Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 43    Average: 3.4/5]
59 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 27443
Rating: 3.4
Category: Science
Date: 09/19/06 02:15 AM

59 Responses to `Environmentally Friendly` Weapons.

  1. Profile photo of dreddloxx
    dreddloxx Male 70 & Over
    287 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 12:13 am
    Link: `Environmentally Friendly` Weapons. - They have just GOT to be joking.
  2. Profile photo of mcnaial1
    mcnaial1 Male 18-29
    460 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 2:23 am
    yay! first one!
  3. Profile photo of eagles5
    eagles5 Male 13-17
    272 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 2:24 am
    how the hell can a weapon be environmentally friendly. thats an oxymoron.
  4. Profile photo of Invalok
    Invalok Male 18-29
    724 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 2:25 am
    Lol! Just picture it...

    EVERY ONE DUCK!

    CLEAN BURNING RPG INC!

  5. Profile photo of Tyrizzle
    Tyrizzle Male 18-29
    908 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 2:38 am
    reduced smoke grenade?....
    that makes it a what?
  6. Profile photo of dudeman1st
    dudeman1st Male 30-39
    1355 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:06 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?
  7. Profile photo of lolakitty72
    lolakitty72 Female 30-39
    1972 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:11 am
    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.
  8. Profile photo of Vikstar
    Vikstar Female 18-29
    399 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:56 am
    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...
  9. Profile photo of skinneechik
    skinneechik Female 30-39
    82 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:50 am
    If there are any aliens out there PUH-LEEZE beam me up now!
  10. Profile photo of kimmylearose
    kimmylearose Female 18-29
    297 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:57 am
    ^^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
  11. Profile photo of freeze43
    freeze43 Male 18-29
    85 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 5:09 am
    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?
  12. Profile photo of maples
    maples Male 13-17
    1217 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 6:34 am
    lung helping cigs
  13. Profile photo of tezzanator
    tezzanator Male 13-17
    145 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 7:19 am
    reduced smoke , smoke grenade , lol

    less flashy flash bang lol

  14. Profile photo of nickbrick
    nickbrick Male 13-17
    797 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 7:27 am
    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!

  15. Profile photo of Vikstar
    Vikstar Female 18-29
    399 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 7:29 am
    bio degreadable bio-hazard suit..

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

  16. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 7:53 am
    "Environmentally friendly"? I`m sure they could come up with much better ways for preserving the environment than that. Say, not make weapons?
  17. Profile photo of flourchild29
    flourchild29 Female 30-39
    269 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 8:05 am
    new slogan:
    kill the people
    not the planet
  18. Profile photo of Woot45
    Woot45 Female 13-17
    1398 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 9:55 am
    New slogan:
    NUKE EVERYTHING.
    That`s what I think.
  19. Profile photo of ryan14
    ryan14 Male 13-17
    2057 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 10:57 am
    heheheheheee!
  20. Profile photo of timak
    timak Male 18-29
    110 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 11:08 am
    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.
  21. Profile photo of thespread
    thespread Male 13-17
    215 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 11:20 am
    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.
  22. Profile photo of 7451
    7451 Male 70 & Over
    1478 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 12:07 pm
    The creepiest thing is that it`s real.

    Moo. This be a link, so click it!!!

  23. Profile photo of ConverseUK
    ConverseUK Male 18-29
    1271 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 12:29 pm
    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.

  24. Profile photo of Invalok
    Invalok Male 18-29
    724 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 12:47 pm
    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...

  25. Profile photo of mapleleaf
    mapleleaf Male 13-17
    162 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 1:16 pm
    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
  26. Profile photo of KMeTG
    KMeTG Male 18-29
    1265 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 1:36 pm
    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.

  27. Profile photo of bubblefun
    bubblefun Male 40-49
    1 post
    September 19, 2006 at 2:22 pm
    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?

  28. Profile photo of Dude_
    Dude_ Male 13-17
    143 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 2:54 pm
    oxymoron in the "environmentally safe" way, but hey, every little bit counts in my book.
  29. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:31 pm
    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.

  30. Profile photo of Accurs3ds0ul
    Accurs3ds0ul Male 13-17
    272 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:38 pm
    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.
  31. Profile photo of fabricant
    fabricant Male 18-29
    503 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:51 pm
    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....

  32. Profile photo of ConverseUK
    ConverseUK Male 18-29
    1271 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 3:58 pm
    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,

  33. Profile photo of Mbirdgurl
    Mbirdgurl Female 13-17
    920 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:00 pm
    I`m up for it.
  34. Profile photo of digganob
    digganob Male 30-39
    135 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:13 pm
    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?

  35. Profile photo of digganob
    digganob Male 30-39
    135 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:16 pm
    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.
  36. Profile photo of athyle
    athyle Male 18-29
    75 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:20 pm
    next: the new and improved 0 trans fat bullets...
  37. Profile photo of ConverseUK
    ConverseUK Male 18-29
    1271 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:23 pm
    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.
  38. Profile photo of Invalok
    Invalok Male 18-29
    724 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:38 pm
    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!"

  39. Profile photo of ConverseUK
    ConverseUK Male 18-29
    1271 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 4:55 pm
    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.

  40. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 5:11 pm
    this article is total BS
  41. Profile photo of soro
    soro Male 13-17
    693 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 6:14 pm
    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

  42. Profile photo of RyanF701
    RyanF701 Male 18-29
    2486 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 6:30 pm
    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..

  43. Profile photo of KMeTG
    KMeTG Male 18-29
    1265 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 6:33 pm
    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.

  44. Profile photo of shizzaster
    shizzaster Male 13-17
    1866 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 6:37 pm
    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.
  45. Profile photo of violingirl77
    violingirl77 Female 13-17
    1426 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 6:47 pm
    I hope they`re kidding......
  46. Profile photo of nicole_xo
    nicole_xo Female 13-17
    2552 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 9:20 pm
    Well since Global Warming should happen in about 30 years, why not?
  47. Profile photo of Boxtop
    Boxtop Male 18-29
    652 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 11:11 pm
    Hell, why don`t we just start killing each other with wifflebats and inflatable hammers?
  48. Profile photo of Boxtop
    Boxtop Male 18-29
    652 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 11:14 pm
    THEY`RE environmentally safe...oh, no wait...they`re made of plastics.
  49. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    439 posts
    September 19, 2006 at 11:33 pm
    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.

  50. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 12:05 am
    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.

  51. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4019 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 12:11 am
    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..)

  52. Profile photo of S_J_W
    S_J_W Male 18-29
    1465 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 5:17 am
    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.
  53. Profile photo of Galileo53
    Galileo53 Male 13-17
    731 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 7:48 am
    symon hill is my hero ;P
  54. Profile photo of Galileo53
    Galileo53 Male 13-17
    731 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 7:48 am
    and whats a smoke grenade with reduced smoke supposed to be
  55. Profile photo of squee13
    squee13 Female 18-29
    406 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 4:43 pm
    heh, my dad works for BAE systems... but he makes radars...
  56. Profile photo of Avemtilla
    Avemtilla Female 13-17
    105 posts
    September 20, 2006 at 7:40 pm
    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.
  57. Profile photo of NoSoup4u
    NoSoup4u Male 18-29
    85 posts
    September 21, 2006 at 2:33 am
    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.

  58. Profile photo of xDDitsmee
    xDDitsmee Female 18-29
    266 posts
    September 24, 2006 at 1:25 pm
    Becuase, of course, after you shoot everyone, you don`t want their country to be unclean right?
  59. Profile photo of nissanxterra
    nissanxterra Male 18-29
    425 posts
    December 13, 2006 at 3:29 pm
    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.

Leave a Reply