No doubt. On the other hand the army got some small arms ammo development money to improve what our soldiers use. This doesn't happen often. Before, say, Casefull, decides that its wimpy because its environmentally friendly and satisfies my hippy dependencies according to madmike, lets try to figure out exactly what the Army came up with.
I'm all about improving the weapons and equipment our troops use. There is no excuse for our men and women to have anything less than the very best weapons and equipment technology can invent, money can buy, and American ingenuity can devise, BUT...
1. The "development money" the Army got came from tax dollars.
2. The primary concern driving this development is, by all accounts, "environmental conscience."
3. To date, the efforts to create a "green bullet" have failed - that money was utterly wasted.
My argument is that those same tax dollars could have bought better body armor for our troops already on the ground, or been spent to develop a better rifle than the M16 family (or a suitable companion rifle), or been spent to purchase the better bullets recently acquired by the Marines, or any one of a thousand other better uses.
So much of the environmental propaganda Americans are subjected to by our own media is based on lies, half-truths, and conjecture.
Even the theories that have some basis in truth seek to use our current resources to solve problems that aren't problems yet, and, in many cases, will likely never become problems.
It's a luxury to have an eye on the future, but it's a necessity to have an eye on the present.
The potential problems of tomorrow are of far less concern to me than the very real problems of today.
Any other line of thought seems faulty to me.
KR