Yeah, there is some irony. There might eventually be some non-military applications for construction or demolition work, so in that respect it could be beneficial to reduce toxicity.
Thanks Karen, Darcy and John.
Of course I can appreciate the utility of it while still savouring the irony. Even in military applications, the idea that it would be less toxic to the men and women in the Armed Forces (think of Gulf War Syndrome and depleted Uranium ammunition) is desirable.
Nature should not suffer because of people who’d like to destroy each other I think. So if it is possible to make killing devises safe for nature as well as deadly for people – I’m for it.
hmm.. Sounds quite radikal, I know… )
Kia ora Clare,
Hmmm.. I never thought about it from the point of view written in the prior comment, but there is a certain amount of sense in there somewhere.
I originally was going to write that the article leaves me a bit stunned really, then I read something thought provoking. Blogging can be good. Kia ora Clare.
Ka kite ano,
Robb
Aluajala and Robb, it makes it no less ironic that there are actual benefits to the idea. Not only to the environment but to the health of those who have to fight. But really it are not just those who seek to destroy one another who are killed, injured and maimed in war. The child that picks up a cluster bomblet, or steps on a mine after the warring parties have moved on won’t benefit from the explosives greener qualities.
Comments
7 responses
Um. Yeah.
Between so-called “smart” bombs and these nasty little guys, I feel a lot safer.
Yeah, there is some irony. There might eventually be some non-military applications for construction or demolition work, so in that respect it could be beneficial to reduce toxicity.
Thanks Karen, Darcy and John.
Of course I can appreciate the utility of it while still savouring the irony. Even in military applications, the idea that it would be less toxic to the men and women in the Armed Forces (think of Gulf War Syndrome and depleted Uranium ammunition) is desirable.
Nature should not suffer because of people who’d like to destroy each other I think. So if it is possible to make killing devises safe for nature as well as deadly for people – I’m for it.
hmm.. Sounds quite radikal, I know… )
Kia ora Clare,
Hmmm.. I never thought about it from the point of view written in the prior comment, but there is a certain amount of sense in there somewhere.
I originally was going to write that the article leaves me a bit stunned really, then I read something thought provoking. Blogging can be good. Kia ora Clare.
Ka kite ano,
Robb
Aluajala and Robb, it makes it no less ironic that there are actual benefits to the idea. Not only to the environment but to the health of those who have to fight. But really it are not just those who seek to destroy one another who are killed, injured and maimed in war. The child that picks up a cluster bomblet, or steps on a mine after the warring parties have moved on won’t benefit from the explosives greener qualities.