`Environmentally Friendly` Weapons.

Submitted by: dreddloxx 10 years ago Science
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20426989-1702,00.html

They have just GOT to be joking.
There are 59 comments:
Male 425
I JUST watched this on the history channel, and the whole time I was watching it I was yelling at the screen because this is the stupidest thing I`ve ever heard of.
0
Reply
Female 266
Becuase, of course, after you shoot everyone, you don`t want their country to be unclean right?
0
Reply
Male 85
many modern weapons are already designed to reduce collateral damage. thats the whole point... to damage what you want, when you want it, not to leave crap lying around for the next 50 years.

i see this as a good thing. obviously not as good as everyone waking up tomorrow and saying "I`m not going to kill other people anymore", but you are deluding yourselves if you think thats likely.

0
Reply
Female 105
You know... Killing people is actually good for the enviroment.... You know, the whole decomposition. Returning to the earth what you got from it, and all that. But that is kinda wacked out.
0
Reply
Female 406
heh, my dad works for BAE systems... but he makes radars...
0
Reply
Male 731
and whats a smoke grenade with reduced smoke supposed to be
0
Reply
Male 731
symon hill is my hero ;P
0
Reply
Male 1,465
Yah, weapons kill people. And guess what, people would still kill each other and wage wars without major weapons manufactures around. How do I know? Because I’ve taken at least one history class… The point is that they are trying to make weapons that won’t make people sick or kill them well after the conflicts are over. War is an inevitability in the kind of world we’re living in, the least we can do is try to not f--- up the environment for the survivors while we’re slaughtering each other.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
And for all this stupid talk about the evils of liberalism, lets point out, a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (TRUMAN) is the only person in history to drop an A-Bomb in anger. It was a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT (Kennedy) who engaged combat in Vietnam. Yeah, those guys were real pansies. I vote a straight democrat ticket. I worked for Kerry`s campaign. I carry a concealed pistol every day, and believe in the right to bear arms. I`m pro-choice, and for the seperation of church and state, so I`m called a "liberal," when that label means nothing.

So this idea that Democrats are weak on defense is illusory, and not borne out by history (which conservatives sometimes ignore..)

0
Reply
Male 4,014
Whenever someone talks crap about gun ownership, and how dangerous guns are to the general public, I always think about the fact that over HALF of all gun deaths are suicides. So you don`t need to fret about a stranger shooting you, you need to worry about your depressed ass shooting yourself.

Digganob, don`t be so narrow minded to make such broad generalizations about liberals. You clearly listen to too much Hannity. I`m liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and the illusion produced by the right in the US is that the term "liberal" actually means something.

No one tells kids just to go ahead and screw just use condoms. Nobody. But as you so wisely point out, kids will screw. What LIBERALS don`t like, is conservative pricks telling our kids that Jesus doesn`t want them to screw, so they don`t need to know about condoms and birth-control, because screwing is wrong. We tell them not to screw, but if they do, be safe.

0
Reply
Male 438
Most weapons are not used to kill people, 95% of them (espetialy for police and security guards) are used as deterents.

in the us almost all rounds fired are for training purposes.

Would you really want to polute the crap out of a farmer`s field when he shoots a coupple shells into a beer bottle?

Lead is extremely toxic, this is a reasonable initiative, not nessearily a good one, but reasonable.

0
Reply
Male 651
THEY`RE environmentally safe...oh, no wait...they`re made of plastics.
0
Reply
Male 651
Hell, why don`t we just start killing each other with wifflebats and inflatable hammers?
0
Reply
Female 2,552
Well since Global Warming should happen in about 30 years, why not?
0
Reply
Female 1,426
I hope they`re kidding......
0
Reply
Male 1,866
lollercoaster.
here you can kill whoever the hell you want.
just make sure you don`t put holes in the o-zone layer while doing it.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
On top of what I said, another way to put it would be that weapons are not only harming targets but everyone else as well.

At least with environmentally-friendly weapons only the target is harmed.

Although Invalok makes a good point.

0
Reply
Male 2,486
rofl.. I think if your in a warzone being shot at with missles and shells, saving the tree your using for cover is the LAST thing on your mind.

It wont mess up the area around it any less, the explosion will still be there, it just wont pollute as much.

How many times have you ever heard of people being effected by pollution caused from people shooting at eachother? Not many..

0
Reply
Male 693
Haha, the article is true at least. Why do we have to pollute the world?

Well, I was actually paying attention to the REVERSE auction ad. :D

0
Reply
Male 10,440
this article is total BS
0
Reply
Male 1,270
From the start of humanity there were wars and it`s really got worse as religion divides our communities and world. People have different views and they want to enforce them on others.

I say the only way to stop it is to kill all religion. But of course that`s impossible.

0
Reply
Male 724
What I find Ironic is the fact that we`ve basicaly given up on the idea that humanity can live in peace...

Rather we`ve moved on to the idea that "Well were all going to kill each other, might as well make it Eco Friendly!"

0
Reply
Male 1,270
Smoke grenades these days are filled with a substance called "titanium tetrachloride". It`s not very nice to breathe and it can`t really do the environment much good. But then again. screening a movement is very unlikely in the days of modern warcraft, and signal smoke will quickly be dispersed so I don`t think theres too much danger from them.
I like the idea of reduced lead though, just think of the thousands of stray bullets a new troop will put over an enemy`s head before getting a hit on target.
0
Reply
Male 75
next: the new and improved 0 trans fat bullets...
0
Reply
Male 135
Actually, I think this same approach should be applied to celebratory fireworks. I love the pretty bottle-rockets, but I know it puts the bad stuff in the air.
0
Reply
Male 135
If "Clean Weapons" is an oxymoron, then so is "Safe Sex" outside of a monogamous relationship. You can`t stop people from shooting each other any more than you can stop people from having sex.

Hah, Liberals! . . . You tell our shildren to use condoms instead of telling them not to have sex. But you want to tell let the military keep the dirty weapons and just tell them not shoot people?

About the "reduced smoke for grenades": I think the idea is for fragmentation and incindiary grenades. Obviously Smoke-Grenades would need to make smoke. But others don`t have to. Maybe there`s even a way to make a "cleaner" kind of smoke?

0
Reply
Female 920
I`m up for it.
0
Reply
Male 1,270
bubblefun..
I`m not sure how much you`re knowledge of current warfare is so I won`t fall into the common argument of opinion. However, `the terrorist scum` are actually known to make weapons of their own believe it or not. And they use them and any means they can in order to stand up for, nay, to FORCE ONTO OTHERS what they think is right.

You asked multiple questions about the freedom so please alert me if I miss anything here...
Freedom is what many people in Arab countries don not have (I`m not saying all Arabs are terrorists). Their values and `rules` go against human nature and well-being. They`re a suppressive culture where people find it near impossible to express their own views. You have the right of free speech, hence this argument is possible, but if we lay down arms and let a DICTATOR take over (Which could very easily happen if we do not fight back), we lose society as we know it. But hey, maybe you like women to be surpressed, children to be brought up fighting,

0
Reply
Male 503
Heres a really good weapon thats environmentally friendly. A laser rifle!

Wait...that doesnt exist...yet. We will have to stick with what we`ve got....

Also, isnt there such thing as "Smoke grenades"?
Whats the point of reducing the smoke from one of your weapons of cover?
Or something....

0
Reply
Male 272
Wow, environmentally friendly.
That can`t have been invented by the Bush administration...
All I really care is that the weapons kill people, and I am left unharmed.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
I think the goal here is laudable. Common bullets contain lead cores, and a practice range can become contaminated just by the spent bullets. And the propellants used in bullets and rockets and other explosives are very toxic, so why not work to reduce the toxicity of these arms? It will reduce wear on the weapons that fire such rounds, and won`t ruin the environment.

These environmentally friendly arms are most valuable, however, not so much on the field of battle but at practice locations, where all this spent ordnance will pile up.

You`ll notice, in the article, the only critic they sight is from a group which is opposed to all arms trade, so of course their view is that all weapons are bad. So those pascifists obviously won`t give credit where its due.

All in all, this is a progressive development.

0
Reply
Male 143
oxymoron in the "environmentally safe" way, but hey, every little bit counts in my book.
0
Reply
Male 1
ConverseUK..

who makes the weapons the "terrorist scum" are using?

and you say.. "wars to preserve freedom"????
freedom from what? freedom from who? whos freedom?

0
Reply
Male 1,265
Personally I think that armies are going to try to annihilate each other but the environment gets caught in the crossfire.

I know it sounds like a stupid idea at first, but if people are going to kill each other then they should at least be clean about it for everyone else`s sake.

Let`s not forget that after a war, survivors have to try to pick up the pieces and it would be easier on them if they didn`t have to worry about the effects of said war on the atmosphere and stuff.

0
Reply
Male 162
lol i can see a world war 3: earth bombs ! explode and make no crator. or Vaporizing bullets
dont make small craters in objects and vaporize inside a human body :-P
0
Reply
Male 724
Maybe make missiles that when exploding, send off billions of seeds. That way you could plant trees in the newly formed crater the missile just formed!

Or... put seeds in each of the bullets! so that every missed shot has a chance of planting a tree!

oooh ... so smart... sometimes it hurts to be so smart...

0
Reply
Male 1,270
The guy in the article said the idea of environmentally friendly weapons was laughable...but I`d just love to know his answer to `What would you call them then?`
Notice that they don`t call them `Human Life Preserving Weapons`. Environmentally friendly means they are friendly to the environment...reducing waste chemicals and materials in an efficient way.
You think we should just stop making the weapons and let the terrorist scum walk all over us? Wheter you like it or not, there will always be wars to preseve freedom, and its our duty to do this in a way which doesn`t destroy this world.

Okay, I`m done.

0
Reply
Male 1,478
The creepiest thing is that it`s real.

[url=http://www.baesystems.com/]Moo. This be a link, so click it!!![/url]

0
Reply
Male 215
Wars aren`t going away anytime soon, it can`t be a bad thing that they are doing this, no matter how hypocritical it may seem.
0
Reply
Male 110
I would hate for the person I was shooting at to get lead poisoning from the bullets. Or if I miss with my grenade, I don`t want them to get smoke in their eyes... That would just be rude.
0
Reply
Male 2,057
heheheheheee!
0
Reply
Female 1,398
New slogan:
NUKE EVERYTHING.
That`s what I think.
0
Reply
Female 268
new slogan:
kill the people
not the planet
0
Reply
Male 2,600
"Environmentally friendly"? I`m sure they could come up with much better ways for preserving the environment than that. Say, not make weapons?
0
Reply
Female 399
bio degreadable bio-hazard suit..

although I do agree with freeze, the humour in this idea is just too tempting.

0
Reply
Male 797
dudeman1st
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:06:48 AM

It`s actually supposed to be good for our troops and civilians, you morons. You wanna go walking around in a warzone full of depleted uranium and lead dust?


But of course! How could I have missed that point!

0
Reply
Male 145
reduced smoke , smoke grenade , lol

less flashy flash bang lol

0
Reply
Male 1,217
lung helping cigs
0
Reply
Male 85
I think it`s a good idea personally- people are always going to kill people, why not make sure that they screw up the area around them a little less?
0
Reply
Female 297
^^to Vikstar
and replanting the trees they accidently blew up, filling in holes, bringing back to life dead animals, etc
mind you, by killing of all humanity, the environment would be way better off
0
Reply
Female 82
If there are any aliens out there PUH-LEEZE beam me up now!
0
Reply
Female 399
I like the image that after a big shootout, the soldiers on both sides call time-out to go around collecting all their used up shells for later recycling...
0
Reply
Female 1,972
The whole point of weaponry is to kill people and break things...I would think the last thing I look for is the EnergyStar seal.
0
Reply
Male 1,354
It`s actually supposed to be good for our troops and civilians, you morons. You wanna go walking around in a warzone full of depleted uranium and lead dust?
0
Reply
Male 908
reduced smoke grenade?....
that makes it a what?
0
Reply
Male 724
Lol! Just picture it...

EVERY ONE DUCK!

CLEAN BURNING RPG INC!

0
Reply
Male 272
how the hell can a weapon be environmentally friendly. thats an oxymoron.
0
Reply
Male 460
yay! first one!
0
Reply
Male 287
Link: `Environmentally Friendly` Weapons. [Rate Link] - They have just GOT to be joking.
0
Reply