufacture, and is not more difficult to handle as a logistical item, Ok. If it defeats the enemy as easily, or more easily, Ok. If it places no extra burdens, or reduces burdens on our troops who have to use the stuff, Ok. If our troops are as healthy, or healthier, because of the changes Ok. I say under those circumstances we can be 'green, and mean'. I would have to draw a line when it cuts into our fighting effectiveness, if it were up to me.
How do you make nukes 'green'? Or Sarin and other nerve agents? What about the development of sound based weapon systems which are ongoing? Will we someday decide that phasers are not enviromentally friendly, and not persue that technology? Will disintegrating the Borg cause bizarre electromagnetic pollution?
We need to be able to win. First, and foremost. Green is Ok too.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 22, 2006 12:20 AM (2OHpj)
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at October 22, 2006 01:42 AM (8e/V4)
17
I think it's a good idea overall, which is why I think lefturds and 'slamoturds should all be hanged with hemp ropes.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 22, 2006 05:45 AM (v3I+x)
18
USA all the way! ..... to the bank.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 22, 2006 10:07 AM (Dd86v)
19
What's next? Tear gas with less tears? I personally vote for the electromagnetic rail gun. Some facts: A projected naval rail gun with a 2.5km/sec muzzle velocity could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles, at a rate greater than 6 rounds per minute.
A test demonstrated that a rail gun projectile's kinetic energy could create a 10-foot diameter crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet - 3 to 5 times more effective than current guns.
Rail gun projectiles are smaller and easier to store: a standard AGS magazine holds 1,500 rounds; a rail gun magazine could hold 10,000 rounds in the same amount of space.
or an electromagnetic bomb
A test demonstrated that a rail gun projectile's kinetic energy could create a 10-foot diameter crater, 10 feet deep in solid ground, and achieve projectile penetration to 40 feet - 3 to 5 times more effective than current guns.
Rail gun projectiles are smaller and easier to store: a standard AGS magazine holds 1,500 rounds; a rail gun magazine could hold 10,000 rounds in the same amount of space.
or an electromagnetic bomb
Posted by: Stan the Infidel in Indonesia at October 22, 2006 10:26 AM (MDZw+)
20
THIS is the sort of thing we spend time arguing about? Maybe we should all go get a life!
Posted by: Subvet at October 22, 2006 12:42 PM (DNVxw)
21
Kinda remonds me of that Marine Captain not long ago pushing New Napalm. It was a kinder, gentler napalm. Killed more but burned less yet caused more dead troops than ones with inhumane live burn casualties.
Kindler, Gentler Napalm.
Kills more, wounds less!
Kindler, Gentler Napalm.
Kills more, wounds less!
Posted by: Barry 03 at October 22, 2006 04:32 PM (ds0+e)
22
copper bullets such as the ones manufactured by barnes actually penetate beter than conventional lead projectiles...
Blood is also known to enrich the soil......therefore
Be kind to the earth and Spill some Tango's blood with a copper bullet!
Blood is also known to enrich the soil......therefore
Be kind to the earth and Spill some Tango's blood with a copper bullet!
Posted by: Dave at October 23, 2006 02:41 PM (TQlCO)
23
I cna't approve of the nuke mecca thing. I can however suggest a Filthy's Pork Bomb cookout coolecting the er uh waste in port potties. Save, freeze into 20 lb blocks and drop that on whatever.
Posted by: Howie at October 23, 2006 02:57 PM (D3+20)
24
I'd pay a dollar to see that.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 23, 2006 11:47 PM (Dd86v)
25
How about a pork fat bomb.
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 24, 2006 06:19 PM (zqSqi)
26
I'd pay another dollar to see that.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 25, 2006 10:17 AM (Dd86v)
27
USA all the way to the bank. You better believe it. I love it.
Posted by: Greyrooster at October 26, 2006 11:32 PM (eqF9P)
28
jonny
Posted by: jonny at October 27, 2006 10:51 AM (/wHPX)
43kb generated in CPU 0.0716, elapsed 0.0905 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0751 seconds, 183 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0751 seconds, 183 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
