The announcement of a new ‘Green Ammunition’ for the military brings up an interesting question. Can war be eco-friendly? I find it interesting (twisted, actually) that something that is designed to kill can be called green.
Now, before you castigate me for being a peacenik hippie who’s missing the point (yes, I am a peacenik), let’s look at the issue.
Some definitions of ammunition:
- A projectile for firing from a rifle, revolver, or other small firearms, typically of metal, cylindrical and pointed, and sometimes containing an explosive.
- Projectiles, such as bullets and shot, together with their fuses and primers, that can be fired from guns or otherwise propelled.
- Nuclear, biological, chemical, or explosive material, such as rockets or grenades, that are used as weapons.
[social_buttons] That about covers it, doesn’t it? What other purpose could ammunition serve, other than to maim, kill, or otherwise mangle a person until they are no longer functioning?
So how does that fit into the green theme? Population reduction?
The thought that the military is trying to be more eco-friendly when killing people (I understand that we consider the people killed to be ‘enemies’, but they’re still people, yes?) goes contrary to my personal belief that wars don’t solve anything. They never have.
What wars do create is a huge demand for supplies and weaponry, including ammunition. And who profits? The arms manufacturers and dealers do.
War also creates environmental hazards to those who live near the conflicts (but aren’t killed by the ammunition), to those who live near training grounds, and to the soldiers themselves.
According to the press release about the green ammunition:
“Mk281 does not contain toxic chemicals or energetic materials, which aligns it with the Department of Defense (DoD) and Environmental Protection Agency’s joint mission to solve Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) issues. The Army’s current 40 mm training cartridge, M918, is a 1970’s pyrotechnic design that contains heavy metals in the fuze and potassium perchlorate in the flash/bang payload.
It takes 6-10 million training rounds each year to keep war-fighting skills sharp, and with a fuze failure rate of 3%-8%, M918 creates an annual taxpayer bill of >$500M in UXO clean-up costs.
By presidential executive order, the DoD is required to buy “green ammunition” for use on all training ranges. According to the Defense Science Board’s 2003, written for the DoD, 40 mm “green ammunition” is critical to conquering UXO issues.”
Well, there ya go.
Ammunition without toxic chemicals. Killing and training to kill with eco-friendly weapons.
Repeat after me: “Just call it green and it’s all good…”
Image: gopal1035 at Flickr under Creative Commons
The army is greenwashing.
The problem with “Green” ammo, 2 fold as I see it.
1: Is it as lethal as normal ammo? My guess is NO
2: What is the self life of this ammo? Ammo from WWII can still be shot.
I think you might be having a bit of knee jerk reaction to this. Put politics and opinions aside and think about it logically. The Army’s job by definition requires them to shoot ammunition. The by products of shooting polluted the environment so they made the ammunition less toxic. Whether you agree with their reason for needing the ammunition in the first place is moot.
This is no different than using unleaded gas in the jeeps. It is by it’s definition a “Green” practice in that it helps the environment. It’d ridiculous to say that this isn’t a green practice because you take personal offense at the job. The bottom line is that the government now produces less pollution because of this measure.
The only thing that can be said in its favour is that it is better than not removing the heavy metals etc.
Lets hope this does not make them more happy to deploy such weapons, as they will probably be saving money…
Mk281 is a training cartridge for the MK19 machine grenade launcher, not a cartridge used in battle. Children being raised around former military installations and functioning installations won’t have to drink contaminated water or get body parts blown off when they innocently pick up Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). YES, this German designed technology (Mk281) is good for us, but it’s too sophisticated to integrate into the U.S. industrial base. Why…because the U.S., despite it’s perception of fair play in trade and technology transfer is engaging in protectionism. That means taxpayers have the joy of paying >$500M each year to clean up the Amy’s 1970 design, M918. That’s not innovation or the government watching over citizens, that’s protectionism. The Department of Defense has NO IDEA what decisions are being made regarding this round. They’re too busy and too big; that’s why the EPA is important here. Need real photos of the situation at Fort Irwin? Let me know. The Soldiers are doing a great job, so is Fort Irwin with green initiatives. The Department of Army has fallen behind…Fort Irwin, despite the blunders of the Army command looking out for them in the supply channels, is the green leader.
Best,
Eco-Ammo
Oh you are a peacenik hippie.
We have guns, we have a military and we have hunters. Lead free ammo is great.
And yes, I write for Green Options AND I belong to the NRA, go chew on that one.
😉
40 mm green ammunition isn’t 5.56 lead-free ammunition. one is for grenade launchers and the other is for hand guns and rifles. The 40 mm has fuzes that don’t always work and high levels of toxins on the projectile and payloads. People that live in communities around military installations that were closed or re-aligned (BRAC) are stuck with contaminated land that cannot be transferred for commercial use. Anyone that cares about healthy brain and body and a secure retirement nest egg would not want the M918 40 mm 1970 used to train soldiers. Despite the pollution and explosions, the flash-bang payload debris sprays them in the face and easily catches fire…why should they be using M918, and why should the taxpayers sit back passively and allow it? It’s a training cartridge that’s kept in play for cronies, i.e. protectionism.
so was this about greener ammo or how anti-military you are? Just asking…
Hmmmm… green ammo? Does that mean that only firing ranges use green ammo? Either way, ammo loaded into guns still does its intention, kill or maim. How green is that?
This article is ridiculous. And contrary to what you clearly state in your first sentence, you do completely misses the point.
It’s about all the rounds used in training and how the military is taking steps to reduce contamination. And as stated multiple times above, it’s a logical fallacy to assume just cuz something is “evil” to your standards, that we shouldn’t even try to minimize it’s impact on the environment.
And thanks for pigeonholing everyone that cares about the environment as peace hippies. Loving the Earth and supporting the military is not mutually exclusive.
I know this is the wrong forum for this but…
I recently read that a LARGE number of soldiers are dissatisfied with the M9 pistol (for various reasons) but the single biggest reason is its lethality (or lack thereof). The Army is looking into fixes for the various reasons, and it’s holding off on looking into larger caliber replacements (which is what the soldiers want) hoping that the green ammo will make the puny M9 more lethal. I wonder what the percentage of US casualties from bureaucracy is? Maybe the Army knows more about guns and ammo than I give them credit for (I mean come on – they ARE the Army!). I wonder if barrel length, rifling pitch, jacket material, projectile shape, etc. combined with total expansion and/or expansion rates of the cartridge loads might actually have an appreciable effect on lethality? Anybody know?
See what I mean – probably not the right forum, huh?