Hot on the heels of the Depleted Uranium Shells are Bad for You thread, also sourced from the House of the Terminally Bewildered, comes this gem.
BAE Systems want to manufacture 'environmentally friendly bullets'. One of the world's largest arms manufacturers has, get this, a Corporate Social Responsibility Director. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Watch out, Sarge! It's environmentally friendly fire
Jon Ungoed-Thomas
BAE SYSTEMS, one of the world’s biggest arms manufacturers, is designing a new generation of “green” munitions, including “lead-free” bullets and rockets with reduced toxins.
It also wants to cut the dangerous compounds in its jets, fighting vehicles and artillery, which it warns “can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”.
The initiative is being backed by the Ministry of Defence, which has proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke. There have even been experiments to see if explosives can be turned into manure.
Dr Debbie Allen, director of corporate social responsibility at BAE systems, said that although it might seem strange to have a green policy for munitions, it was important to consider the environmental impact of all products.
“Weapons are going to be used and when they are, we try to make them as safe for the user as possible, to limit the collateral damage and to impact as little as possible on the environment,” she said.
BAE’s policy reflects the eagerness among big companies to trumpet their environmental concerns. The concept of “green munitions” has, however, infuriated campaigners opposed to the arms trade.
“This is laughable,” said Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade. “BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly.”
During the Iraq war, Britain dropped more than 900 bombs while the United States has admitted dropping 1,500 cluster bombs, which detonate numerous explosions over a large area, and anti-landmine campaigners have sought to ban them. The exact death toll is unknown.
Both countries say they want to ensure their weapons are in future more sustainable and environmentally friendly. BAE stopped using depleted uranium in its weapons in 2003, but an expert panel now reviews all its products to ensure materials and manufacturing processes are as green as possible. Its arsenal and environmental practices now include:
# Bullets with lower lead content because, as the company states on its website, “lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”. BAE says its plantin Radway Green, near Crewe, has been working on eliminating lead from its bullets altogether.
# Armoured vehicles with lower carbon emissions. The company is using “hybrid” engines, which can be powered by batteries as well as conventional diesel engines.
# Weaponry with fewer toxins. BAE is working to reduce Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and other hazardous, and often carcinogenic, chemicals in its products.
# Safer and sustainable artillery. The company has started manufacturing “insensitive” shell explosives at its plant in Glascoed in south Wales. They do not blow up accidentally and have an unlimited shelf life, reducing the need for disposal.
# Energy saving measures and recycling, including experimenting with turning waste explosives into compost.
BAE’s policy is endorsed by the MoD, which stresses the importance of environmentally friendly munitions in its Sustainable Development and Environment Manual. It says “ecodesign” should be incorporated into all modern weapons.
It states: “A concept of green munitions is not a contradiction in terms. Any system, whatever its ultimate use, can be designed to minimise its impact [on the] environment.”
Rockets fired in “sensitive marine environments” could have reduced emissions to protect the sea-life, the manual suggests. Also, weapons used for training purposes could be modified. Ideas include biodegradable plastics for missiles, “reduced smoke” grenades and quieter warheads.
The American military has also developed a sustainability strategy. One document on the US Army Sustainability website discusses the possible use of soybean oil in jet fuel, the use of solar panels in the conflict zone and hydrogen-powered miniature aerial vehicles.
09-19-2006, 09:43
Keba
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Hydrogen powered? Isn't hydrogen used in nuclear fusion?
And they say they want to make an envriomentaly friendly piece of equipment.
At least they didn't complain that the bullets are harmful to the lives of soldiers ... or did they? :juggle2:
09-19-2006, 09:51
Ja'chyra
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
I can confirm that this is perfectly true having done some work on it myself.
It actually is a serious issue though, take an area like Salisbury Plain, the amounts of small arms rounds fired in this one area every year amount in millions which add up to several tonnes of lead being left in the ground. Multiply this by the 60+ years the area has been used for this purpose and you have a serious amount of lead leaching into the land and water table.
The MoD has a very good record for environmentalism on it's ranges believe it or not, but with a policy of continual improvement we have to keep looking for ways forward.
On a slightly related note, we also limit use due to noise, toxicity, vibration and countless other issues.
09-19-2006, 12:42
Ice
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
It also wants to cut the dangerous compounds in its jets, fighting vehicles and artillery, which it warns “can harm the environment and pose a risk to people”.
Really... now wow, I wouldn't have thought that. :idea2:
09-19-2006, 12:56
Ironside
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Hydrogen powered? Isn't hydrogen used in nuclear fusion?
And they say they want to make an envriomentaly friendly piece of equipment.
You can also use hydrogen and oxygen to make water, a highly exotermic reaction ((still?) used to drive rocket engines).
Somehow, I find the somewhat more ritualised war better than the total war, that leaves thier major battlefields lethal 90 years afterwards.
09-19-2006, 16:34
Crazed Rabbit
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Is it just me, or does this arms manufacturer have its priorities mixed up?
Crazed Rabbit
09-19-2006, 16:48
Duke Malcolm
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Some things seem quite sensible, like quite bombs, the energy-saving measures, and the safer and more sustainable artillery amongst others.
09-19-2006, 17:10
King Henry V
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
The best has to be this though:
The initiative is being backed by the Ministry of Defence, which has proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke.
Of course, when one is intensive urban combat, one wouldn't want to disturb the neighbours from watching the news, would one?:laugh4:
09-19-2006, 17:46
Ironside
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
The best has to be this though:
The initiative is being backed by the Ministry of Defence, which has proposed quieter warheads to reduce noise pollution and grenades that produce less smoke.
Of course, when one is intensive urban combat, one wouldn't want to disturb the neighbours from watching the news, would one?:laugh4:
Or you simply might not want your men to return home with impaired hearing and a very nasty coughing (or possibly to reduce friendly fire, but I'm not sure how much smoke a modern granade gives. A BIG issue with black powder atleast).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Is it just me, or does this arms manufacturer have its priorities mixed up?
Quality weaponry kills the enemy, keeps your men unharmed/healthy and makes occupation benificial.
Need I mention that I don't like taking losses and rarely pillages in games? Pillaging "soon to be mine" infrastructure is usually ineffective ~D
09-19-2006, 17:55
King Henry V
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
One of the points of the grenade is also to give cover, which will be removed if you have no smoke.
I don't think grenades are let off that often that it will give them "impaired hearing", certainly not 24/7.
09-19-2006, 19:09
Ironside
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
One of the points of the grenade is also to give cover, which will be removed if you have no smoke.
I don't think grenades are let off that often that it will give them "impaired hearing", certainly not 24/7.
Isn't that the smoke-granade type that's used for cover?
And I do know people that have been getting permanent hearing losses after a few month into thier conscription, without any special incidents of very high sounds too close to the ear.
It's a time were the losses are low so they actually got time to bother about this stuff.
09-19-2006, 19:26
Vladimir
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
A gem indeed. I...I just can't finish reading it all...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
09-19-2006, 19:47
scooter_the_shooter
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
The idea of enviroment friendly ammo has been around awhile...and it is a good one; you'd be surprised by how many ranges have been shut down by lead pollution.
09-19-2006, 20:10
Rodion Romanovich
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Yay we can finally kill people without destroying the environment!
Now who can find the best slogan for these enviro-bullets?
Some suggestions:
"BAE Systems enviro-bullets - even hippies kill with them!"
"BAE Systems enviro-bullets - killing with future generations in mind!"
to be serious though, I guess it's a step of improvement for the environment, even if the context is funny. I have no problem with ammunition manufacturers ethics as long as they don't try lobbyist work to prevent the states of their countries from lifting weapons embargoes against dictatorship regimes.
09-19-2006, 20:18
Silver Rusher
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
"BAE Systems enviro-bullets - kill people, not the environment!"
09-19-2006, 22:26
Xiahou
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
The idea of enviroment friendly ammo has been around awhile...and it is a good one; you'd be surprised by how many ranges have been shut down by lead pollution.
At indoor ranges that would be a big concern for me as the primers can put a significant amount of lead dust in the air for an enclosed space. At an outdoor range Im far less concerned- but I do almost all of my target shooting with WinCleans anyhow.
Quote:
"BAE Systems enviro-bullets - killing with future generations in mind!"
:2thumbsup: :laugh4:
09-19-2006, 23:54
IrishArmenian
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
I use my bullets to harm people. Don't they understand a gun is a wepon?
09-20-2006, 04:26
AntiochusIII
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
It might sound funny, but a battlefield, or simply a gun range, that won't be toxic for another century or so is actually a pretty good idea.
And the concern for the health of your soldiers aren't exactly "stupid" either. It's simply a (pretty big) step up from all the "psychological" medical departments that take care of soldiers' mental stress to prevent things like suicide and mass-murdering.
09-20-2006, 15:18
English assassin
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
lead used in ammunition can .... pose a risk to people
O rly?
Quote:
“This is laughable,” said Symon Hill of Campaign Against Arms Trade. “BAE is determined to try to make itself look ethical, but they make weapons to kill people and it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest they are environmentally friendly.”
I think BAE have missed a trick here. Overpopulation is a major cause of environmental damage. Killing very large numbers of people strikes me as extremely environmentally friendly. In fact its the most environmentally friendly thing I can think of doing. *
IMHO BAE should lend Friends of the Earth a few tanks, maybe some mortars and stuff, whatever they have at the back of the warehouse, and get them to go round and rub Campaign Against Arms Trade out.
* I do realise there may be ethical objections to killing people to save the environment. Although Peter Singer might not agree.
09-20-2006, 15:51
rory_20_uk
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
My sister is a has a way of coming up with logical but "unusual" solutions to problems.
Concerning the starving masses in Africa, she suggested carpet bombing. The acute pain caused would remove generations of lingering deaths, and would help the environment recover.
It's worth a thought...
~:smoking:
09-20-2006, 15:54
Vladimir
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
My sister is a has a way of coming up with logical but "unusual" solutions to problems.
Concerning the starving masses in Africa, she suggested carpet bombing. The acute pain caused would remove generations of lingering deaths, and would help the environment recover.
It's worth a thought...
~:smoking:
:laugh4: Another thing you've said that gives me serious doubt about Britain’s medical professionals. :sweatdrop:
09-20-2006, 16:04
Banquo's Ghost
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
My sister is a has a way of coming up with logical but "unusual" solutions to problems.
Concerning the starving masses in Africa, she suggested carpet bombing. The acute pain caused would remove generations of lingering deaths, and would help the environment recover.
It's worth a thought...
Absolutely outrageous and cannot work!!!1!1!!:furious3: :furious3:
Anyone knows poor Africans don't have carpets...
:creep:
09-20-2006, 16:22
yesdachi
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
My sister is a has a way of coming up with logical but "unusual" solutions to problems.
Concerning the starving masses in Africa, she suggested carpet bombing. The acute pain caused would remove generations of lingering deaths, and would help the environment recover.
It's worth a thought...
~:smoking:
Wouldn’t it be cheaper (bombs are expensive) to introduce a virus of some kind? Oh wait, it’s already been done.:sweatdrop:
09-20-2006, 16:30
Vladimir
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Wouldn’t it be cheaper (bombs are expensive) to introduce a virus of some kind? Oh wait, it’s already been done.:sweatdrop:
But it's sooooo sloooooow.
09-20-2006, 17:14
drone
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Carpet bombing won't work, population density is too low for it to be cost-effective. Starvation is probably the most efficient, but international aid is slowing the process down. Get rid of international aid, problem solved.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
:laugh4:
09-22-2006, 04:29
IrishArmenian
Re: Traditional bullets 'a risk to people'
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
It might sound funny, but a battlefield, or simply a gun range, that won't be toxic for another century or so is actually a pretty good idea.
And the concern for the health of your soldiers aren't exactly "stupid" either. It's simply a (pretty big) step up from all the "psychological" medical departments that take care of soldiers' mental stress to prevent things like suicide and mass-murdering.
