Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Should the military use of depleted uranium be banned?

Yes53%53% - 45
No33%33% - 28
Go fuck yourself13%13% - 11
Total: 84
2007-01-15 08:43:11
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6513|meh-land
No
why?
Because everyone else would keep using it.  If we quit using DPU rounds...  then our tanks are sub-par and given a severe disadvantage over anyone else using tanks. 

If you breathe the depleted uranium dust in then you obviously were either running around dead tanks and scavenging or you were hanging around a talk and trying to snort some or something.  We mostly use DU for AT rounds because we have no problems shooting bullets through people

Its not really that major a problem, if 1/10,000 people who have fought in wars have mild symptoms of radiation poisoning then it is nothing.  The military grades radiation situations based on how much 90% of the soldiers can take, meaning that in the case of a dirty bomb the military would send approximately 10-20% of their troops to their death.  No one had died from DU except for the enemy.  Meaning the military would not ban it
2007-01-15 09:37:56
EVieira
Member
+105|6527|Lutenblaag, Molvania
Chemical and biological weapons were banned because of the suffering they impose on troops and the serious risks they impose on civilians. DU seems to do the same, but in way much worse. Slow and lingering suffering for several generations. They should be banned.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-01-15 09:51:58
Ender2309
has joined the GOP
+470|6620|USA
one thing i fail to ever see concerning an argument to depleted uranium is this:

nuclear decay.


according to the rules of nuclear decay, a 1.5:1 atomic ratio, and atomic stability, depleted uranium is an absurd concept.

depleted uranium comes from atomic power plants, after it has been used. its called "depleted" because it is no longer firing off alpha or beta particles, and no longer creates the heat needed to power the steam turbines and create electricity.

a beta particle is a single electron, an alpha particle is simply a helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, no electrons)

every single particle radically emmitted causes a change in the atoms identity, meaning it no longer is uranium.

by these facts, there is zero possibility concerning the existance of depleted uranium.

this means we are either firing live uranium at people, or a regular metal. when we throw in the enormous amounts of disfigurements in areas where these rounds are used, we can be sure that live uranium is being used.
2007-01-15 09:54:15
Penetrator
Certified Twat
+296|6557|Bournemouth, South England
As Blehm stated, DU rounds are used to penetrate medium to heavy armour, including soviet style reactive armour. When the warhead trigger impacts the side of the tank, the molten DU fires inside, instantly solidifying, then bounces around inside for a couple of seconds like ball bearings, killing all occupants and sometimes leaving the tank reasonably operational.

This style of anti armour is moderately humane, as all occupants will die instantly. Now let us compare this to favoured measures of some enemies:

Toxic gases delivered through airburst artillery or aerosol
Persistent liquid agents, such as blood agents, choking agents or blister agents
Contamination of water and food supplies
Mass incineration
Torture

The list is endless.  Being UK armed forces, I have seen videos in NBC training about what some of these involve. All of them involve extreme pain, deteriorating symptoms, and ultimately, a long, drawn out and painfull death.

When NATO/UN countries use DU rounds, it takes considerable planning, risk assessments and very high authority to sanction the use of such weapons.  As a result, we clean up after ourselves after any such attack. Most of the DU problem in GW1 was down to left over remnants of destroyed and abondoned vehicles and munitions from the Iraq/Iran war, which were just left abondoned around the desert. Many of these I saw in 2003 whilst taking part in Operation Telic.

In my opinion, an outright ban on DU weapons is not a good idea. I think that as long as there is strict protocol governing the use and clean up of such weapons, and education for local populations, then all the problems it causes can be eradicated.
2007-01-15 10:22:02
oChaos.Haze
Member
+90|6487

Blehm98 wrote:

No
why?
Because everyone else would keep using it.  If we quit using DPU rounds...  then our tanks are sub-par and given a severe disadvantage over anyone else using tanks. 

If you breathe the depleted uranium dust in then you obviously were either running around dead tanks and scavenging or you were hanging around a talk and trying to snort some or something.  We mostly use DU for AT rounds because we have no problems shooting bullets through people

Its not really that major a problem, if 1/10,000 people who have fought in wars have mild symptoms of radiation poisoning then it is nothing.  The military grades radiation situations based on how much 90% of the soldiers can take, meaning that in the case of a dirty bomb the military would send approximately 10-20% of their troops to their death.  No one had died from DU except for the enemy.  Meaning the military would not ban it
So those kids who are disfigured are the enemy?  Nice logic there, algernon.
2007-01-15 19:42:44
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6513|meh-land
Yes of course, the only way for birth defects to occur are through depleted uranium causing radiation sickness, or through enemies doing it manually.  Use your head you idiot, alchohol, drugs, bad luck, bad genes, etc...  These are all possible causes of birth defects. 
Depleted uranium is around 98-99% U-238, which emits alpha particles only, which are blocked by skin.  And it is not very radiactive anyway.

edit: i was correct, U-238 has a half life of ~4.478 billion years
although it decomposes into very radioactive elements, the amounts are so tiny as to be insignificant.

Last edited by Blehm98 (2007-01-15 19:48:37)

2007-01-15 21:11:24
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6821|PNW

Blehm98 wrote:

although it decomposes into very radioactive elements, the amounts are so tiny as to be insignificant.
Would you still want to sit with it between your legs? Stick a bit under a kid's bed? Drop it in your water supply or release it into the air during a hurricane?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-15 21:12:18)

2007-01-15 21:28:21
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6513|meh-land
the dust no

Depleted uranium is near enough to inert that it doesn't really make any difference.  The only way it would do anything is if you were to make like a suit out of Depleted uranium plates and stay in it 24/7
of course that would be heavy...
2007-01-15 22:37:06
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6724|Canberra, AUS

Ender2309 wrote:

one thing i fail to ever see concerning an argument to depleted uranium is this:

nuclear decay.


according to the rules of nuclear decay, a 1.5:1 atomic ratio, and atomic stability, depleted uranium is an absurd concept.

depleted uranium comes from atomic power plants, after it has been used. its called "depleted" because it is no longer firing off alpha or beta particles, and no longer creates the heat needed to power the steam turbines and create electricity.

a beta particle is a single electron, an alpha particle is simply a helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, no electrons)

every single particle radically emmitted causes a change in the atoms identity, meaning it no longer is uranium.

by these facts, there is zero possibility concerning the existance of depleted uranium.

this means we are either firing live uranium at people, or a regular metal. when we throw in the enormous amounts of disfigurements in areas where these rounds are used, we can be sure that live uranium is being used.
Um... I don't think you quite understand what DU actually is.

DU refers to low-level nuclear waste which contains under 0.2% U-235. Natural uranium is 0.7% U235. What DU (and natural uranium) does contain a lot of is U238 - readioactive in itself but minimally so (it has a half life of, what, 4.5 billion years! That means that its radioactivity is low, meaning its decay is quite slow.)

The reason DU is used is because its heavy. So yes, we are firing a chunk of metal - a very dense chunk of metal. It is 70% denser than lead - in itself no featherweight. Stallaboys - a type of DU alloy which is used in making a certain type of shell - are TWICE as dense as lead. This means you can create a shell (or round or whatever) of regulation weight but smaller diameter - making it more aerodynamic and giving it better penetration. Plus you get the advantage of its tendency to burn everything around it. Plus it makes very good armor.

On U238 - As stated twice now, it has a positively massive half-life, which means that in a lifetime the amounts of damgerous radioactive material will be so low that it is not even worth calculating. The amount of radiation you will recieve is probably equal (or less) to the normal amount of radiation which you are exposed to every day. In a nuclear reactor, you can create plutonium-239 which IS dangerous (and quite well known).

U238 decays, incidentally, to thorium-234, which (in a different isotope) is as common as lead - hwoever, it is one of the most dangerous (if not THE most dangerous) radioactive material you can find. Plus the dust is pyrophoric (like DU), which is a fancy way of saying spontaneous combustion.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-01-15 22:42:41
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6821|PNW

Blehm98 wrote:

the dust no

Depleted uranium is near enough to inert that it doesn't really make any difference.  The only way it would do anything is if you were to make like a suit out of Depleted uranium plates and stay in it 24/7
of course that would be heavy...
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_envi … fm?ID=7588

Of course, we like to dump shit on ourselves, so why should I wonder why eastern power in the US gives a shit about firing DU at foreign entities...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-15 22:43:18)

2007-01-15 22:59:59
acEofspadEs6313
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
+102|6742|NAS Jacksonville, Florida

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

the dust no

Depleted uranium is near enough to inert that it doesn't really make any difference.  The only way it would do anything is if you were to make like a suit out of Depleted uranium plates and stay in it 24/7
of course that would be heavy...
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_envi … fm?ID=7588

Of course, we like to dump shit on ourselves, so why should I wonder why eastern power in the US gives a shit about firing DU at foreign entities...
https://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_explosions/mapgif/all_tsite.gif
More like the Pacific.

Last edited by acEofspadEs6313 (2007-01-15 23:00:24)

2007-01-16 05:56:42
iamangry
Member
+59|6695|The United States of America

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

the dust no

Depleted uranium is near enough to inert that it doesn't really make any difference.  The only way it would do anything is if you were to make like a suit out of Depleted uranium plates and stay in it 24/7
of course that would be heavy...
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_envi … fm?ID=7588

Of course, we like to dump shit on ourselves, so why should I wonder why eastern power in the US gives a shit about firing DU at foreign entities...
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_e … _tsite.gif
More like the Pacific.
No, more like Eastern Europe and Russia it looks like, and with the dependable Chernobyl reactor to add....
Its no wonder you ppl across the pond have gotten a little odd


And my take on DU, since spark already put what i was going to put... First off America doesn't use it too much anymore because our people are a little... retarded when it comes to nuclear "stuff", so they chose to use something a little weaker.  Second, most of you have been talking about how DU may have caused GW syndrome.  I have another possibility, now that we've removed DU from the list.  Everything else.  You know, the byproducts of burning a lot of different things that are in a tank.  Like plastics, metals, explosives, electrical components, suffice it to say the list of things that when burned release toxic gases is extensive.

Third, if you really want to ban something dangerous, you should go after something like... saltpeter!  It's the main component in gunpowder, and is hence one of the most deadly things in war.
2007-01-16 06:00:58
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6631|SE London

iamangry wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_envi … fm?ID=7588

Of course, we like to dump shit on ourselves, so why should I wonder why eastern power in the US gives a shit about firing DU at foreign entities...
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_e … _tsite.gif
More like the Pacific.
No, more like Eastern Europe and Russia it looks like, and with the dependable Chernobyl reactor to add....
Its no wonder you ppl across the pond have gotten a little odd
I think they were talking about the US and where they had exploded nuclear weapons.
2007-01-16 06:06:30
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|6618|Oxford

Turquoise wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Ban it.

http://tuberose.com/Graphics/Depleted%2 … Baby.1.jpg
That is one twisted picture, but I can't help but think of...  "Timmy!  Timma-Timmy!"
lol
2007-01-16 13:10:32
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6739|Tampa Bay Florida

Blehm98 wrote:

No
why?
Because everyone else would keep using it.
By your logic, we should attack entire cities full of innocent civilians and slaughter them to hell.  Anyone left behind we can torture for fun. 

Why?

Because everyone else would keep doing it.

Your logic is the same logic that has caused the deaths of millions upon millions of people throughout history.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if people like Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, or Ghandi said "Violence is the only way to cure violence, because our enemies won't stop killing us if we become pacifist".
2007-01-16 21:52:34
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6619|Portland, OR, USA

Spearhead wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

No
why?
Because everyone else would keep using it.
By your logic, we should attack entire cities full of innocent civilians and slaughter them to hell.  Anyone left behind we can torture for fun. 

Why?

Because everyone else would keep doing it.

Your logic is the same logic that has caused the deaths of millions upon millions of people throughout history.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if people like Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, or Ghandi said "Violence is the only way to cure violence, because our enemies won't stop killing us if we become pacifist".
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that things are not going to change.  People are just too fucking stupid.  I honestly believe that wars and killing and violence and murder will not end until there is no one left to kill

I personally would ban DU if I had the choice.
2007-01-16 21:56:06
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6443|The Gem Saloon
ok ban DU today......try to take my tritium night sights tommorow.
they are used in WAR not HAPPY FUCKING FUN TIME.
you dont want to be near them, dont get in a war......or wear your NBC gear at all times.......
2007-01-16 22:30:22
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6724|Canberra, AUS

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Blehm98 wrote:

the dust no

Depleted uranium is near enough to inert that it doesn't really make any difference.  The only way it would do anything is if you were to make like a suit out of Depleted uranium plates and stay in it 24/7
of course that would be heavy...
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_envi … fm?ID=7588

Of course, we like to dump shit on ourselves, so why should I wonder why eastern power in the US gives a shit about firing DU at foreign entities...
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_e … _tsite.gif
More like the Pacific.
I think this puts the whole concept of 'nuclear winter' into perspective. There have been so many nuclear explosions in so many parts of the world - especially Russia - that the whole world should be in an ice age if nuclear winter was correct.

@Parker: I think the concern isn't over the soldiers, it's over the innocent civilians who can't get out of the way.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2007-01-16 22:37:11
thtthht
maximum bullshit
+50|6380|teh alien spaceshit
I understand that the it is dangerous. However, without it, the U.S. tanks won't live up to their names, especially the m1a1, a2
2007-01-16 22:39:02
acEofspadEs6313
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
+102|6742|NAS Jacksonville, Florida

thtthht wrote:

I understand that the it is dangerous. However, without it, the U.S. tanks won't live up to their names, especially the m1a1, a2
Either will the T80, T90, Leopard 2A6EX, or Challenger 2.
2007-01-16 22:56:56
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6821|PNW

Spark wrote:

acEofspadEs6313 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_envi … fm?ID=7588

Of course, we like to dump shit on ourselves, so why should I wonder why eastern power in the US gives a shit about firing DU at foreign entities...
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_e … _tsite.gif
More like the Pacific.
I think this puts the whole concept of 'nuclear winter' into perspective. There have been so many nuclear explosions in so many parts of the world - especially Russia - that the whole world should be in an ice age if nuclear winter was correct.

@Parker: I think the concern isn't over the soldiers, it's over the innocent civilians who can't get out of the way.
I just had an epiphany! Gllloooobbbaaaallll Wwwwaaaarrrrrrmmmiinng! Must mail Mr. Gore...
2007-01-17 03:32:15
BVC
Member
+325|6745

Spark wrote:

I think this puts the whole concept of 'nuclear winter' into perspective. There have been so many nuclear explosions in so many parts of the world - especially Russia - that the whole world should be in an ice age if nuclear winter was correct.

@Parker: I think the concern isn't over the soldiers, it's over the innocent civilians who can't get out of the way.
The idea of a nuclear winter relies on a good chunk of the world's surface being nuked within a relatively short period of time, if you nuke most of the worlds cities thats a LOT of concrete dust to circulate around the globe, not to mention the ash generated by the ensuing fires.

When you guys have big bushfires we get some of the ash over here, a few years back you could even see the discolouration in the sky at sunset!  Expand that for an idea of a nuclear "winter"; burn most of the worlds cities with say 200,000 or more people (and quite a few with less), take away the ability to fight the resulting fires and thats one whole lot of ash and dust!

Of course, for all I know it could actually warm the planet up.  Wouldn't be much of a winter then
2007-01-17 03:35:30
RavyGravy
Son.
+617|6455|NSW, Australia

Go Fuck Yourself...i only voted that casue i dont really care.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard