Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NATO Developing Environment Friendly Weapons

Posted by Hemos on from the love-the-earth-kill-the-people dept.

EGSonikku writes: "Although it may seem a bit odd, according to this msnbc.com story NATO and its member countries are developing so called 'green weapons' that produce similar effects to standard weaponry, without using chemicals that could be hazardous to the environment and the soldiers using them. Good to know that we can bomb each other without hurting the butterflies now, eh?" Heh -- it's the environmental bit shift of the neutron bomb -- "Kill the people, preserve the industry" becomes "Kill the people, preserve the land."

14 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Anything as long as you don't cut any kittens up! by wackybrit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We already know from Stile's kitty.mpg featuring the cat being eaten that some people can watch people get killed but are distressed as soon as they see a kitten killed and eaten.

    Therefore, for all of those people, I support all pussy-friendly weapons.

    --
    mogorific carpentry experiments
  2. Actually a good thing by kingdon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Given that the environmental problems of many weapons affect everyone except the enemy - most especially the poor civilians who have to live on the battlefield afterwards - this isn't as strange as it sounds. Look at all the environmental cleanups here in the US - Rocky Flats and a bunch of other military and former military lands which have all kinds of pollution, often much worse than is found in civilian contexts.

  3. When Greens control the defense department by Gregoyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another War Department that is not controlled by environmentalists will develop more effective but less environmentally friendly weapons.

    I have no problems with the current plan of refining the fuel process in rockets and the propellent in bullets, but I sure hope they don't take it too far. There is a reason we use DU rounds, and there is a reason M1A1's use not-very-clean fuels.

    The only way stuff like this can work on a large scale is if everyone agrees to do it (or at least everyone that matters). Because otherwise someone who doesn't care will come along and ream the guys who are trying to measure what kind of emissions their new machine gun gives off.

    Maybe this isn't really an issue given the current power-distribution in the world, but it's something to keep in mind.

    --

    "He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."

    1. Re:When Greens control the defense department by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was the thinking during Vietnam time, unfortunatly it backfires when the enemy is very determined because if you only wound them they will keep on fighting anyway (most Americans stop to tread the wounded), even to the death. This can be nightmarish if you keep shooting someone with your "wounding" rifle and they keep coming at you with their "killing" rifle (like an AK-47).

      The wounding weapons only make sense in "civilized" warfare, which many countries don't practice.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:When Greens control the defense department by ethereal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not that assassination is "beneath us", it's that no world leader wants to pin a target on their back by being the first to openly support assassination (well, except for Mr. Sharon recently). Personally, I'd much rather that a war with Iraq be over with quickly due to a head shot through Saddam's beret, than have to send troops there to die all in the interests of "fair play".

      Plus, assassination is a democratizing influence - dictatorships can't survive the assassination of the head man, but a democracy will just keep trucking along after they elect another one.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  4. Depleted uranium by imipak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When NATO decided to try preventing Milosevic exterminating the non-Serb inhabitants of Kosovo by bombing them with depleted uranium, the results were pretty horrendous. Not only did the cream of hi-tech weaponry utterly fail to hit their targets (when the Serb forces pulled out, military intelligence were astonished to see hundreds of tanks and APCs popping up out apparently of nowhere and queueing up at the border), but the cancer rates have shot up. Of course, (a) there's no question of any sort of enquiry or admission of fault, and (b) the people who are dying (horribly, with very little in the way of medical facilities except black market diamorphine to ease the pain) are the very people who "we" were trying to save.

    This can only be a good thing.

  5. Strategy by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This makes some sense, given Gulf War syndrome, etc.

    You basically do not want to send in occupation forces into an area where you just poisoned the heck out of it. It would be dangerous to your own troops, and the civilian population who you are trying to win to your side.

    - - -
    Radio Free Nation
    an alternate news site using Slash Code
    "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
    - - -

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  6. Environment by Wind_Walker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Look, I'm as concerned about the environment as anybody else, but does this strike anybody else as a bit hypocritical? On one hand, we have the UN proclaiming that peace should be the primary goal of humans and nations everywhere (after all, it IS why the UN was founded), but then they say "Look, your weapons are harming the environment. Go ahead and kill people, but just don't hurt Mother Earth".

    68% of the world's population has been in a war of some kind (be it civil war, world war, whatever) and so it's quite obvious that the UN is not doing its job. Countries are still stockpiling weapons...

    I think it's time for a stand. My theory is that if one country, the USA, were to completely disarm itself, then other nations would follow suit. By destroying all of its weapons, the USA would be finally making a plea for peace in the world. Other nations would see this as a gesture of goodwill, and would be similarly encouraged to disarm.

    I'm not a dreamer; I really think this would happen. But we have to convince our governments of this. It's a long-term goal, really. But isn't peace worth it?

  7. In many ways, it only makes sense... by mystery_bowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's say the Freds and Bobs are at war for resources, we'll say...farmlands. Can't do either of them much good to use their weapons of mass destruction, because said weapons also destroy the land.

    I suppose this is just part of having limited space with which to work. You can't just scorch the earth while you slay your enemies, or else you'll be left with nothing but unusable burnt dirt.

    --

    My sigs always suck.
  8. Not as daft as it sounds by Bill_Mische · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It means:
    (1) Not having to spend time clearing up (your own or other peoples land) after battles.
    (2) Not having to spend time clearing up after training exercises.
    (3) Injuring/killing the people your trying to injure/kill rather than your own troops.
    (4) Less lawsuits (see 3)
    (5) Less time answering tedious questions in Parliament / on television about points 1-4.

    --
    Boring Old Fart (40, married, 3 kids...er no...make that 49, married, 3 grown up kids...it's been a long time)
  9. Dangerous precedent by BDew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I recall, President Carter killed the neutron bomb project because it made war too tempting. The ramifications of a war should not be lowered - if anything they should be raised. When that's the case, war (especially within your own borders) becomes much less palatable, and therefore the risk of war is reduced...

    --
    "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
  10. Land mines by coyote-san · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Subject pretty much says it all. You either understand that conflicts come and go, but munitions last forever (mustard gas from WW-I is still occasionally found in Europe), and you accept the need to minimize that damage to the extent possible, or you don't.

    It's also important to realize that, prior to the 20th Century, wars simply didn't leave much (non-biodegradable) hazardous material behind on the battlefield. Some lead from the bullets, but that's about it. Land mines, nerve gas and blistering agents, all are fairly recent inventions and we're just now learning how much long-lasting damage they cause.

    (I know, some battles involved salting fields to kill off crops, etc., but you didn't have land mines in those fields that will blow off the legs of children gleaning the little food that does grow there.)

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  11. Re:Agent Glo Orange? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Education it NOT the magical solution to the world's ills. Nobody (almost) likes war. Nobody wins in war. How will education help? Some things are just a fact of life whether we like it or not. As far as racism goes, I won't get started. Sufice it to say I blame the media for about 75% of racism today.

  12. Re:lots of rounds fired by trcooper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone needs to mod this up. The biggest reason this is important is because of training exercises. We've (the US) expended much more munitions in training over the last half century than we have in combat. Hopefully this will continue to be the case. Unfortunately this leaves our training grounds in very bad shape because of many of the munitions used leave harmful residue. It's not just the atmosphere as the article suggests.

    Other countries should do it as well, but this isn't a worthless effort regardless, because the largest concern is training.