Quote:
Originally Posted by elmer_dudd /img/forum/go_quote.gif
my whole point was that agent orange's usage was on a much larger level of potency than a typical pesticide, and that same family of chemical (pesticide) is something which everyday consumers should be aware of and concerned for-- which tells you what about agent orange's usage? it had to be used on a much larger scale (evidently, it was on a poisonous scale), because instead of treating forestry, the military wanted to destroy it instead.. by how? poisoning it?
|
Agent Orange is a herbicide (specifically, one that kills broad leaf plants by inducing uncontrolled growth), not a pesticide. The military was using Agent Orange for the chemical's intended purpose, just on trees instead of weeds. It wasn't until after the war that we realized that Agent Orange was carcinogenic even though the individual pesticides used in them weren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1GTR
The risks aren't just "possible", they're clearly apparent and highly probable.
|
The "possible" part comes in due to the uncertainty regarding the level of exposure our troops our troops have had.
There's a lot of hoopla about Gulf War syndrome and DU, but there are many probable causes for that, ranging from Anthrax vaccines to chemical weapons exposure. (Course, there's also the issue that Gulf War syndrome likely doesn't even exist, but hey.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1GTR
I understand that "killing" is the most important thing to our currently backasswards military. It used to be about minimizing casualties on both sides of the battle, but now it's about manufacturing weapons that cause mass devastation under the guise of efficiency and profit.
|
Killing is the not most important thing to a military. Breaking the enemy's military will and capability is. It's unfortunate that killing just happens to be the fastest and most efficient method to do so.
Modern military technology has been about "minimizing casualties on both sides of the battle". Of course, the priority is our guys, then enemy civilians.
The advances in weapons technology enabled armies to shrink even while increasing their capabilities. This puts less of our guys at risk. Improved armor (including DU armor) and defensive capabilities greatly reduces our soldiers' risk of injury, and improved military medicine has turned previously lethal wounds into survivable ones.
Better surveillance technology and smart weapons have enabled our men to better locate the enemy and destroy them while minimizing civilian casualties. The rules of engagement, which we follow, also serve to lessen civilian casualties.
The fact that people die when we wage war is not a military issue. The military is just doing it's job. The politicians are the ones responsible for deaths.
I also don't understand where you got the conceptions about "minimizing casualties on both sides of the battle" and "it's about manufacturing weapons that cause mass devastation". The minimization of civilian casualties is a recent invention, and no one's done more towards that end than America. The second statement is just completely off base. A large amount of programs are specifically creating weapons that minimizing the amount of incidental devastation.
