I understand that as soon as my thought was published in the editorial "? Resolving initiative or dangerous facade operation? ??", it was the object of careful reading and precise clarifications.
Out of respect for those who have chosen to read our online newspaper and in respect of everyone's freedom to be able to express their position as a voice of dissent or approval, I am going to provide some clarifications that I hope will be sufficient to fill any expressive gap on the part my.
I begin by verbatim reporting the conclusion of my paper that was intended to motivate the content of the text: "We hope as professionals in the sector and as men respectful of life that someone has carefully evaluated these aspects and the possible risks that could follow?" .
The hope of those who express doubts with the intent of having clarifications or perplexities - which I confirm in my clarification - as those who should clarify provide incomplete information on aspects that I would dare to define substantial for such a problem.
The AK-47 are kept by 18 for years in high-tech warehouses capable of ensuring long storage times if the material is treated in compliance with specific protocols. The MG 42 / 59 disposed of by our FFAAs come from an operational life during which they have been subjected to careful and continuous maintenance according to the prescriptions in force in the FFAA and, in all probability before being set aside, they have undergone the treatments of ?? long conservation ??.
The Kalashnikovs apparently come from Ukraine, and are piled up in containers stored in the warehouse after a seizure on the high seas. It is not known in what maintenance conditions they were at the time of discovery and, almost certainly, at the time of storage they were not subject to conservative treatments since the equipment or foreseen future use by our FFAAs were not material. Even though they are robust and rustic, they are unlikely to maintain their initial characteristics unaltered in these conditions.
Finally, it is not even known whether the 7,62 x 39 mm ammunition in the span of these 18 years has ever been subjected to chemical-physical verification to ascertain its efficiency and stability. If so, supply it as ?? ready-to-use ammunition ?? it could also represent a risk considering that little is known about how it was made, with what materials and with what quality controls.
Then discuss the possibility that the ammunition of the MG (7,62 x 51 mm) can or may not be inserted in the tanks of the AK-47 I believe that it represents an exercise in pure dialectic for which I do not enter into the merits. My statements, on the other hand, just wanted to underline that supplying materials subservient to a completely different logistics could be dangerous.
I hope I have clarified the spirit of my thinking and the reasons that led me to write the piece. Perhaps my words did not make the concepts in a finished way or maybe I was simply misrepresented. Precisely, therefore, that mine was not a technical expertise to be deposited in court, but only the expression of perplexity in a historical moment in which even on relevant topics you prefer to talk without deepening.
I omit, therefore, the other ?? coarse ?? inaccuracies that are charged to me, expressing only a personal conviction: let's go to the facts and leave out the rule of the pharmacist ?? in the face of topics such as the one in place, otherwise the task of those who decide to ?? speak without saying ?? is facilitated.
Fernando Termentini
