> In yesterday's newspaper, there was an article that, while it was completely in earnest, was dumbfounding. It concerned the U.S. military switching their bullets from lead to non-lead, in order to make them less toxic. The article is filled with such stunningly odd sentences as "the military says the new bullets work just as well as the old ones, but are more environmentally friendly." THE PURPOSE OF AMMO IS TO KILL AND DESTROY. It just seems incomprehensibly absurd to worry about its environmental impact.
>
> gab"At least we know our tax dollars are spent wisely"by

It *is* absurd in one way, but it makes sense when you think of large amounts of bullets ending up in ammo dumps. I doubt the army is worried about the environmental impact of *individual* bullets in a combat situation after they have been, er, used.

I assume the majority of bullets would be spent at firing ranges or on exercises, and the leftover bits are destined to be ploughed into landfill someplace in the USA. Also, "environmentally friendly" takes into account the process of making things, not necessarily just their final disposal.

Brunnen-"reminded of an old Hagar cartoon in which his wife tells him he should clean his battleaxe because he might give someone a nasty infection"G