I Can’t Believe How Clean Your Bombs Are

James Boone Dryden @ 31-05-2008

Bombs being dropped from a B-52Two scientists have put together a bomb that could be (and I quote) “more powerful and safer to handle than TNT and other conventional explosives and would also be more environmentally friendly.”

Environmentally-friendly bombs? I’m not a war-monger, but what’s the sense in that? Bomb the hell out of their city, but make sure the trees don’t die? It just seems ridiculous. In an age when being “green” is marketable for a politician or trendy for soccer-moms, even this seems a bit of a stretch. I think Tony Stark would have to laugh at that. [image by James Gordon]

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Responses to “I Can’t Believe How Clean Your Bombs Are”

  1. Tony says:

    Well, I came across this a while back. It still makes me grin…

    In order to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, and at a cost of about $5.2 million per ICBM, the rocket motors on 500 Minuteman III missiles will be replaced or refurbished (with new fuel). The rocket fuel will emit less toxic chemicals when used. But the new, environmentally correct rockets will be heavier than the old ones, and will thus  have a shorter range than the original motors. The actual range of the  Minuteman III  has been classified, but is thought to be nearly 10,000 kilometers, based on where the missiles are stationed and where the original Russian targets were.  Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads.

  2. Åka says:

    I guess that if you want to use a city or country after you have taken it over, you don’t want it to be too poisoned. Perhaps. But in general I agree that it seems strange.