“Army Green” Takes On A Whole New Meaning

By Peyton Knight

Just when you thought radical environmentalists couldn’t get any more irrational…


That’s right. The United States Army is undergoing a colossal overhaul in ammunition manufacturing. They are ditching traditional ammunition (specifically, bullets made of lead and tank shells made of depleted uranium) for “environmentally safe” ammo made of tungsten.

The problem? “Clintonistas” say that lead and depleted uranium are harmful to the environment (funny how two elements cultivated by the earth are actually harmful to it…I wonder if the callous earth knows what it’s doing to itself?) They say thousands of birds die every year from ingesting these “harmful” substances. However, as usual these claims are as unfounded as they are ludicrous.

The answer? Make the ammunition out of politically correct tungsten of course! Once again, the greens are thinking with their spotted owls instead of their brains. Let’s examine just a few of the problems that the switch to tungsten presents:

1. Cost Effectiveness: Tungsten is much, MUCH more expensive than lead. In fact, it is over twice as costly! But not to worry. I’m sure that we taxpayers will find a way to foot the bill.

2. Performance: The bullets fired from standard issue M-16 rifles have always been made of lead. There are several reasons for this. Lead is considered a soft metal, therefore, it won’t shatter on impact and is less likely to ricochet from its target—both a plus. Its malleability also ensures that it won’t damage the inner barrel (or bore) of a rifle. Tungsten, on the other hand, is the hardest known metal. It is ruinous to the bore of a gun. It also lacks lead’s ballistic superiority.

3. Energy Consciousness: To make bullets, lead is melted and poured into molds. Lead has a relatively low melting point of 327.5 degrees Celsius. Tungsten’s melting point is a whopping 3,410 degrees Celsius—more than ten times that of lead! Meaning, of course, you waste far more energy and burn many more fossil fuels melting tungsten than you do melting lead. Hey, wait a minute! I thought the greens were trying to conserve energy.

4. American Lives: Tank shells made of tungsten have less range than those made of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium tank shells have always given American troops a significant advantage over opposing forces—most recently in the Persian Gulf War. Now in the name of “environmentalism” our boys will be forced to carry inferior ammo, which in many cases could cost them their lives. Of course, what are the lives of few brave servicemen when we’re talking about saving birds?!

5. Availability: Currently, the United States doesn’t have any tungsten reserves and purchases what it needs from China. That’s right, folks, China. China holds approximately 40% of the world’s tungsten reserves—much more than any other nation. Do we really want to be dependant on COMMUNIST CHINA for our ammunition supply? What if we’re involved in a conflict and China cuts us off?

Quite simply, when the United States goes to war the overall objective is to win and preserve as many American lives as possible in the process. There is NO room for provisions in which we must fight in a so-called “environmentally safe manner”—especially at the expense of our overall objective. Commonsense dictates that such a compromise is foolish. Then again, since when has commonsense ever been incorporated in the radical environmental movement?

Tom DeWeese
[email protected]

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.