April 25, 2004

The EPA: Making the world safer. The EPA have been working on cleaner engines. For ICBMs. "Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads."

[via Stupid-stuff]

posted by rodgerd 20 years ago
  • Are we supposed to get irate over this? It'd be easier if he had linked to an official site (hm, I first typed "shite". What do you suppose that means, from a Freudian viewpoint?) which showed other effects of EPA standards, whether to tax payers or corporations, with the costs. Or, some evidence that they aren't upgrading the rockets just to make them more current, with the added benefit of not dirtying up the environment much more when taking out all those baddies out there with missles. I'm way far from an apologist for mucking up the air or firing off ICBMs, but the lack of more information makes me believe that this is a bit of sensationalism. I might be a little irate because it undoubtedly gives some profits to the defence contractors, but, on the other hand, it may provide jobs. So far, I'm having a hard time frothing at the mouth.
  • Well, *I* was hoping people would be amused. By the idea that we'd be concerned with the air quality effects of Minuteman launches. Because if the US ever does bulk-launch them, that would tend to be the least of our concerns.
  • I'm amused. That sound pretty stupid. Yet, I they ever use the missiles for other more useful things like launching satellites (which they can) it would be good that they do it cleanly.
  • Sorry, thought this was supposed to start a flame war. More emoticons needed? As much as I don't like them? Some of us think no one else has a sense of humor after reading Metafilter all these years. Pookie, pookie!
  • Path - I don't think anyone is foaming at the mouth so much as laughing themselves silly. It's just the idea of enviromentally friendly ways to blow up the world - it's a bit funny.
  • I also found - as did the guy who posted it to stupid-stuff - the phrasing of the quoted piece to be delightfully dry, and quite atypical for what I expect of American writers.
  • *Peacekeeper--smirk* Whew! Glad I read the post as it was intended, since my first thought was "Your kidding, right?" Nice that their reducing the amount of warheads to a mere 2,200. Such a relief!
  • Rodgerd: >WE< are not amused. >WE< are entirely disgusted with the whole jeezely asinine idea. Only in *America* would they worry about cleaner engines on an ICB-freakin'-M. I'm sure this one was dreamed up by some genius as he was crusin' to work in his HumVee. no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads Somehow, if warheads start flying around over my head, I have a sneakin' suspicion I'm going to be worried less about the harmful environmental effects and more about the harmful effects on my everlovin' ASS! >WE< do admit however, the wording in this particular piece was priceless.
  • >Oui!<
  • Yeah, I would think an environmentally friendly nuclear warhead would defeat the purpose, unless it turns people into flowers, like in Grim Fandango.
  • The fact that they currently keep testing those missiles and I can't make them stop doing it makes me expect from them that at least those test launches are environmentally friendly.
  • Cheers, Zemat. That's the reason.