+ reply
Due to time constraints in running and maintaining it, Plime is for sale.
Please contact avi[a]worth1000.com if you are seriously interested in buying it.
Pentagon Blows Up Live Pigs To Test Body Armor
Pentagon Blows Up Live Pigs To Test Body Armor
Military researchers have dressed live pigs in body armor and strapped them into Humvee simulators that were then blown up with explosives to study the link between roadside bomb blasts and brain injury. picked by suebe 8 months ago
tags pentagon blows pigs body armor bomb
 quote edit #1 
  comments (28)  share edit history (0)
< 1 2 >
5
 arviragu...
8 months ago
« DoggySpew : I find it funny that people are protesting against the army for killing animals, instead of humans. Because you know, animals deserve better treatment then humans. [/facepalm]
I think that you'll find that the same people who protest the killing of animals in the name of protecting soldiers in time of war, are JUST as likely if not more so, likely to also be anti-war. You also fail to address the issue that the animals, unlike the humans involved in these conflicts, had no choice in the matter, and are to use the Rumsfeldian phrase, "collateral damage".

The only difference between the scientists conducting this research here and research conducted by Joseph Mengele is the species, and our arrogance to believe that their existence means less than our own.
quote #2
8
 amcumbe1
8 months ago
« gammerus : [...] I don't understand why innocent animals should be blown up (alive) for a war that people volunteered to fight. They have no say in the matter, whereas everyone in Iraq or Afghanistan signed up voluntarily. I can understand (even if I don't agree with) animal testing, but I believe we should be using every synthetic option we have before killing animals to test our war products.
If it is too expensive too bad, we shouldn't be in a war we couldn't afford to begin with.
A synthetic option might be realized someday. But what crash test dummy is designed to study both brain trauma and lung damage? Are dummies even designed to wear body armor? Meanwhile, a test subject is needed to protect the soldiers, seamen, marines and airmen on the ground in the near future.

« arviragus : [...] You also fail to address the issue that the animals, unlike the humans involved in these conflicts, had no choice in the matter, and are to use the Rumsfeldian phrase, "collateral damage".
A slaughterhouse would be no better. Additionally, according to the article, a minimal number of pigs were used. There are also standards in place for veterinary care prior to testing. Furthermore, it's not like we can draw up a contract in 'oink language' for them to sign.

« arviragus : The only difference between the scientists conducting this research here and research conducted by Joseph Mengele is the species, and our arrogance to believe that their existence means less than our own.
Godwin never fails. While your compassion is admirable, your comparison is such that few will take you seriously.

Pigs are a prey species, and are likewise consumed. Hence, we have the food chain. Nature decided this for us, through a series of ecological predator-prey relationships. Being devoured alive by hyenas is not that different than being used in armor testing.
quote #3
5
 lunarcad...
8 months ago
« gammerus : I'm not going to be a popular voice, but I don't understand why innocent animals should be blown up (alive) for a war that people volunteered to fight. They have no say in the matter, whereas everyone in Iraq or Afghanistan signed up voluntarily. I can understand (even if I don't agree with) animal testing, but I believe we should be using every synthetic option we have before killing animals to test our war products.
If it is too expensive too bad, we shouldn't be in a war we couldn't afford to begin with.
I agree with you.
quote #4
29
 gammerus
8 months ago
« amcumbe1
A synthetic option might be realized someday. But what crash test dummy is designed to study both brain trauma and lung damage? Are dummies even designed to wear body armor? Meanwhile, a test subject is needed to protect the soldiers, seamen, marines and airmen on the ground in the near future.
Yes, because there is no better synthetic method then a plastic crash test dummy.. We have plenty of other options that can test brain trama and the like. To assume that the best we have to offer is a life size barbie isn't giving us nearly enough credit.

A slaughterhouse would be no better. Additionally, according to the article, a minimal number of pigs were used. There are also standards in place for veterinary care prior to testing. Furthermore, it's not like we can draw up a contract in 'oink language' for them to sign.
Just because another option would be the slaughter house doesn't make this any less inhumane. I am adamantly against the slaughter of all animals for consumption as it is completely unnecessary. And how does prior veterinary care help them feel less blown up?

Pigs are a prey species, and are likewise consumed. Hence, we have the food chain. Nature decided this for us, through a series of ecological predator-prey relationships. Being devoured alive by hyenas is not that different than being used in armor testing.
Since when have we based our moral values on that of nature? Rape,incest,murder,torture are all done in nature, but don't we frown upon them in society?
quote #5
About Plime
Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

40
 dollylla...
8 months ago
« gammerus : I'm not going to be a popular voice, but I don't understand why innocent animals should be blown up (alive) for a war that people volunteered to fight. They have no say in the matter, whereas everyone in Iraq or Afghanistan signed up voluntarily. I can understand (even if I don't agree with) animal testing, but I believe we should be using every synthetic option we have before killing animals to test our war products.
If it is too expensive too bad, we shouldn't be in a war we couldn't afford to begin with.
I agree with you too.
quote #6
5
 arviragu...
8 months ago
« amcumbe1 : 
A slaughterhouse would be no better. Additionally, according to the article, a minimal number of pigs were used. There are also standards in place for veterinary care prior to testing. Furthermore, it's not like we can draw up a contract in 'oink language' for them to sign.

I was going to respond, but I see that Gammerus already beat me to the punch. I'm not sure what your "argument" was in your statement, however, slaughterhouses are incredibly inhumane as well and I personally don't believe that they are necessary (I've been vegetarian for 8 years now with no ill effects and an incredible broadening of my dietary intake and noticeably improved health).

Godwin never fails. While your compassion is admirable, your comparison is such that few will take you seriously.

I appreciate the "Godwins Law" statement, however it in no way invalidates the analogy, despite your assertion otherwise. If you think that a reference to Mengele offends your sensibilities, insert any other number of scientists, old or modern, that undertook/undertake similar experiments.


Pigs are a prey species, and are likewise consumed.
Yes...so go hunt it with a pointy stick instead of buying it at the market in a pretty package.
quote #7
8
 amcumbe1
8 months ago
« gammerus : Yes, because there is no better synthetic method then a plastic crash test dummy.. We have plenty of other options that can test brain trama and the like. To assume that the best we have to offer is a life size barbie isn't giving us nearly enough credit.
Name one readily available, inexpensive alternative that provides an equally realistic simulation of tissue damage. These scientists could not, and I think that advanced research qualifications on the subject count for something.

« gammerus : Just because another option would be the slaughter house doesn't make this any less inhumane. I am adamantly against the slaughter of all animals for consumption as it is completely unnecessary.
You are in the minority. Most people's conception of morality regarding animals stops with cats, dogs and horses. The utility of using other animals in testing situations seems to outweigh our moral obligations.

« gammerus : And how does prior veterinary care help them feel less blown up?
It produces less overall suffering? You could say that it is like taking care of a death row inmate before they get the injection.

« gammerus : Since when have we based our moral values on that of nature? Rape,incest,murder,torture are all done in nature, but don't we frown upon them in society?
Since antiquity; that is why we still have Big Macs and Spam.
quote #8
8
 amcumbe1
8 months ago
« arviragus : Yes...so go hunt it with a pointy stick instead of buying it at the market in a pretty package.
Fix your garbled quote and I will reply to your arguments.
quote #9
+ add a comment
< 1 2 >

copyright Worth1000, LLC