NationStates Jolt Archive

After investigations by journalists, the Pentagon has admitted, that its troops had been using lead projectiles in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the fact, that lead is known as a deadly poison, with devastating effects, especially on children!

Lead is not only very poisonous to humans, it also occurs with radioactive isotopes, which get into the environment as well. The decay products of those isotopes are among other the even more poisonous mercury, which aggravates the problem.

This is all the more severe as the dangerous metal remains in the environment, where it can enter the water and the food chain.

Lead poisoning effects all organs in the human body and symptoms go from mild headache to lethargy to seizure, coma and death.

Senate democrats have vowed to look into that matter and are working on legislation, that will require the military to only use organically grown, 100% biodegradable projectiles in future conflicts.

I think the DU issue is just a little more serious than that, my friend.

I hope you are joking.

I hope you are joking.

How dare you question this man's conviction you Bush-lover. America is teh evil oppressor!!!!! They want to poision us and take all our land for their evil, poison-using imperialistic ends!!!! Bush eats babbies!

Damn those Democrats! They are taking our warfighting ability away by not allowing us to use lead weapons! Now what the hell are we going to use? Watermelons? :rolleyes:

We sha use...the Shrubbery!

Yes, because lead poisoning is what you worry about after you've been shot.

Have you hugged your tree yet today?

Lead is not radioactive, but a poisonous result of radioactive decay. Get your facts straight. Besides, as Spalec points out, I don't think being "poisoned" in addition to having a projectile pierce one's body makes much of a difference. Either way, one is in for some trouble.

lead as it is found in bullets isn't toxic

i think

i'm looking for the scienc-y cartoon where i read that

here we are

http://www.freewebs.com/runeforumwalker/india.GIF (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/media/nearingzero/Pb.gif)

The Democracts will "look into it" but the GOP majority will simply block any attempt to bring the issue to the Senate Floor for any sort of Offical Discussion.

Y'all don't get it. We are suposed to design weapons of war that are not lethal and are environmentaly friendly. Oh, and they should not kill anyone. :eek:

Y'all don't get it. We are suposed to design weapons of war that are not lethal and are environmentaly friendly. Oh, and they should not kill anyone. :eek:
That would be nice actually - stun guns and the like. Take 'em all prisoner, and that'll be that.

Lead poisoning also can increase your body weight, with the weight increase directly proportionate to the number of lead projectiles that have entered your body.

Lead can also have a devasting affect on the brain, there are some cases were people have survived contact between the two, but is is usually very rare, the usual result is fatal.

Judging from Nick Kim's cartoon, metallic lead is not appreciably toxic. It's just fine for bullets. :P

That would be nice actually - stun guns and the like. Take 'em all prisoner, and that'll be that.
Yeah and then the liberal pussies will bitch about how we treat the fucking prisoners.

OMFGBBQ bullets that kill people :eek:
what will teh evil amerikkkan imperialists think of next!!

OK I am a very liberal person and am firmly opposed to any war but bitching about bullets that kill people is stupid,there bullets fer chrissakes.And if a bullet rips your abdomen open and your intestines are spilling out onto the dirt I don't think you're too worried about "lead poisoning"

As I've said before, we should be fighting this war using only harsh language.

If the mooreons would let go of the torture crap, we could.

:sniper:

First of all, they're fucking bullets. The more poisonous they are, the better they're doing their job.

Second of all, this is an idiotic and inaccurate claim anyway. I would question the possibility that there are any radioactive isotopes of lead, and if there are, they wouldn't be the stable isotopes used in the round.

That would be nice actually - stun guns and the like. Take 'em all prisoner, and that'll be that.

No, we can't use stun guns because that might hurt them especially if one of them has a heart condition. Can't take them prisoner either because someone might torture or abuse them. :eek:

I dont think anyone is concerned about bullets being too lethal to the people being shot. I think the concern is for the used bullets left behind once the conflict is over and what those will do to the environment, and more importantly, the people living in it. If you are supposed to be liberating a people but in the process you poison their water supply and devastate their environment, then they were better off not being liberated in the first place. If you liberated a people but devastated their land for generations to come, then you failed your primary objective. That's why it is a major concern.

Thats the concern about depleted uranium munitions anyway, I havent heard the concern about this lead stuff but am assuming its the same thing.

PS. also, there have been concerns that it could make the soldiers using those weapons sick. In fact, many have blamed DU ammunition for gulf war syndrome.

After investigations by journalists, the Pentagon has admitted, that its troops had been using lead projectiles in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the fact, that lead is known as a deadly poison, with devastating effects, especially on children!

Lead is not only very poisonous to humans, it also occurs with radioactive isotopes, which get into the environment as well. The decay products of those isotopes are among other the even more poisonous mercury, which aggravates the problem.

This is all the more severe as the dangerous metal remains in the environment, where it can enter the water and the food chain.

Lead poisoning effects all organs in the human body and symptoms go from mild headache to lethargy to seizure, coma and death.

Senate democrats have vowed to look into that matter and are working on legislation, that will require the military to only use organically grown, 100% biodegradable projectiles in future conflicts.


As nice a parody this is of the recent WP threads, the military actually is concerned about this issue and is in the process of developing an environmentally friendly bullet (http://www.acfnewsource.org/environment/green_bullets.html).

If you are supposed to be liberating a people but in the process you poison their water supply and devastate their environment, then they were better off not being liberated in the first place.

Tell that to the people who were liberated from Nazi Germany and Japan during WW II. I think they were very happy to have their freedom back and they were able to rebuild their "devistated environment."

thanx for the link Daistallia 2104, i am still a bit incredulous, that this is actually for real. the satire was more targeted at the DUP than the WP.

As nice a parody this is of the recent WP threads, the military actually is concerned about this issue and is in the process of developing an environmentally friendly bullet (http://www.acfnewsource.org/environment/green_bullets.html).

Bismuth, tungsten/polymer, tungsten/iron and steel are alternatives to lead but cost a shit load more than lead. OH, and frangibles, but they are not very reliable as rifle ammunition.

Yeah and then the liberal pussies will bitch about how we treat the fucking prisoners.
:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

No, we can't use stun guns because that might hurt them especially if one of them has a heart condition.
That is a risk that is acceptable I believe. Not too many soldiers would run around with heart conditions, and with time better stun guns will be developed anyways.

Can't take them prisoner either because someone might torture or abuse them. :eek:
That's not a matter of not taking prisoners, that is a matter of army culture and setting proper rules and guidelines.

And besides, what's with the Hyperboles? If you are at war for self-defence, than not killing someone and instead taking them prisoner is clearly a better alternative.
I don't think America goes to war to kill people, does it?

That is a risk that is acceptable I believe. Not too many soldiers would run around with heart conditions, and with time better stun guns will be developed anyways.amnesty international has allready spoken out against nonlethal weapons like tasers and the microwave based "people zapper" the military had been develloping, saying it raised a number of concerns for human rights.

amnesty international has allready spoken out against nonlethal weapons like tasers and the microwave based "people zapper" the military had been develloping, saying it raised a number of concerns for human rights.
Have a link? I guess it would largely depend on where and how they were to be used.

Fuck it . bring out disrupters and 20 mm explosive rounds .

thanx for the link Daistallia 2104, i am still a bit incredulous, that this is actually for real. the satire was more targeted at the DUP than the WP.

WP was what came to mind as it's what's getting raked over the coals at the moment. We haven't had a DU thread in a while. ;)

Bismuth, tungsten/polymer, tungsten/iron and steel are alternatives to lead but cost a shit load more than lead. OH, and frangibles, but they are not very reliable as rifle ammunition.

Yep. On the other hand, the environmental contamination at various military ranges (including explosives) is proving to be expensive as well. And yes, frangible ammunition = :headbang:

As to the whole thing with non-leathals, at least some people are starting to call them less-lethal. At least it's a bit more accurate. And weapons like the ADS (Active Denial System - the "microwave zapper") are almost certainly more humane than the altenative of lead (or non-lead :)) bullets.

Tell that to the people who were liberated from Nazi Germany and Japan during WW II. I think they were very happy to have their freedom back and they were able to rebuild their "devistated environment."

They didn't have a devastated environment. They had a devastated infrastructure. There is a big difference. Damage to infrastructure can be repaired in years, damage to the environment can take centuries and a lot of it simply cant be repaired by human beings except by waiting the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear.

Use nuetron bombs screw it . Kill the life forms , save the rest .

This tiny amount of lead in bullets isn't THAT damaging to the enviornment. Lead occur in nature! And besides, the Romans used lead for their water pipes, and they weren't dropping dead everywhere. Besides, our own bodies are slightly radioactive. (Carbon14) i think this is very exagerated, just like Dihydrogen Monoxide

We sha use...the Shrubbery!
Not the Shrubbery! We must use... ::debates between the Holy Hand Grenade and the Killer Rabbit::



You know what we should use? Massive aerial spraying of Hydrofluric acid, using cheap crop dusters. Just coat the area in hydrogen fluride and they'll stop complaining about lead bullets pretty quickly. Instantly precipitates calcium and leaves hydrogen bubles behind. It's fun the whole family can enjoy, like incest.

Maybe we could use it against our enemies too... we shouldn't limit ourselves to econazis.



In reality, it's a viable concern about shooring ranges, but it's retarted for someone who'se been shot by an M107's incendiary round to worry about lead. Usually they'd be more concerned with the fact that they're on freaking fire, have no blood left in their damn body, and their sheer lack of bodily organs than lead poisoning. (EDIT: I should remember this one...)

God bless 50cal snipers.

They didn't have a devastated environment. They had a devastated infrastructure. There is a big difference. Damage to infrastructure can be repaired in years, damage to the environment can take centuries and a lot of it simply cant be repaired by human beings except by waiting the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear.

Hmmm... You don't seem to be familiar at all with Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Having lived in Nagasaki prefecture (Isahaya, quite close to the city), I can assure you that "Fat Man" did environmental damage, but it certainly didn't take centuries for the radiation to clear.

We should use bullshit . as long as we have congress we can never lose .

Have a link? I guess it would largely depend on where and how they were to be used.

Well, a search of AI's web site for the Active Denial System comes up with nothing.
http://www.amnesty.org/

However, they did have this to say in an article on tasers:
The US government is encouraging US companies to design and produce new so-called ''less than lethal'' devices which can be used by the security forces to paralyse or incapacitate individuals. The companies involved in making and promoting these devices claim that they provide safe alternative methods of control. Critics, however, have cast doubt on their safety and questioned the use of some devices which are so easy to misuse that they can encourage torture or ill-treatment.

There is an arsenal of new products at the design or prototype stage for immobilizing and incapacitating human beings. Radio frequency weapons, for example, use microwaves to zap anyone straying in an irradiated area to temperatures of up to 55oC. Malodorant systems are based on stench chemicals, such as human excrement and rotting carcasses, which can be stored in containers that release the agent when someone walks over them. Immobilizing chemicals can also be released in this way, although such indiscriminate targeting would breach both the Geneva and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Other devices which could be used in a similarly indiscriminate way against vulnerable populations, for example against fleeing refugees at borders, include perimeter fences with electro-shock stun and kill options and the new taser mine that is activated by the victim via a trip device or other sensors and shoots out darts some 15-30 feet through which 50,000 volts are pulsed for up to an hour.

Despite the claims of companies promoting such devices as a new generation of ''safe'' alternatives, there has been very little independent research into the effects these sorts of weapons can have in real-life situations. Amnesty International continues to receive reports of improperly tested weapons being used to inflict excruciating pain and serious injuries. Fatalities have been reported following the use of electro-shock weapons. Are these devices ''non-lethal''? Do they lend themselves to the arbitrary and excessive use of force? Right now, these questions cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. All we do know is that these immensely powerful weapons are being developed, manufactured or deployed without effective public oversight while the research into their effects and controls over their use and proliferation remain woefully inadequate.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/ttt3_electroshock

But, as I said above, it beats the alternative.

We should use bullshit . as long as we have congress we can never lose .
This is a great idea! In order for the enemy to shoot, they have to fill out several hundered request forums! They'll never be able to fill out that much paperwork (wasn't there a close to home or a far side about this?)

We should use bullshit . as long as we have congress we can never lose .

Better yet - we can threaten them with congress! Surrender or we'll clone Ted the Lifegaurd 1000 times and let him loose on you.
:D

snip

:rolleyes: Ok, how dence can you be? Next think you will tell me is that we need to use sunflower seeds as shotgun pellets. Anyhow, lead bullets are common among military and civilian shooting. I prefer brass jacketed lead as lead leaves deposits in the riflings.

Better yet - we can threaten them with congress! Surrender or we'll clone Ted the Lifegaurd 1000 times and let him loose on you.
:D
We should embark on a project to combind the pwrlvls of Michael Moore and Anne Coulter, along with the Kennedys and Clintons, to create an uberbeing. Then we just threaten to release this obese, ugly, intern-loving, inflamatory, skitzo, and brutal being from his/her holding cell in the middle of Antarctica.

ZA DOOMSDAY DEVICE! It would be Dr. Strangelove all over again... Love the Bomb, it's all you can do.

Hmmm... You don't seem to be familiar at all with Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Having lived in Nagasaki prefecture (Isahaya, quite close to the city), I can assure you that "Fat Man" did environmental damage, but it certainly didn't take centuries for the radiation to clear.

I was responding to a post regarding people who were liberated during WWII. Nagasaki was not liberated from anyone.

I was responding to a post regarding people who were liberated during WWII. Nagasaki was not liberated from anyone.

Liberated from their lives, perhaps.

Liberated from their lives, perhaps.
heh, that's taking freedom a bit far.

Although you have to put the bombings in perspective. They were horrible in that they were aimed at cities, intended to instill terror. They should have been aimed at military bases on the mainland.

However, the alternative was invasion. That would have frankly sucked.

ok, the ai quote i remembered specifically referrs to law enforcement.Amnesty International acknowledges the importance of developing non-lethal or "less than lethal" force options to decrease the risk of death or injury inherent in the use of firearms or other impact weapons such as batons. However, the use of stun technology in law enforcement raises a number of concerns for the protection of human rights. Portable and easy to use, with the capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks, electro-shock weapons are particularly open to abuse by unscrupulous officials, as the organization has documented in numerous cases around the world.http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/0/c3c82062120308a7cc25705700159251?OpenDocument

Wow, I'm surprised at how seriously people took the OP...

ok, the ai quote i remembered specifically referrs to law enforcement.
Thanks.

So you see that, as with all weapons, there needs to be control of the people who wield them. Or at least that is Amnesty's point.

I don't think there could be anyone on the planet who honestly would condemn the development of less lethal alternatives to current military weaponry.

Thanks.

So you see that, as with all weapons, there needs to be control of the people who wield them. Or at least that is Amnesty's point.

I don't think there could be anyone on the planet who honestly would condemn the development of less lethal alternatives to current military weaponry.
Why don't we all just fight wars with paintball guns? War from now on could just be a giant paintball game!

Oh yeah, no casualties = no fun. Damn warmongers.

Yeah and then the liberal pussies will bitch about how we treat the fucking prisoners.

Unfortunatly, you're right. Not to mention the tax burden of thousands of prisoners, even if the treatment was brought to the bare minimum required by the geneva agreement.

Usually they'd be more concerned with the fact that they're on freaking fire, have no blood left in their damn body, and their sheer lack of bodily organs than lead poisoning. (EDIT: I should remember this one...)

LOL
God bless 50cal snipers.
Amen.
:sniper:

Wow, I'm surprised at how seriously people took the OP...

I think you and I are the only ones who got the sarcasm. ;)

I think you and I are the only ones who got the sarcasm. ;)
I think the problem is more along the lines of "Issues have gotten so stupid as of late, this is probably REAL, and it's probably going to cost an insane amount of money":headbang:

Lol, love the original post.

But seriously, how out to lunch are some of you people?

"ARG, you marked me with a paintball. I'm so inclined to just let you invade my country/stop invading your country." :rolleyes:

Or maybe you would like to fight automatic rifles with a taser? Or, play "fair" and agree to just use tasers, when you could cheat, come with automatic rifles, win and secure your cause/interest for sure?

Yikes.

Or maybe you would like to fight automatic rifles with a taser? Or, play "fair" and agree to just use tasers, when you could cheat, come with automatic rifles, win and secure your cause/interest for sure?
It's not about agreement, it's about superior technology. In 2010 or something the "full spectrum warrior" project will take the US Army to the next step alltogether.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of it, but this and other programs will ultimately result in always being able to shoot first, and basically eliminate the threat to the soldier, bar a conflict with someone on a very high technological level.
No one the US is going to be fighting any time soon is going to have the capability to threaten it or its soldiers anymore. Killing in Self Defense will no longer apply.

And besides, using less lethal weapons means drastically reduced collateral damage.

However, the alternative was invasion. That would have frankly sucked.
That was one alternative. The other was accepting their offer to surrender.

I don't think America goes to war to kill people, does it?
Congratulations. you've just beat statement by a person who said that you shouldn't fluch cigarettes down the drain because it might cause an explosion, as the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Of course we don't go to war to kill people. Don't you think if we were trying to kill people, that the military would give us something deadly to use, like guns and bombs? :rolleyes:

Congratulations. you've just beat statement by a person who said that you shouldn't fluch cigarettes down the drain because it might cause an explosion, as the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Of course we don't go to war to kill people. Don't you think if we were trying to kill people, that the military would give us something deadly to use, like guns and bombs? :rolleyes:
You misunderstand.
The goal of the war is not to kill people, the goal is to win and achieve some political goal, correct?
It is theoretically possible to win a war by taking every enemy soldier prisoner, given the right weaponry, correct?
Unless the goal of the war is to kill as many people as possible (meaning essentially a genocidal extermination campaign), it is therefore possible that with enough willingness (ie investment in the required weapons and strategies) to do so, a war could be won without killing people (or at least killing many less).

You misunderstand.
The goal of the war is not to kill people, the goal is to win and achieve some political goal, correct?
It is theoretically possible to win a war by taking every enemy soldier prisoner, given the right weaponry, correct?
Unless the goal of the war is to kill as many people as possible (meaning essentially a genocidal extermination campaign), it is therefore possible that with enough willingness (ie investment in the required weapons and strategies) to do so, a war could be won without killing people (or at least killing many less).
Maybe in some Sci Fi movie. But here in the real world, we go to war to kill people. Not that it's a good thing, or that you have to like it. It's just the way it is. War = Death.


Technically, I could fly if I was born with wings, but it ain't gonna happen.

I was responding to a post regarding people who were liberated during WWII. Nagasaki was not liberated from anyone.

Hmmm

They didn't have a devastated environment. They had a devastated infrastructure. There is a big difference. Damage to infrastructure can be repaired in years, damage to the environment can take centuries and a lot of it simply cant be repaired by human beings except by waiting the centuries it takes for the radiation to clear.

Well, if you can show that:
1) Japan has not been liberated from the WWII military facists.
2) Any nation other than Japan was attacked with weapons that produced significant amounts of radiation.

I will eat my hat and accept that my post didn't refute yours. However, I do belive you'll have a hard time. ;)

Maybe in some Sci Fi movie. But here in the real world, we go to war to kill people. Not that it's a good thing, or that you have to like it. It's just the way it is. War = Death.


Technically, I could fly if I was born with wings, but it ain't gonna happen.

Eh? Do you really mean to say that you believe most wars are started without any goal or political purpose, aside from killing people? I'll grant that there are wars started for the sole purpose of killing groups of people, but those are in the minority.