Greener War. Fighting the ecological bad conscience

[Skybird]

When I read this, I did not know whether to laugh or to yell. There are so many absurd details given with such an ignorrant non-chalance that the choice really became tough. And for some reason I am not surprised by one bit that Sweden and Britain have taken the lead in this, if you forgive the wordplay (you understand it after reading it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116438

If you want to sabotage fighting spirit and focussing on what is essential - make armies worry about things like this.

P.S. Britain voted against it. I stand corrected.

[SilentOtto]

Ok, I admit on first thought it's the most ironic and stupid idea ever.

But then, on second thought, and if you RTFA:

"If you're getting killed by a lead bullet or lead-free it doesn't really matter, but most ammunition is used for training anyway," explains Urban Oholm, senior vice-president of Swedish arms manufacturer Nammo.

Lead is toxic and there have been studies that have suggested it can leach from firing ranges into ground water. The US Environmental Protection Agency provides guidelines for firing ranges to avoid lead contamination.

etc etc

So it might not be such a silly idea after all...


Anyway, I admit the irony level of this is just

[Stealhead]

Actually in some states it is illegal to use lead bullets for hunting.The reason is because animals eat the carcass and get lead poisoning.

Also no lead means bullets that have steel cores and jackets or plastic jackets or copper jackets copper core there is little difference in effect between lead and non lead generally speaking in ballistics.Somtimes lead is more likely to fragment into little bits which is not always as good as it sounds for game that you plan on eating it is lousy.A bullet that stays mostly whole does more damage armed forces must use full metal jackets against humans lead FMJs can still fragment which is actually bad for a bullet not designed to expand.A non lead 5.56mm round would stay whole and do much more damage.I'd rather have a bullet destroy one section of tissue than fragment and hit lots of tissue but allow the guy to keep fighting fragmentation being very common with the 5.56x45mm anything that reduces this is a good thing.

That Swedish company must have been morons and did not test the product.






By the way the DOD uses bio jet fuel.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=58528

http://www.manufacturing.net/news/20...l-with-butanol

If I recall correctly there was quite a run of complaints on this forum concerning the health risks and environmental damage from certain metals used in some munitions and how the governments and military needs to address this burning issue for the sake of the future.

I seem slightly cloudy on who exactly said it a hell of a lot

Actually in some states it is illegal to use lead bullets for hunting.The reason is because animals eat the carcass and get lead poisoning.

Similar to restrictions on lead weights in fishing then.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Similar to restrictions on lead weights in fishing then.

In some states they are not allowed some guys actually prefer to use tungsten weights of course you can use stones rocks or bones like they did long ago and that is free.

Honestly with a small time fisherman I would be far more concerned with the litter that they might leave over the lead of his sinker.

[Skybird]

In times when even with rising costs for platforrms and systems militaries become less poitent and capable, and shrink, I think there should be other priorities, like for examplew how to of not boost then to maintain combat capacity and logistics without increasing national debts by maintaining unaffordable defence budgets. Buying more expensive ammuntiion certainly does not help.

But when they now even start to worry about carbon emissions from gas escaping the weapon after a round got fired, then at the latest I cannot escape but to think that some people there simply have lost their marbles.

[Penguin]

And 1200 tons less lead in the water and soil is bad how?

The article mentions the number of rounds fired by the British troops in Afghanistan (very interesting statistic btw). Even with several millions bullets fired per year, I think the additional costs for the troops would be less than the cost of gas that their vehicle guzzle per day.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

That Swedish company must have been morons and did not test the product.

I can't find anything in the article that mentions that the bullets are not effective, Swedish troops are also in Afghanistan, so disadvantages in combat situations should be heard of. After all the British "green ammo" program wasn't stopped for inefficiency but for financial reasons.

Can you say something to the lubrication of the barrel that the article mentions though? Could a weapon be more prone to wear and tear if you only use copper/steel ammo?

[Garion]

Lets go back to Bows and Arrows, it's environmenataly friendly, stealthy and nearlly silent with no chemical, Biological or Nuclear contamination.

I iz drunk... soooo appoplexies to all.

Cheers

Gary

[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.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Penguin

And 1200 tons less lead in the water and soil is bad how?

The article mentions the number of rounds fired by the British troops in Afghanistan (very interesting statistic btw). Even with several millions bullets fired per year, I think the additional costs for the troops would be less than the cost of gas that their vehicle guzzle per day.



I can't find anything in the article that mentions that the bullets are not effective, Swedish troops are also in Afghanistan, so disadvantages in combat situations should be heard of. After all the British "green ammo" program wasn't stopped for inefficiency but for financial reasons.

Can you say something to the lubrication of the barrel that the article mentions though? Could a weapon be more prone to wear and tear if you only use copper/steel ammo?

It said that Norwegian troops got headaches that had been caused by fumes from the rounds though it does not specify where the fumes from the powder or the bullet materiel.

Barrel wear is an interesting question lead would most certainly leave behind more residue inside the rifling though a good shooter would start the day with a clean barrel that would become dirty.

Lead residue is bad for the ballistics of the weapon and if allowed it to build up enough the bullet could actually get stuck inside the barrel(extreme case I am sure it happens to Hajis from time to time) or maybe blow the barrel if it stuck near the chamber it most certainly would reduce the velocity and spin if really caked up.It would cause friction not lubricate lead that is.Bullets even lead ones have a coating(often a type of wax it is very very thin) that acts as lube they must have gotten confused when they wrote the article.

It would largely depend on the materiel of the bullet itself some may cause less wear others might cause more wear than a lead round.Wear is really a fact of life though sooner or later after about 10,000 or 15,000 rounds the barrel has to be replaced anyway even machine guns that have changeable barrels sooner or later they will wear out sometimes an MG barrel(or set) will get worn out in one fire fight if the user is having a very bad or good day by that point it would just be slinging the rounds lead or not.

What would interest me is what effect on heat build up do non lead rounds cause? If they increase heating this is not so good if they leave less residue in side the barrel that would lower the heat build up of course you still have the powder that lines the barrel after each round which also gets in the grooves and causes heat build up and one substance might cause more friction than another.

[Skybird]

Penguin,

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

I don't get the opposition to this.

Are you surprised?
It doesn't make sense does it.

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

The clouds part......
Interesting, so as well as complaining strongly about the metals in munitions and saying governments must act to stop it and clear up the mess for the sake of the little children you now object to people acting over metals in munitions.
Is that Skybird changing his tune or is it just another of his sad self contradictory personal issues?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Penguin,

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

Well, there isn't much we can do about the stupid decisions of our politicians, but why oppose a little step in the right direction if it doesn't bust up the finances or combat capabilities?
The lead issue is one they can solve easily and I rather see small steps than no steps at all because you can wait forever before our politicians become wise and remedy the points on the top of your post.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

What would interest me is what effect on heat build up do non lead rounds cause? If they increase heating this is not so good if they leave less residue in side the barrel that would lower the heat build up of course you still have the powder that lines the barrel after each round which also gets in the grooves and causes heat build up and one substance might cause more friction than another.

Thanks for your extensive answer!
regarding steel vs lead: steel does have a little higher thermal conductivity, so the bullet could be a little hotter - people who were shot do remember a hot impact, if they remember the temp at all.
However the termal conductivity of brass is significantly higher (about 4 times than lead) - I bet left-handed shooters know what I mean
The question is also if a steel bullet needs more powder to propel it, so this could also lead to more powder residue and a hotter barrell.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Penguin,

we laucnh stupid, wanted-but-not-needed wars, we fight them over illusions and for idiotic reasons, and in stuopid manners, we mess up the lives of millions of people by that, and do not lose many words about the violence and death we cause by that, unneeded, we also sell weapons as if they were ordinary trade goods, we support inhumane regimes and turn a blind eye on how they use thesae weapons and against whom.

And you suddenly discover your ecological conscience over 1200 tons of lead?

Sorry, but I must ask for a check of priorities.

I am not against it in principle. I just think we should have more urgent things on our minds.

You're spot on with your first paragraph.

However I find the question of the ecological impact of war a very interesting one, not only since yesterday. Being interested in WW2 and growing up in a time where an oil spill was common news, I asked myself the question about the impact of the sunken tankers quite early. (The answer is the ships back then were significantly smaller than modern oil tankers, often carried lighter oil than and were mostly way more offshore)
Then there were the reports about the impact of Agent Orange in the Vietnam war, a heritage from which people from both sides suffer till today.
I think the 91 Gulf War brought the devastating ecological effects of war back into our collective minds - the Exxon Valdez was a joke compared to the burning fields in Kuwait and the largest oil spill in history in the Persian Gulf. Not to mention topics like Urane depleted ammo or the Gulf War smptome.

So yes, measurements to reduce the ecological consequences are good - though I must admit that on the first read the biodegradable landmines the article mentions sound just as insane as something like organic poison gas. People who live in areas with extensive mine problems would certainly jump for joy if those things would just resolve in the earth.

[Catfish]

I would not be so concerned about lead, when US jets [edit: other countries like Russia use them, too] fired tons of intoxicating "depleted" (lol) uranium into the landscape