[CCIP]

I don't get the opposition to this. Especially if it was stated that the bullets aren't less effective and not that much more expensive, and especially if you take the angle that this isn't about appeasing an environmental agenda or somehow being "nicer" at war, but about protecting the health of your own soldiers and citizens from ill effects of the ammunition that your own side fires. Why not do that? It makes sense to give your soldiers rations, tents and uniforms that are, you know, not carcinogenic. Why not do the same with bullets?

The whole "it was good enough for father, it's good enough for me!" logic is absurd. You know, back in the 19th century they also painted roofs with mercury-based paint because it was more weather-resilient, while various radon solutions were touted as having great health effects when consumed internally. The health effects of lead poisoning are well-studied. If there is a better alternative, it only makes sense to pursue it.