Green Bombs.
May 27, 2008 9:55 AM   Subscribe

Kill people AND save the environment!
posted by gman (50 comments total)

 
Well based on our track record, killing people would be a good call if you want to save the environment. That or just reform.
posted by msaleem at 9:57 AM on May 27, 2008


It's a little bit like the neutron bomb, except fancier.
posted by socalsamba at 9:59 AM on May 27, 2008


To be fair, TNT has more uses than in just bombs. And bombs are tested, which produces real smoke even if not real dead bodies.
posted by DU at 10:02 AM on May 27, 2008


As long as it kills the fish when I go fetch dinner, fine by me.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:04 AM on May 27, 2008


Lovely! My faith in humanity is restored!
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:14 AM on May 27, 2008


As long as it kills the fish when I go fetch dinner, fine by me.

Give a man an environmentally friendly bomb with which to kill fish without disrupting the surrounding ecosystem, and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to build an environmentally friendly bomb with which to kill fish without disrupting the surrounding ecosystem, and you feed him for a lifetime.
posted by Shepherd at 10:18 AM on May 27, 2008 [4 favorites]


...so, what's the catch?
posted by psmealey at 10:21 AM on May 27, 2008


War will continue to be in vogue for sometime to come, so if ordinance becomes more specific to a particular end and less of a problem in war's aftermath, then I'm not sure how some people can see this as a bad thing. The alternative is munitions which continue to maim and pollute long after political resolutions have intended to stop the conflict.
posted by wfrgms at 10:24 AM on May 27, 2008


...I'm not sure how some people can see this as a bad thing.

Link?
posted by DU at 10:29 AM on May 27, 2008


Jesus, we're a sick species.
posted by zzazazz at 10:30 AM on May 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


in the 70's, the environment threatened us with a impending 10,000 year ice age. now, the environment threatens us with global warming. i say we kill the fucking environment now, before it can threaten us any more.
posted by quonsar at 10:31 AM on May 27, 2008


Your talking point is about 10 years out of date, quonsar.
posted by DU at 10:33 AM on May 27, 2008


I've heard PETA and the Pentagon are working on a new weapon that kills the humans but leave the pandas alive.
posted by darkripper at 10:33 AM on May 27, 2008


Think of the the gardening applications of such a thing! No more tilling, no more weeding. Just *BOOM*! And cluster bomb seeding!
posted by cjorgensen at 10:35 AM on May 27, 2008


Well, this is something that we can perhaps over scrutinize. People are going to blow stuff up, be it for construction or for annihilation. There is also an almost superabundance of scientists and researchers at present. It only makes sense that with that abundance, every conceivable niche of research/development will be looked into. If people are indeed persisting in blowing up stuff, why not make that process a bit less damaging to the atmosphere? The people pursuing this are probably doing more of a positive service to humanity than if they applied themselves to some kind of derivative trading scheme or something.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:38 AM on May 27, 2008


Kill people AND save the environment!

See, I see what you were going for there, the whole irony thing, but the problem is that killing the right people could actually reduce the stress on the planet. Unfortunately though, these bombs will probably be dropped on people that use less than their share of resources rather than, say, a suburban Wal-Mart or a Chinese steel mill.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate the violent killing of people for the betterment of the environment. Thanks!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:42 AM on May 27, 2008


Teach a man to build an environmentally friendly bomb...

No, no, no... it's like this:

Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life...
posted by DreamerFi at 10:44 AM on May 27, 2008 [7 favorites]


Wow, this is like a peanut butter cup. You got your mass homicide in my environmental concerns! You got your environmental concerns in my mass destruction, bitch! Om nom nom, so good together...
posted by Mister_A at 10:44 AM on May 27, 2008 [4 favorites]


This is good news for thousands of military commanders who are currently restraining themselves from starting new wars for fear of damaging the environment.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:46 AM on May 27, 2008


I've heard PETA and the Pentagon are working on a new weapon that kills the humans but leave the pandas alive.

Actually, I think the Pandagon is working on this.
posted by cashman at 10:51 AM on May 27, 2008 [2 favorites]


Maybe the the idea was inspired by the work of the First Earth Battalion....
posted by Kronos_to_Earth at 10:52 AM on May 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


This is for you, cashman.
posted by Mister_A at 10:53 AM on May 27, 2008


Actually, I think the Pandagon is working on this.

Why does that sound to me like the place where Plushies go to fight to the death? Take it to the Pandagon! Two men enter, one man gets to sodomize a sock monkey!
posted by Pollomacho at 10:58 AM on May 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Disclaimer: I do not advocate the violent killing of people for the betterment of the environment. Thanks!

Don't worry dude. I DO! ;-)
posted by a3matrix at 11:03 AM on May 27, 2008


This is a satire written by Tom Tomorrow, right? Right?
posted by localroger at 11:06 AM on May 27, 2008


just think how hard scientists will work in the future for their Klapoetke prize!
posted by geos at 11:07 AM on May 27, 2008


Your talking point is about 10 years out of date, quonsar.

i don't have talking points. i have stupid remarks. you however, have revealed in front of everyone your inability to distinguish between the two.
posted by quonsar at 11:17 AM on May 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


Efficiency and progress is ours, once more!
It's neat and clean and gets things done.

posted by porn in the woods at 11:24 AM on May 27, 2008


SOY BOMB!
posted by rusty at 11:27 AM on May 27, 2008


Kill people and save the environment

This wasn't as shocking to me as you may have thought. I always thought the human population and health of the environment were inversely proportional.

Was I wrong?
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 11:28 AM on May 27, 2008


Soy bomb is the best thing ever.
posted by Mister_A at 11:32 AM on May 27, 2008


This was so not what I was hoping for. Sure, sure, biodegradable nontoxic explosives are kind of neat and all, but I was really hoping to discover that the military had finally embraced the idea of using produce as projectiles.

Because you haven't lived till you've seen an aircraft felled by a well placed hypersonic carrot, or a building leveled through the judicious use of legumes.
posted by quin at 11:35 AM on May 27, 2008


So, just out of curiosity, how many people that advocate for a "reduction of human population" would sacrifice themselves for the cause? I'm just wondering how much of that is actual concern for the planet as a whole and how much is just greed. Act locally, think globally after all, right?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:37 AM on May 27, 2008


To make safer, more environmentally friendly explosives, scientists in Germany turned to a recently explored class of materials called tetrazoles.

So... does that make them good Germans or bad Germans?
posted by micayetoca at 1:02 PM on May 27, 2008


I'd drop it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:06 PM on May 27, 2008


So, just out of curiosity, how many people that advocate for a "reduction of human population" would sacrifice themselves for the cause? I'm just wondering how much of that is actual concern for the planet as a whole and how much is just greed. Act locally, think globally after all, right?

Join the movement, dude!
posted by LionIndex at 1:36 PM on May 27, 2008


In all seriousness I remember reading about a plan in the 90s to plant trees from aircraft, basically "bombing" the ground with them. Each tree was encapsulated in a little biodegradable cone, with the idea it would penetrate into the ground to the proper depth, and then the tree would sprout and grow.

I don't know what the survival rate was for the trees, but I can't imagine it would be very high...maybe that's why there doesn't seem to be much information on it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:17 PM on May 27, 2008


..."with the alphabet-soup names of HBT and G2ZT." seem like they have great nsa filtering potential, no?
posted by acro at 2:39 PM on May 27, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Russians are way ahead on this one: Russia tests world's most powerful, eco-friendly bomb.

"The Russian military describes it as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb. However, they are quick to add that the bomb does not contaminate the environment like a nuclear bomb would. The military says that all that is alive merely evaporates."
posted by Kabanos at 2:43 PM on May 27, 2008


"all that is alive merely evaporates"

Red Sparowes, right?
posted by turgid dahlia at 3:27 PM on May 27, 2008


Pollomacho: Disclaimer: I do not advocate the violent killing of people for the betterment of the environment.

But poisoning's OK, right?

(with eco-friendly poisons, natch...)
posted by pompomtom at 4:29 PM on May 27, 2008


Damn, I was hoping for a spring-loaded, self-winding stabbing machine.
posted by Extopalopaketle at 4:34 PM on May 27, 2008


As an intellectual exercise, I once designed a hand-held, pneumatically operated, reciprocating, high-speed puncturing device with a three edged blade.

I called it the 'Stabinator'.
posted by quin at 6:04 PM on May 27, 2008


This Stabinator, it reciprocates?
posted by turgid dahlia at 6:14 PM on May 27, 2008


Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
posted by dhartung at 10:17 PM on May 27, 2008


I'm always amazed at how often the idea of taking warfare as a given and attempting to lessen its negative consequence elicits surprise and/or indignation (not saying everyone in this thread is responding that way, just that it's common). To accept that wars presently happen and will most likely continue to happen is not to say war is good or shouldn't be avoided at all costs. But if that premise is accepted, it follows that at least some people will consider ways to make war less bad (just as others will figure out how to kill more efficiently).

Kronos links upthread to a review of Jon Ronson's fantastic book The Men Who Stare at Goats and the manifesto of one of its subjects, the First Earth Battalion ("The First Earth Battalion hereby declares its primary allegiance to the planet.") AFAIR the hippy who wrote that was an officer paid by the U.S. military to cruise communes and talk to new-age weirdos in order to come up with new strategies for warfare in a world that no longer matched conventional theories of such. Those strategies influenced U.S. military thinking, though probably not in the way Channing intended (e.g. Ronson argues "soft" interrogation techniques like blasting Barney songs into shipping containers holding Iraqi detainees are derived in part from Channing's and other like-minded theorists' proposals).

Anyway, I got from that book, and from reading about Herman Kahn and others, a sense that despite appearances and received knowledge, the U.S. military is not a monolith, that it's made up of individuals, civilian and enlisted and other, who think about war and its conduct in very different ways and that just that there are those who drool over the latest death-machine there are many who are honestly committed to making war less terrible, i.e. less like war.
posted by generalist at 9:02 AM on May 28, 2008 [1 favorite]




Landmark cluster bomb ban agreed by 111 countries

how the fuck does that kill people OR save the environment?
posted by gman at 4:37 PM on May 28, 2008


Not to worry: the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and Pakistan are not part of the agreement. That guarantees that many more people will die.
posted by homunculus at 5:23 PM on May 28, 2008 [1 favorite]


Farming with Dynamite
posted by Burhanistan at 4:10 PM on May 29, 2008


« Older Reading Proust or Proust Reading You?   |   City of the Future, Taiwan 1960s Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments