The United States never ending quest to find cheaper more efficient ways to kill our enemies is leaving a legacy of destruction.

Perhaps the % of danger to US soldiers is reduced by carpet bombing and drop massive quanites of ordanance but the manufactures of most US ordanance freely admit that aprox 5% of all ordanance dropped does not detonate when intended.
This ordanance is not designed to fail or breakdown over time (cost extra money to build bombs like that) in fact US ordanance over 30 years old still kills on average 1 Laotian a month.

Based on this % there are aprox 35,000 pieces of unexploded bombs laying aroung Kosovo. There is an average of 1 death a week of from this unexploded ordanance.

So, what will it be like for us US citizens to still be responsible for killing innocent people all over the world long after the "bad" guys are gone?

For me personally, absolute shame.

read and weep (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm) spell checked by Reborn Outcast

an average of one death a week? dang. that's horrible.

That was around 9 years ago correct? Yes it is still sad but technology has grown a TON since then...

(and it's weep not weap :D )

we havnt carpet bombed in years, we hardly ever use dumb bombs even.

we havnt carpet bombed in years, we hardly ever use dumb bombs even.
That isn't quite true. Nowadays in Iraq, 20% of the dropped bombs are unguided (=dumb bombs, free falling bombs).

In the few first days of the war, 100% of all bombs were precision guided bombs.
But four days ago, that number of precision guided bombs dropped to 80%, meaning 20% of the other bombs that are being dropped are 'dumb' bombs. If it's going to be a very long war, the percentage of dropped dumb bombs will increase a lot due to the higher costs of the smart bombs.

source= http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1834769)

I'm just guessing here, as I'm too lazy to read the link, but is all the undetonated ordinance from air dropped bombs? What about artillery? Or crap like grenades? I'd bet there are at least an equal amount of those used as there are air dropped bombs. Not all your boom-boom stuff can be so nifty, sometimes it gets down to the nitty gritty of chucking a frag in someones fighting hole.

Well, the obvious solution to this bomb problem would be to simply invade kosovo once we're done with Iraq, move all Kosovo civilians into Iraq, and put all the capture Iraqi's in Kosovo......









that was a joke...in case none of you got it.......teehee....hee....he..........i'm retarded.





But seriously, THIS is why building bombs is a crappy thing. I personally think bombs are crappy anyways. I want all technological weapons of war to be removed and make all armies fight with swords and bows and arrows. THAT is not a joke....no more of this killing civilians with missed artillary fire...you KNOW that the guy you're shooting is a bad guy because he has a big huge long bow or a big sword in his hand. That, and i've always been intrigued by midevil (sp?) warfare.....

Well, it all boils down to accepting responsibility at the end of the day. If a nation is going to carpet-bomb areas, for whatever reason, then surely they should form a taskforce in the wake of the war to seek and destroy unexploded munitions? At the moment, for example, other nations, and indeed voluntary task-forces, have had to go into countries to disable and remove mines that were laid during past conflicts. That work still goes on today, and is hindered by the fact that the military, in their usual efficiency, forget to write down exactly where they've laid mines.

It also sickens me to learn that our forces are still using depleted uranium, when there is continually growing evidence that it is the root cause of cancers and other debilitating diseases among the populations of countries where this kind of ammo has been used. If we are going to use such volatile and dangerous materials that have long-lasting effects on civilian populations, we should shoulder the responsibility to go in and clean up after any conflicts. If we can spend billions of Ј/$ during conflict...why can't we allocate resources in the aftermath? Even sending in a taskforce with the intention of training some of the local population to enable them to defuse/detonate unexploded bombs, and safely collect and dispose of harmful materials like depleted uranium.

It's a sad reflection on our so-called civilised societies that we can find the time and resources to assist countries in abject poverty, where people die from hunger...yet when it comes to cleaning up the mess we have created, we do very little to help those affected in the long-term by our choice of ordnance.

Depleted uranium rounds are used because they are very dense, right? I reckon if there was some other material that was more dense, they would use that instead.

Originally posted by munik
Depleted uranium rounds are used because they are very dense, right? I reckon if there was some other material that was more dense, they would use that instead.


Yes sir, I believe you are correct. I am still doing some research on this, Uranium has a HUGE half life, but even after Uranium is "depleted" it continues to decay giving off radiation. Not good, different types of radiation give of different types of rays, Beta, Gamma, X, etc....
The military logic is the particular rays given off of depleted uranium are weak and barely penatrate clothing let alone building walls etc.. But the particles from spent rounds can radiate for another 20 or 30 years. What if you digest some of these particals or get it on your hands? Your screwed. 20 years from now some kids who are not even born yet could being playing in some dirt that had an old round laying in it. They could ingest or absorb 1 or 2 particles that would radiate from inside their bodies.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I want all technological weapons of war to be removed and make all armies fight with swords and bows and arrows. THAT is not a joke....no more of this killing civilians with missed artillary fire...you KNOW that the guy you're shooting is a bad guy because he has a big huge long bow or a big sword in his hand. That, and i've always been intrigued by midevil (sp?) warfare..... i agree because it proves your worth as a warrior because the bow and sword use your strength anyone can use a gun but it takes skill to kill with a bow and sword.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
i agree because it proves your worth as a warrior because the bow and sword use your strength anyone can use a gun but it takes skill to kill with a bow and sword. Anyone can use a sword or a bow as well. It does take skill to use a firearm proficiently. And to defend against one.

I am a much better marksman then you are. I have a better understanding of firearms and ballistics then you do. Every fiber in my body is aching with the confidence that in a battle I would kill you before you killed me. I will.


This is because I have skill.

I know using firearms takes skill, as does flying airplanes and driving tanks.
But I believe with only bows, arrows, swords, pikes, and horses, the number of innocent civilian casualties would diminish greatly. Because now anyone can dress in civilian clothes and suddenly pull out a grenade and toss it, or pull out a pistol and start shooting. But pulling out a concealed bow (no small feat....concealing a huge long bow) notching an arrow and firing would take a bit of time...long enough for them to be charged and tackled. And pulling out a sword can be done quickly, but if you pull a sword against 3 people who all use swords well......you're in big trouble unless you're Li Mu Bai ;)

The only problem is that if you use bow and arrows, some genious will create a better, faster, stronger, weapon.

The gun.

Then, after everyone will use the gun, someone will create something better.

The cannon.

ect.

Which is why those kinds of weapons are banned by the world. Nobody can have them. and if they do, then bad things happen ;)

I know it would never happen......I just personally think it's a good idea......

On the other hand, modern weapons are far more capable of killing quickly, efficiently and without pain.

If all the weapons we had were medieval ones, we wouldn't be able to put an end to looming threats as quickly.

I don't think medieval weapons are the way to go. They will lead to more pain and horror on the battlefield - not less. I know those suicide bombers are scary, but they're really not responsible for many deaths.

But imagine, if you will, a group of people armed with spiky maces, charging a small town to rape and plunder. Gruesome.

But it's a lot easier to run away from a guy with a spiky mace than a guy with an assault rifle.....;)


I know it really wouldn't be a practical nor probably useful solution. the fact is though, that I really do think the medieval weapons were cooler than modern weapons......especially trebuchets....those things were wicked awesome!

Originally posted by ET Warrior
the fact is though, that I really do think the medieval weapons were cooler than modern weapons......especially trebuchets....those things were wicked awesome!
I doubt you'd feel that way if you were ever on the receiving end of a medieval weapon. There is a lot more pain involved, as C'jais mentioned, because you probably wouldn't die immediately.

ITs not like every bomb you drop can work. And if we fought with bows and arrows the only civilians would be women and children whod still die. Entirley dumb idea. Less people die with bombs than did by percent of world population at the time from bows and arrows.

The weapons race.
Ind. 1
Hey I have a bow. Imma twang you from 200 yards
Ind. 2
Hey I have a sword and Im 3 feet from you so youґre screwed
Ind. 3
Hey I have a modern battle gear outfit so am I going to force you eat a grenade, shot you with a pistol or my automatic rifle

Imagine what a terroist with an AK-47 could do to a police force armed with bows and swords.

There are more painful modern weapons as well. There is for example the microwave gun. There is a reason why it is banned by the Geneve convention. I let you imagine why.

Originally posted by Bonedemon
The weapons race.
Ind. 1
Hey I have a bow. Imma twang you from 200 yards
Ind. 2
Hey I have a sword and Im 3 feet from you so youґre screwed
Ind. 3
Hey I have a modern battle gear outfit so am I going to force you eat a grenade, shot you with a pistol or my automatic rifle

Imagine what a terroist with an AK-47 could do to a police force armed with bows and swords.

There are more painful modern weapons as well. There is for example the microwave gun. There is a reason why it is banned by the Geneve convention. I let you imagine why. it cooks you from the inside out. dont forget agent orange. that stuff will make you suffer. also not every gun shot kills instantly its near the same percentile as a swords, cut off a guys head he's dead right away and feels no pain.

Originally posted by CagedCrado
Entirley dumb idea. Less people die with bombs than did by percent of world population at the time from bows and arrows.

That's because the winners raped and pillaged and murdered the women and children after achieving their goals....not to mention the fact that war was like an everyday thing during the medievil times......

Plus I'm pretty sure that you just made up that fact........

Originally posted by InsaneSith
it cooks you from the inside out. dont forget agent orange. that stuff will make you suffer. also not every gun shot kills instantly its near the same percentile as a swords, cut off a guys head he's dead right away and feels no pain. Agent orange is a defoliant, not a weapon. Wounding someone with a gun shot is more efficient then killing them. A wounded man requires more resources then a dead one. While killing someone who is a direct threat is good, it is much better to turn him from a direct threat into a liability. Standard issue rifles use small rounds capable of achieving this effect. Land mines are made to incapacitate, not kill. Kill radius of hand grenades is 5 meters, while the casualty radius is 15 meters.

Originally posted by Eldritch
I doubt you'd feel that way if you were ever on the receiving end of a medieval weapon. There is a lot more pain involved, as C'jais mentioned, because you probably wouldn't die immediately.

I dont know about that......i mean, I would imagine getting shot hurts like hell.....

And Bonedemon.......it's a hypothetical situation where there is no such thing as an AK-47..........nobody has anything but bows and swords.

There's always an evolution with warfare. Each and every conflict is a field test for each weapon. And there is always an improvement made, or a flaw that is corrected, or a new tactic, or new defense, etc.

You say only swords and bows. But which ones, and at what stage of their evolution? Swords and bows constantly improve, except at the present knives are the most likely replacement for swords, but bows are still here and improving. So do these hypothetical warriors use broadswords from the Roman empire and compound bows with cams and synthetic strings and dampeners and such that were manufactured yesterday?

In fact, how could anyone fight with outdated weapons and not improve on them? You would also have to revert to a technologically inferior mindset as well. Dumbdown if you will. The whole thing just seems unfeasible, even in the hypothetical.