Slashdot Mirror
NATO Developing Environment Friendly Weapons
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."
One important reason for this is that the number of rounds fired can be very large, even in a small action with few casualties. Munitions are also used in training, with (we always hope) no casualties at all.
You might say that it is far better to just reduce the amount of violence in the world than to try to make it more environmentally friendly (and you'd be right), but in point of fact, even with minimal or no violence, lots of munitions are used, and reducing the environmental impact can make it easier on people who live near training areas or who are trying to recover from a recent conflict.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
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"
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)
"...99 percent of all missiles are launched in training over your own ground,"
That's the key. But do we really care about the enemy's environment? So, perhaps a more appropriate name for these is training missiles.
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
A leaflet flutters to the ground.
You read the leaflet.
You have been blown up by an environmentally friendly weapon
Under International law you have 1 hour to kill yourself.
Please have your body disposed of in a tidy manner.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
On the neutron bomb, for those who don't actually know or remember (me) the details: [http://web2.iadfw.net/myself/secular/writing/n_bo mb.htm]
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
From the comment at the top, it's obvious that Hemos doesn't understand what the Neutron bomb was designed for.
The common misunderstanding is that it was developed to leave industry alone so we could wage an atomic war and then move right in. That's simply not true.
The Neutron bomb, or Enhanced Radiation bomb (ER), was designed with Soviet Armor in mind. During the above ground weapons testing in Nevada, it became clear that a standard nuclear device wasn't effective at knocking out armor. Kind of like how cockroaches, turtles and armadillos survive nukes.
Since the Soviets had 6-1 armor strength in the 60s and 3-1 in the late 70s and early 80s, something else had to be developed. That was the ER nuclear device. Most ER warheads were developed for the 203, 175 and 155mm artillery pieces, the 175 'Long Tom' was retired so that left the 203 and 155, then the Lance tactical missile was fitted with the 175's warheads and the Pershing 1 was also given the ability to fire an ER weapon.
The Neutron bomb penetrated armor and killed the crew much more effectivly than a much larger conventional atomic device.
All the ER weapons were in the 10-15 KT range, not a city buster or stratigic weapon by any stretch, but a tactical weapon that would have been deployed in bottle-necks like the Fulda Gap or against Soviet Armor on the Northern German plains were the Soviet out tanked the British EF by 6-1 or 10-1 depending on the Soviet's deployment.
The whole Neutron bomb for nuking cities or industry and leaving it in-tact was propganda from the Soviet funded anti-nuclear activists. See the Mitrokhin Archives for info on that.