It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon to build 'safer' bombs

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Pentagon to build 'safer' bombs


www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - Faced with growing international pressure, the Pentagon is changing its policy on cluster bombs and plans to reduce the danger of unexploded munitions in the deadly explosives.

The policy shift, which is outlined in a three-page memo signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, would require that after 2018, more than 99 percent of the bomblets in a cluster bomb must detonate.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Those nasty cluster bombs were quite effective in Iraq an Afghanistan, maybe too effective.

If the U.S.A. uses tactical nuclear weapons as planned in Iran will the U.S. then cave to international pressure to build 'safer' nukes?



www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
hang on so are you suggesting that the US do nothing and continue to use cluster bombs and other weapons that can harm innocent civilians?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I think they should use that Gay Bomb reported a few years back. That sounded funny as hell. I heard before the Iraq invasion there was some kind of bomb that had some sort of substance inside that would sort of "freeze" people in the vicinity?? Don't quote me on that but it's along the same lines. I thought bombs weren't supposed to be safe anyway?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemonkey
 


They have waited this long, damage done?

The report states that the U.S. is not going to eliminate the cluster bomb, rather they will reduce inventories of existing bombs and essentially make the new cluster bombs more effective.

I find it laughable that a 99% effective explosive rate in a new cluster bomb will be considered a 'safer' bomb.

If the goal is less civilian casualties the best move would be to avoid using cluster bombs period when it could impact in or near primarily civilian areas.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Alarmist2012
 


ok thanks i just wanted clarification



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
The Pentagon is completely on the wrong track with this.
They need to build more friendly bombs.

The quiet bomb, borrowing from Rockey and Bowinkel cartoons, containing hushaboom, the quiet explosive.

The neat bomb, leaving no messy fragments or debris from it's destruction, only nice clean fields, It could distribute seeds and fertilizer.

The propaganda bomb, providing entertainment and propaganda displays like a well choriographed fireworks display for onlookers outside the target zone.

The American Dream bomb, a small well furnished home with all the luxuries, including a wide screen TV, refrigerator full of beer and a game console. Even if it misses it's target it's still a hit! Who would want to be outside fighting a war when they could be inside enjoying their new found luxury apartment?

If you factor how much war costs per kill, it is completely insane. The same money could be spent to refurbish an entire nation against the will of it's people.

Like it or not Heussein, you are going to start your new 50K a year job tomorrow, live in this brand new luxury condo, and drive this new car. Now all you need to do is sign this agreement to say nice things about America, If you break the contract, you loose everything!

We don't need soldiers, we need managers, and overnight civilization distribution teams. Give a man an opportunity for the good life and he will be on your side, even if he thinks your women are whores, he will not tell you so.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a safe bomb?

am i the only person who sees the irony of this, has to be up there with Military Intelligence



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demandred
a safe bomb?

am i the only person who sees the irony of this, has to be up there with Military Intelligence


I was going to say the VERY same thing.

Safe for who?

Not for the poor bugger who gets blown to fleshy bits by it, that's for sure!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I know this is way out there, fringe thinking even, so call the insane asylum if you must, but how about we spend money on, you know, our country? I know, I know, bombs are important too. Its like 1) Military Equipment 2) Breathing 3) TV on the priority list, but I think we could give it a chance.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I know this is way out there, fringe thinking even, so call the insane asylum if you must, but how about we spend money on, you know, our country? I know, I know, bombs are important too. Its like 1) Military Equipment 2) Breathing 3) TV on the priority list, but I think we could give it a chance.


now your just being silly, pffft spending money on your country, when there are far worse ways of wasting all that money shees what could you be thinking


i think the dept of homeland security is gunna have you tagged for that one



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Safe bombs will be non destructive. They will gently wrap the human body in a protective block of Gel. The bodies will be safe and well preserved. No harm will come to any human body. Maybe then war will become popular!



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


I suppose this could be called the jello bomb?


The idea that weapons of war can be made 'safer' to me is utterly silly.

Making wars more popular has already been done, you simply need to have a build up of erroneous intelligence, an enemy that is easily vilified and a worrisome gullible public.. It worked in Iraq, and should work elsewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join