digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com —

Environmentally Friendly Bombs Planned

news.yahoo.com — Kill the onerous people, but save the sacred planet. You can't make this sh*t up folks.....

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Chromedaffodils, on 05/28/2008, -6/+24no.....
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/28/2008, -7/+5an interesting argument i've heard before is that bioweapons are the best for the environment. they'll kill humans and maybe some other mammals but leave most other species intact. chemical, nuclear, and conventional warfare on the other hand could destroy the earth.
      • k1down, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Sad but true.
      • nick111, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3I think this is completely reasonable to be honest - to reduce the damage that a bomb does - not to pass the legacy of this generations stupidity on to other generations.
      • jpop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Only problem is, this presumes no mutations in the bioweapons...
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Stupid Eugenicist. Humans are part of the environment.
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 05/28/2008, -8/+5Why not, sir. ***** elaborate.
      • dodgejon, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3settle yourself Mr DgitusAnonymus...
    • a1lazydog, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2wait until the PETA gets their hands on these babies....
  • caferrell, on 05/28/2008, -43/+28Morality, when unconnected from religion, will follow the vagaries of fashion like a rudderless boat blown out to sea.
    Without religion and tradition as the anchor and tiller of society, individuals and groups within the society will adjust morality into increasingly irrational positions.
    Case in point: green bombs.
    Another case in point: Billions spent on veternary services in the USA when humans can't afford to go to a doctor.
    • rficwizard, on 05/28/2008, -4/+37Morality can work quite well without religion, and quite badly with religion. Morality is a matter of both knowing and caring what is right and what is wrong. Religious and non-religious people are capable of knowing what is right and what is wrong. Religious and non-religious people are capable of ignoring that knowledge when it is inconvenient. I think of the two most moral people I know; one is undeniably an atheist, and one is strongly religious.
      • almonds646, on 09/11/2008, -4/+11When morality is unconnected to religion, then morality is relative.

        Nonetheless, I concede I know people who better exemplify morality (in Christian terms) than most (self-professed) Christians do.
        • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -4/+1Utter crap. Religion is extremely relative. What one religion, or religious group believes is good is condemmed by another. And within each religion what is considered moral or immoral has changed over time.

          Religion is far from the unchanging foundation of morality that it claims to be.
      • laserblazer, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3Humans are no better than animals. If you choose to believe otherwise, that's your business, but drop the self-righteousness bit.

        Jesus said, "As you do unto the least among you, so you do unto me."

        Are you going to decide where to draw the line between the least and the worthless? Judge not lest ye be judged.
        • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Humans are better at morality than animals. It is one of the most important tools that allows us to build civilizations - right up there with language and fire.

          Morality is the expression of human instincts that allow us to form groups, to live in relative peace and to provide for one another in complex societies.

          This may have been expressed in religious language in the past, but it's time to be honest that it has always been us that has "drawn the line between the least and the worthless". Religion is a way of offloading responsibility for our actions.
        • rayraym0fucka, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Jesus is dead, killing an animal isn't going to kill him any further ;p
        • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1"Morality is the herd instinct in the individual" -nietzsche
      • Zempz, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1The first thing anyone learns in any academic study of morality is that it is derived from pure reason and has no derivatives from religion. Most of religious norms are taken from morality, but they came second.
      • RogueGenius, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1That is really a stupid comment. Virtually all worlds evils are caused by 'religion' and 'tradition.' That's like saying more sex will lead to less pregnancy.
    • Akairenn, on 05/28/2008, -6/+11"Another case in point: Billions spent on veternary services in the USA when humans can't afford to go to a doctor."

      Get off your arse and get a job?

      I'll admit some people are incapacitated by illness to the point where they can't actually work. However, this hardly accounts for the huddled masses, whining for free handouts.

      Oh, and religion isn't the best anchor for morality. Far from it - I don't recall scientists burning people at the stake for insisting the world was flat and the Earth is the center of the universe. Oh, I know, religion has changed - thanks to separation of church and state, yonder Christian loonies (and I realize it isn't all Christians) are relegated to attempting to get draconian laws passed, since they can no longer play the executioner.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -3/+5I do recall hitler killing a bunch of jews because of a supposedly scientifically validated "Master Race." So get off your stupid high horse, and give it the ***** up and realize that whether a scientific approach governs your worldview, or a religious faith based approach, it's all just a WORLDVIEW either way, and it's the WORLDVIEW that people defend.
        fool.
        • Fafnir43, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3"Gott mitt uns". I think that's all I need to say in reply to that, really.
        • tjsgigante, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2God with us.
        • Zempz, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Godwins law already geezus.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3are you serious? you people are so stupid I am sorry for wasting my time. are you seriosuly willing to blind yourselves to history you stupid *****. hitler was fighting the war for God? sure. thats why he went around attacking christian countries. thats why he woulda happily sent catholics to the gas chambers.
          the nazi party's rampage was fought in the name of science. pseudo-science maybe, and Adolph Hitler was the GOD in that movement. get over it, you ***** children.
          you people are such a damn embarrassment if you overlook hitler's ACTIONS in favor of his words. god you are such a joke.
        • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4*****. Hitler's "science of a master race" was science in name only. What it was in reality was an irrational belief in a myth, regardless of facts, in the higher destiny of a particular group of people. Sound familliar?

          The idea that science somehow represents an opposing irrational worldview to that other irrational worldview, religion, is idiotic.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2treegoat
          that is why you are a complete idiot.
          you proved that "traditional religion" or not, there will ALWAYS BE A WORLDVIEW that acts JUST LIKE traditional religion, because it is innate to humans to build a myth in which they live. you ***** proved it in your comment.
          the idea that you betrayed yourself with that comment and proved me right, is hilarious.

          Now you are also an idiot for calling his "science" "science in name only". I can say that every atrocity committed in the name of religion was actually "religion in name only" aka using "God" to justify committing atrocities. In the end then, we come to the conclusion that both science and religion can be easily manipulated for horrible purposes.
          Finish your milk recess is over.
        • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2The "worldview that always acts like religion" as you put it, is any worldview that is based in fiction or myth. It is an inherently irrational worldview - whether it is the nazi concept of the master race, the idea of a omnipotent god, or that fairies control the drinking water. Just because an irrational group claims that such a belief is scientific doesn't make it scientific in nature (unless they pull out a drowned fairy, or whatever, as evidence). The reason such a worldview always "acts like religion" is because it *is* religion, you halfwit. Do you think the church of scientology is actually based on science because it has "science" in the name?

          Science is an open, rational method of discovery, with self correction built in. It is a tool, not a worldview. The worldview it encourages, though, is a rational one. This is not what Hitler or any other dictator championed.

          Maybe it's you that needs to back to school.


      • laserblazer, on 05/28/2008, -3/+5I like how he picks on animal owners who care for their pets instead of criticizing debauched and debased plutocrats who spend money equal to a trillion trips to the vet on cocaine, prostitutes, gambling, donations to corrupt so-called 'superchurch' cults and other actual vices.

        People who will treat animals like objects will treat other people like objects, so promoting the objectification of animals can be taken as a potential sign of sociopathy.
      • treedude, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6"Get off your arse and get a job?"

        Not everyone in poverty is lazy. Some simply don't have the means and unless society helps them they never will.
    • themarq, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5I have never been able to understand how religion confers a sense of morality to its adherents. Is it something that your leaders (Priests, Imams etc...) teach young students, or is there a section in your holy books that teaches morality?
      As a Christian (I assume) where does your morality come from?
      • hellosaysme, on 05/28/2008, -5/+6read the bible, It is all laid out in the teachings of Christ.
        • themarq, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3I've read the bible, cover to cover. In my youth I spent a great deal of time in church and week long bible camps over summer holidays, and everytime I asked the question I posed above I got a version of your answer "it's all in the bible, it's the teachings of Christ and the word of God."

          Well I ask you then, is this your morality?:

          Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

          So not only is slavery and subjection moral and accepted by Christians, you can literally beat them with clubs and so long as you don't kill them you're in the clear.

          I find this... confusing.
        • pintomp3, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

          Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

          If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

          Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

          no thanks.
        • Zempz, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2which came in very large part to the greeks. christ wasn't the original, just the most mainstream.
        • C0MF0RTABLYnumb, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Which version should I read because, there are so many and I am not sure which one I should follow?
        • caferrell, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5@themarq, the Old Testament is confusing and is not a good guide to morality, it is a history of the Jews' relationship with God. Moral lessons are there to be uncovered, but it is very easy to get lost and justify evil actions based on the Old Testament. That is the failing of many evengelical Christians, such as John Hagee.

          If one is a Christian, then our instruction should obviously come directly from God, made man in the person of Jesus Christ. His teachings are perfectly coherent and teach peace, love and acceptance. They teach humility, honesty and charity.

          As to my original premise and in response to the comments of many non-believers I would like to say a couple of things.

          First - Horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Horrible things have even been done by true believers in religion: 911.

          Second - Some of the most moral and just people in the world are and have been non-believers. I spent 20 years of my life as an atheist from eleven until thirtysome years of age. I read the entire Bible, I read a good bit of the Koran, I studied Buddhism and Hinduism, all with the intent to be able to argue against them. I know all the arguments, OK?

          Third - A society in transition from mostly believers to mostly non-believers will often act morally, but in great part it is because the moral residue of their religious instruction keeps a society in agreement on acceptable behavior and thought. However as you move away from religion in time, the new generations will begin to self-define morality.
          Given the self-serving nature of the human animal, the self-defined moral coda will develop into conflicting value systems. Finally there will not be enough agreement about basic premises for behavior to be modified by shared morality and all interactions between people will have to be governed by the state. We are arriving at that point, and that implies that we are no longer a society, but rather pools of individuals held together in relative peace by the coercive forces of the government.

          Thanks anyway, I prefer religion.

        • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3caferrell, as someone who has done much of the same stuff you said about reading all the "holy books", comparing and contrasting etc. from an atheist viewpoint, that comment right there was pretty much absolutely brilliant. it's unfortunate that people will digg you down in favor or one-liners cracking jokes about religion.
          I personally am, in terms of "traditional religions", am atheist. I believe in religion, "gnosis" etc, i just don't believe in any literal interpretation of a God. I study Jung, who essentially carried Nietzsche's torch (although with a much more positive view of Christianity)more than anything else...so I believe in the necessity for every human to have a framework of meaning.
          ok rambling. but, seriously, brilliant comment.
        • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2Wrong. There is no doubt that the new testament contains many morality lessons. However that in no way demonstrates that it is true or real. There are many morality lessons in Lord of the Rings as well, but I don't see you advocating the church of the hobbit. Transmitting morality through stories is a valuable exercise, but the stories themselves are still stories and can change (and often do) without degrading the underlying message.

          As to your points:

          First and second: Yep agree with you. Religious people do evil things all the time. It appears to be a feature of religion. Belief in the unreal appears to lead to irrational behavior I guess.

          Third: There is absolutely no evidence of this cultural transition you speak of. Which societies? And how do you measure this increase in amorality? Crime rates maybe? But in the States there seems to be a positive correlation between the professed religiousness of particular states and higher crime rates. Why is it that Holland which has a high population of atheists is one of the safest countries in the world? Wouldn't it be a madhouse of murder by now according to your hypothesis?

          This concept that somehow religion is providing a guiding light to proper behavior is not held up by history.

          Your last statement is particularily hypocritical and poorly thought out - that without religion, individuals are coerced into being moral by the government. Well how do you think religion encourages people to be "moral"? Through the coersive force of fear - obey or be damned.

          Thanks anyway, I prefer rational thought.
        • themarq, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2@caferrell

          In your first post you stated "Morality, when unconnected from religion, will follow the vagaries of fashion like a rudderless boat blown out to sea."

          *...will follow the vagaries of fashion...*

          Yet in your most recent post you have dismissed the Old Testament as "not a good guide to morality." Is it unfashionable now to accept the teachings of the Old Testament? What's going to happen to your beliefs in 30 more years when it becomes unfashionable to follow the teachings of the New Testament?

          Who ultimately gets to pick and choose what parts of the bible are moral and what parts can be discarded as antique ideals? If you're going to hold up the bible as a rule book on how to "be moral" you have to allow the whole book to be considered. For the most part the bible is a pretty good book, but it's too inconsistent (due to many authors and translators) to be considered a road map of morality.

          I don't know where my morality comes from, but I do know that it's not from the bible.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3you two might help yourselves by being a little openminded instead of automatically hating anything that seems to disagree with you. the future may prove caferrell wrong, but the present certainly isnt, and you shoudl be glad to be given the opportunity to think about something other than talking about imaginary friends. the atheists arguments for morality are played out, predictable, and boring.

          i think the third part of caferrell's comment is actually insanely interesting, but that is also because I happen to be a proponent of exactly what he is talking bad about. i personally believe morality and "meaning" is destined to move from a collective to an individual level, and I find the assertion that should this happen, we will all have to be governed by the state to be very interesting.
          I don't agree, but I welcome anything that makes me think, not like you boring broken records spouting your same Dawkins-fed baby food all day.
        • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1So if we disagree we're "closed minded"? You certainly make a compelling argument... Just because you find the argument that morality does not depend on religion "boring" does not invalidate it. I certainly haven't seen you refute it.

          And as to caferrel's third point, not only does the present prove him wrong, so does the past. Where is the proof that increasingly nonreligious societies suffer from amorality? There is none. In fact, as I pointed out, what evidence there is suggests the opposite. The more rational a society, the more moral.

          You both seem to miss the obvious that the concept of a government enforcing morality is exactly the same as a religion enforcing morality. Why would one be better than the other?

          There's a simple mechanic that will eventually prevent morality from becoming highly relative and individual and it's not religion. If a society loses it's collective sense of morality, and these become highly individualized then the society will stop functioning as surely if everybody started speaking their own personal language (how can any complex society exist if its members can in no way trust the behavior of other members?). The society will then either correct this or die off.

          How's that for natural selection?


        • caferrell, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2TreeGoat how about he example of Russia?
          How about the example of inner city America?
          These are examples of what happens when the population is completely separated from a shared morality.
          The point about religion and morality is not that we must all believe in God, it is that we must all believe in the same value system, or else we do not have society. We must all believe in the same values and be guided somehow to act on those beliefs.
          There are two options, give all that power to the state to control us, or have people follow a shared a religion.
          People living in all powerful states, or in anarchy, are not generally very happy or fulfilled, but people who trust their neighbors, because they share the same religion, are happy.
      • laserblazer, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Membership in a church is often a way to leverage power over your peers and gain access to, among other things, their money, secrets and children.

        Priests are actors but some have become lost in the role and become screaming hypocrites to cover their own personal freak-show. People that scream and rant about morality are always covering something up; the truly virtuous and pious know they don't have to raise their voice to be heard by the Almighty.
    • talonstriker, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5"Another case in point: Billions spent on veternary services in the USA when humans can't afford to go to a doctor. "
      How is that irrational? Why should I (assuming I have a pet) give a damn about some hobo, to whom I have no emotional attachment to, instead of my pet, who means a lot to me? Just because some thing is the same species as me doesn't mean that I should consider it to be more important to me than some other thing that isn't (e.g. money...its more important to me than some guy down the block).
      Sorry if that sounds extremely selfish thats how I feel.
      • laserblazer, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4You don't need to justify caring for a companion life-form. Nothing is taken away from society by an act of kindness.
    • cha5e, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5So, on the veterInary issue - what is your suggestion to "fix" things? I doubt there are many people who pay for veterinary care but not for their own health care - rather, there are some people who can pay for both and some people who can pay for neither. So are you suggesting that the people who are able to pay for both should be banned from getting veterinary care, and forced to instead fund the health care of poorer people?
    • DeFex, on 05/28/2008, -6/+2Religious people have absolutely no right to call anyone "irrational" ever. hypocrite.
    • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -4/+4Morals are not relative and are not religious, they come from years and years of learned behaviours during our development. When food was taken from our ancestors they suffered and thus deemed that that action was bad and should not be done. When group members or parents were killed we suffered and determined that action to be wrong.

      Like anything else, some of us learn and some of us don't.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3caferell,
      though I do agree with a lot of what you say, I don't agree that morality has to be connected directly with a "traditional religious" worldview.
      From my understanding you are implying that it would be all out nihilism without religion, and I completely understand this problem. It's something that the existentialists spent their lives trying to deal with.
      The first step towards atheism is a step in the direction of nihilism. This is where it seems a lot of diggers are with their blindly ignorant comments. Thus, the responsibility of the atheist is search out his or her own worldview and their own "guiding principle"...a "personal religion" so to speak (after finding that the collective worldview is not for them). If this doesn't happen, you are left with atheists who treat atheism like the hot new traditional religion and defend it with a blatant religious fervor. These atheists are lost fighting for the cause of nothingness.

      So yes, it is very possible that an atheist can get lost and float around in a world without morality and just go with every new fad that comes. As a result, it is the responsibility of the atheist to actually do a bit of soul searching and discover their own "guiding principle" their own personal religion...their own personal ten commandments etc etc...their own morality. In doing so they will also realize the relativity of EVERYONE'S worldview, and perhaps even stop being so blindly anti-christian-worldview. It's THESE atheists who will end up contributing greatly to the advancement of the human race, not the jerkoffs who sit on digg making FSM jokes.
    • C0MF0RTABLYnumb, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1Well, obviously religion or "God" hasn't done a very good job of teaching people how to act ethically. You know, given that the majority of the world is religious and the largest religion is Christianity.
    • TreeGoat, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1This is crap. Morality in religion is based on fear of punishment - "obey your god's laws or go to hell". And those laws get changed with whatever religious fashion may hold sway at a particular time. Religious morality can just as easily say "be kind to to the poor" as it can say "burn witches alive". There is nothing intrinsically moral about religion. And I'd say that a morality based on fear is more a sense of self preservation than anything else.

      Social justice, objective judgement, compassion for your fellow man can be advocated by religion, but are certianly not tied to religion. These are natural human instincts that have found expression in religion just as they have in other non religious codes of conduct.
    • Pixelpaws, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1... what does this have to do with bombs?
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1You are working against ancient ways of thinking, and you might believe that you have found the solution.

      However, morality founded on education, regardless of religious beliefs, can be exactly what you believe your religious morality, and only founded upon your particular religious beliefs, will do, without it necessarily agreeing with your belief system.

      I'm a catholic. I'm not an evangelical, I'm not a fundamentalist, therefore I don't believe that only my way of thinking is moral. I was taught by Jesuits to understand that it doesn't matter what you believe, or who you follow, as long as you act civilly and morally, in ways that do not impinge upon other's rights or beliefs.

      What might be right for you, might not be right for others. If you can't intellectually comprehend that, you are incapable of judging anyone's morality.
  • DigitalBob, on 05/28/2008, -4/+41What I would like to see is some research done on how to deactivate landmines and cluster bombs. If they don't explode after a period of time, they should go into a "safe" mode. Landmines keep killing long after the battle is over, and mostly civilians. That was one of Princess Diana's big agenda items.

    Of course, the best way to prevent collateral damage is not to have battles in the first place. But that doesn't get solved through technology.
    • caferrell, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8Both types of munition simply need to be banned. Land mines are basically not used any more, everyone has signed the treaty that outlaws their use. It is only the oposition of the US and Israel that are stopping the treaty to ban cluster munitions.
      • chanop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+15The US still uses land mines
        • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4We use self-destructing land mines which eliminate the problem of having live munitions that outlast the war.
        • chanop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Aren't all mines self-destructing? But seriously, anyone have a source for our mine usage? I remember there was controversy about the US still using mines some years back
        • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3http://www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c11735.htm

          So, we're not only removing persistent mines from our inventory, we're trying to ban them worldwide and clean up any existing mines.
      • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3Banning cluster munitions won't do anything. I'm not even sure how people argue that it would. Cluster munitions, in case you aren't aware are used to destroy large groups of light armor and infantry using the least amount of weaponry possible. A cluster bomb simple allows the to drop the needed number of weapons in one or two shots.
        Ban cluster bombs and we simply go back to dropping more loads of larger individual bombs.
        • pintomp3, on 05/28/2008, -3/+12The overwhelming majority of people killed or maimed by cluster bombs are civilians and a significant number of those are children, an unprecedented study into the lasting impact of the controversial weapons system published today shows.
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/03/milita ...
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5299938.stm

          there was a bill to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, but it was defeated:
          http://www.forward.com/articles/back-bill-to-ban-c ...
        • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -7/+3pintomp3, I don't get your point. What is the difference between using a cluster munition or dropping 100 bombs? Banning cluster munitions does not change anything about the current situation, it will, in fact, make it worse.

          As much as I dont like it the same logic applies to banning them in civilian areas, you will either need to drop a cluster bomb or 100 regular bombs, either way the danger exists. They need to leave cluster bombs alone.

          What they need to do is to ban combat in civilian areas all together, problem is our enemies rarely play by our rules and you would end up having cities used as fortresses and hostages.
        • Bulletbillx, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3@noahhoward

          Can you at least agree that they should be banned from resembling toys or food packs so that civilians don't accidentally pick up the duds and blow themselves up?
        • caferrell, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5The trouble is that a large percentage of cluster munitions don't explode upon contact with the ground. In fact many are designed not to explode until handled to make sure that an enemy cannot move back into an area that has been bombed.

          But as pintomp3 said above, most of the damage done by these things happens to children.
        • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1"Can you at least agree that they should be banned from resembling toys or food packs so that civilians don't accidentally pick up the duds and blow themselves up?"

          I can agree with that but I think the change there needs to be with the food packs. The bomblets are engineered for a specific purpose the food packs just happen to look similar. I don't know the exact reasons for the resemblance either.
        • nick111, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3That's ***** because cluster bombs are basically aerial-propelled landmines.
  • yface, on 05/28/2008, -3/+14very nice, but we still get to blow up nature. right?
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6With an environmentally friendly bomb we simply displace nature from one place to many places. Trust me, It's completely harmless.
  • JKap, on 05/28/2008, -18/+15I wonder if the biggest polluter in the world, the U.S. Federal Government, is looking for ways to "save the planet" whilst killing the people. This looks like a good first step.
    • chanop, on 05/28/2008, -3/+13China is a much bigger polluter than the US (we still need to clean up our act though)
      • quisph, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2I would say China is a *slightly* bigger polluter than the US; the difference in CO2 emissions is only a few percent, IIRC. And of course, per capita, it isn't even close.
      • JKap, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3I guess that you misunderstood. The U.S. Federal Government is the largest single polluter in the world.

        "The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined. (1) The types of hazardous wastes used by the military include pesticides and defoliants like Agent Orange. It includes solvents, petroleum, perchlorate (a component of rocket fuel) lead and mercury. And most ominously, depleted uranium. "

        http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm
        • jpop, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Get back to us after researching China and Russia on this and I may believe you. The only reason you know how much the US pollutes is they don't shoot you for asking...
    • ElectroBot, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5A very significant quantity of China's pollution is created when they manufacture goods headed to U.S., Canada, Europe, etc. Yes, they do create a lot of their own pollution (using very inefficient coal powered plants), but one of the biggest reasons for their pollution is that the rest of the world wants stuff produced as cheaply as possible, and doesn't care that this is harming Chinese health and the Planet's environment.
      • sphira, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2This is the truth of it --
        They also do not care about the children or others they expend working as labor in those factories.

        Warm bodies is what they have plenty of --
    • PuterPrsn, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3Funny - the news is out of Germany, and more German firms are mentioned than US, so exactly how do you get a US problem out of this??
    • PhilLesh69, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3I guess it is a good first step if you are population control believer, or in other words, a eugenicist.

      Rather than work to make the usage of resources and its distribution better support a growing population, let's just figure out ways to reduce the population.

      I guess if you already have a few billion dollars in the bank, the former seems like the better option. Get rid of everyone else so we can enjoy the riches we've amassed.
  • sheepster, on 05/28/2008, -4/+49hi oprah!
    • talonstriker, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6I got confused by the thumbnail....thought Oprah had something to do with bombs initially.
      • PabloMac, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Only in regard to her ratings since endorsing Obama.
      • userperson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Oprah might not be aware of said explosives, but I imagine she's endorse them since they're environmentally friendly.
    • elijahalcantara, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4I can't wait to lose weight!
      • userperson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2These explosives could help you lose weight, but maybe you should just diet with Oprah instead.
  • Morky, on 05/28/2008, -1/+38Death goes green.
  • lordewoks, on 05/28/2008, -2/+20Dugg for blowing stuff up and reducing our carbon footprint!
  • JTJaskot, on 05/28/2008, -2/+17I thought this was going to be from the onion based on the title...
  • whirlingderv, on 05/28/2008, -2/+16Dugg for the accompanying photo of Oprah and Bob Greene.
  • zadadka, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14They already exist....kinda.
    They're called neutron bombs.
    • coolmanmax2000, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Nah, those kill trees too
      • zadadka, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Only on the same basis they kill humans, hence why I said "kinda".
        Plus their fallout has an "eco-friendly" 12.5 year half-life.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1And how many other bombs can say they have a cool dance to go along with them? (okay, maybe not "cool")
  • megamod, on 05/28/2008, -2/+13lol...besides the awesome thumbnail, the morbidness of the article and how lightly they take people's lives into consideration it's very interesting.
  • Rapter09, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10Lose weight in 2008!
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/28/2008, -18/+5Perhaps the terrorist United States Government will NOT have to use several thousand tons of depleted uranium on every invasion in the future.

    The terrorist United States Government are world greatest environmental terrorists as well!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    Where's the evidence that kerosene fires melted steel?
    How did the huge molten pools of metal get under the twin towers and building 7?
    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
    • DeFex, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3fire melts steel. it also melts tinfoil so watch out.
      If you leave out the 9/11 bits people might pay a bit of attention.
      • republicker, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Heat melts steel and must be a certain temperature. Did you take any science classes in school?
    • Shawn4168, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2lol wut
    • tjsgigante, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Copy and paste commands make for easy commenting on lots of issues.
    • Digger1218, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1*yawn* I'm sorry, what? I wasn't paying attention.
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
      "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
      "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
      "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
  • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Hey there was another story on the front page yesterday, also, where the guy picked one of the web adds as his picture for the story....Wow.... Does having a picture matter that much? Why doesn't Digg make it so you can just pick any pic, then people wouldn't do this desperate crap.
    • ocbeta, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1This picture is an add on the yahoo page. Maybe digg messed up
      • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4When you submit a story, you get to pic a picture from a list of pictures from that page and that page only. What I am saying is this is the second popular story I have seen where the guy picked an add. You can also choose to not have a pic, but, reportedly, those storys never make it to the main page (a fate worse than death).
  • Waterrat, on 05/28/2008, -9/+6 Morality does just fine without religion,thank you very much.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psycholog ...
  • chamelion25, on 05/28/2008, -5/+5I hope it's not too late to make up for all the depleted uranium we're dropping in Iraq.
  • k1down, on 05/28/2008, -5/+4Dugg for the Oprah pic from a banner on there.
  • DeFex, on 05/28/2008, -6/+6well once the elites decide there are too many people for the planet to sustain, this would be perfect.
  • franklymister, on 05/28/2008, -2/+9I remember this exact same discussion going on when the neutron bomb was in the news back in the '80s.
    The more things change, the more they stay insane.
  • Schwabby, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3I think my head just exploded..
    • NoStoppingUs, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6think of what you just did to the atmosphere! bastard!
  • NoStoppingUs, on 05/28/2008, -6/+1i dig any story with oprah's picture attached.

    =(
  • bombula, on 05/28/2008, -13/+9Newsflash: people are NOT as important as the Earth. Everyone alive today, like every other living thing, will die. But ***** up the planet, and no one new will ever live. It doesn't take a genius to see which is a bigger problem. People are going to kill each other, that's all there is to it. If we can do it without destroying our planet, our future and the future of every other living thing then that's a big plus.
    • serif69, on 05/28/2008, -4/+10Every hippie that dies turns into nutrient-rich compost that can help the environment.
      Bombula, I suggest you volunteer for the study.
      • nick111, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3As opposed to merely talking compost - like good old fashioned, stick-in-the-mud conservatives.

        ...who alas, over their lifetimes build up so many toxic compounds in their systems that when they die they tend to leave behind this evil smelling poisonous sludge in which nothing but straggly, radioactive weeds will grow.
        • serif69, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1"Conservative" isn't the opposite of "hippie". You'd have done much better if you made your post about The Man.
        • nick111, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Or any other bogie from about 40 years ago.
    • Zempz, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2IMO: unless you can pinpoint the meaning of life, you cannot rank earths importance higher than humanities, based on lifespan
    • Hetman, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Whats the earth with out people? I mean there has been around 5 mass extinctions that have happened on earth. Where close to 90-95% of organisms have been wipped out. Guess what each time earth has survived and eventually was striving with life again. Guess what the earth does not give to ***** about anyone. It is just a rock flying around in space.
      • Pixelpaws, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3The Earth got along just fine without humans for a few billion years. I imagine it would continue to exist if humans were to suddenly disappear.
    • TechyLah, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Basic, basic philosophic principle. It's universally religious as well, but to lead with that would cause you to toss it out without consideration. There are 4 levels of created stuff, from lowest to highest:
      Mineral (rocks, water etc..)
      Vegetable (plants)
      Animal
      Human
      Yes I said lowest to highest; get over it. Higher levels need and eat the lower levels to grow and survive.
      One would and should expend much of the lower to sustain the higher.
      Grind up rocks and minerals to feed the plants.
      Feed grain and leaves to sustain the animals.
      Slaughter animals (humanely) and do needed animal testing to save human lives.
      NOT THE REVERSE, Bombula. Do not sacrifice a human to save some animals, plants or earth.
      Do not slaughter animals just to make plant food.
  • spydersvenom, on 05/28/2008, -5/+5It's a bomb! No one who drops a frickin' bomb should be concerned with the environment it BLOWS UP in! I'm sorry, if you care that much, don't drop the stupid bomb!
  • endustry, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5Finally the Chia Nuke. Ch,ch,ch,BOOM.
  • noahhoward, on 05/28/2008, -0/+21The poster here is a little sensationalist. While this may find its way into bombs (a good thing) it seems one of the may uses for this will be demolition and excavation. Anyone who bothered to read the article will see that the devlopment is to help make explosives more stable and easier to handle and to make them less detrimental to our water supplies, ect when the residue seeps into the ground.

    The title (I know it is Yahoos title) makes it sound like they're trying only to develop a bomb and Phenry somehow concluded that it is a magical bomb that kills people but spares the trees.
    • phenry, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3"Phenry somehow concluded that it is a magical bomb that kills people but spares the trees."

      No, but I do value people more than the environment. I consider the current use of DU munitions a criminal act. Same goes for cluster munitions.

      I have no problem cleaner munitions. Just wish the peaceful uses were more prevalent than the military uses....
      • sphira, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2"DU munitions a criminal act. Same goes for cluster munitions."

        Why?

        Because they inevitably kill or poison civilians -- often children --

        they are God awful weapons
  • Fafnir43, on 05/28/2008, -3/+8I fail to see the problem here. Given that people are going to die no matter which weapon is used, isn't it better to use a weapon that doesn't render the land you use it on uninhabitable for decades to come, all other things being equal?
    • jpop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1It depends on your goals. Example: You are in a war with no forseeable end, and are trying to deny the land to the enemy for years/decades.
    • jpop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Army's used to burn and salt the earth to deny farmland for years...
  • pintomp3, on 05/28/2008, -3/+13we wouldn't want to accidentally blow up the oil. just the people on top of it.
  • xuth, on 05/28/2008, -3/+5It makes perfect sense to make environmentally friendly ordinance. Most of the bullets and a large fraction of everything else our military uses is used for training and much of that on our own land.
    • bosssmiley, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Surely it's *better* to shoot up some sand dunes and rock formations that mangle and kill real live people though?
      • jpop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3It's for the environment though. If you can keep all that lead in human bodies, it won't damage the environment. Right? Right?
  • MrPingu, on 05/28/2008, -3/+9As long as ***** still gets blown up, i really don't care.
    • bosssmiley, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3That's the depressing thing. It sounds like these bombs will kill people, but not have any of that cool collateral damage goodness we've come to know and love from shows like "Desert Storm", "Serb Plinker" or "Desert Storm II".

      As bad as poison gas in that respect. A hiss, a mucky-looking fog bank and then the screaming starts...
    • userperson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Is this pro- or anti- blowing stuff up?
  • Feralvision, on 05/28/2008, -3/+7Murder Lite
    • userperson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2This isn't murder it's war, the two are totally different, except for the people dying thing. /s
  • warlax27, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3They got environmentally friendly terrorists too?
  • jessadhd77, on 05/28/2008, -3/+4Damn I thought someone was finally gonna blow up Oprah and her minions!
  • anarchytv, on 05/28/2008, -6/+8What we need is some technology to solve stupidity. In other words, to keep the ocean of ***** who sign up for the military from doing so. The equation is simple:

    Stop being suckered into the false lie of power derived from a gun. It cuts both ways, and the bullets you shell out will find their way back to you. And many innocents are hurt as well.

    Nobody signs up as a soldier, there are no soldiers
    If there are no soldiers, there are no wars.
    There are no wars, there is no more god aweful waste of resources and life on this insanely destructive pursuit.
    Finally humanity can get on with reaching for something worth living for and be done with this insane pox that has plagued it since the beginning of the dawn of man.

    Humanity is so god aweful stupid.
    • penguinofspades, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3you fail on a handful of key points, namely that your argument is not only logical, but potentially based in reality. if only life were as easy as it sounded in philosophy class...
      and you spelled awful wrong
    • Hetman, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3Here is the thing if no one was a soldier I would gather up a group of men grab some gun and sieze power. Who would stop me? And why would you not want to be the supreme ruler of the land?
    • ArchangelZLT, on 05/28/2008, -3/+3You are as wrong as our commie friends. You all thought there will come a time when everyone become virtuous - sorry, but men is born with a desire to kill hard programmed in our mind.
    • an0nymous, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3Soldiering is an honorable profession. Noone should have to explain this to you.
      • userperson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Indeed. It takes honorable people to blow up civilians and kill babies.

        Oh I'm sorry, or are they called hodgees or sand n***ers, I don't know the technical terms.

        Though I do like your username.
      • phenry, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2OK, have Noone explain it to me...
    • userperson, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3You're being impractical. We need foreign wars to support foreign policy, so that we can promote freedom & democracy overseas, so that the foreign people will be better off, at least when they're not being blown up. /s
  • tdreyer1, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1You can't think this up? Haven't you watched Moonraker?
  • Jaserr83, on 05/28/2008, -4/+3Finally, someone made environmetally safe bombs. Thanks Oprah!
  • MasterODisaster, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Buried for terrible use of the word onerous.
    • phenry, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2on·er·ous – adjective 1. burdensome, oppressive, or troublesome; causing hardship: onerous duties.


  • bryonpierce, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Do these bombs work on baby seals and penguins?
  • moxley, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1If we're making designer friendly bombs, maybe there should be one that only kills corrupt politiians.

    Certainly we know that these same politicians have been designing gene specific bioweapons and other sorts of terrible bioweapons to take out what they consider to be undesirable portions of the world population; HIV being one such creation.
  • jtscira, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1I Love The Green Bomb
    Boom De Yada Boom De Yada Boom De Yada Boom De Yada
  • michael43, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4Environmentally-Friendly Bomb is a oxymoron.
  • Hetman, on 05/28/2008, -2/+4I think we should shape our bombs like teddy bears. You know so it is more pleasent on the people we are blowing limbs off of. We should also make the explosions look like cute little smile faces. Like fireworks. You know so if any innocent bystander can see the explosion they will not be scared.
  • mlarsen, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Read Michael Chriton's book "State of Fear" it is the exact premise.
  • Ellipsys, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1This is a much better alternative than radioactive (depleted uranium, or worse) munitions, that not only kill the guy in the tank in front of you, but also the poor dude salvaging for scraps of that tank years later. Its increasingly more and more difficult to win "the peace", if you blight the earth where your enemies lived. Its nice that we're at least trying to move past leaving a scorched, radioactive wasteland where we fight.
  • Roger_Ramjet, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Welcome to the world of the military hating liberal.
    • tufftugg, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3 Not everyone is running around Fearful.
  • xEn1gma, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Don't mind that these bombs will be killing humans in the future, focus on the fact that it won't contribute to global warming!

    Choke it down.
  • spazoidspam, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3When I saw this story I'm thinking to myself
    "Oprah wants to make a magic bomb to kill the population and spare the wildlife, this won't be great for her ratings, woo-hoo!"

    then I read it......oh well
  • ImbecileCorn, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3We want to save the environment, but still want to kill each other...
  • mama146, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6I had some idea that the new green "religion" is based on a perverted agenda with no moral compass of compassion towards humanity. Some of the comments on this thread confirm my suspicions. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, people. The propoganda has twisted your thought processes....seriously.
    • dazparkour, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2"I had some idea that the new green "religion" is based on a perverted agenda with no moral compass of compassion towards humanity."

      I find that the Rastafarians are quite nice people.
      • mama146, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Well, they're nicer than the Pastafarians anyway.
    • jpop, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6You're finding this out just now? It's always been a main tenet of the extremists in the green crowd. Humans bad, No Humans Good, Earth with No Humans Best (with all non-greenie humans going first).
  • an0nymous, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1What's not to like?
    "In initial experiments, G2ZT and HBT produced fewer toxic byproducts than common explosives. Still, they did generate some dangerous hydrogen cyanide gas. But mixing these compounds with oxidizers not only avoids making hydrogen cyanide, but also improved performance, Klapötke said.

    So better performance for explosions, less unintended chemical collateral damage, and improved safety for our soldiers and sailors who are exposed to the chemical byproducts of these propellants."

    But that wouldn't fit into an email to your brother in law with a ***** note about these dang liberals, would it?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.