You’ve been a busy little boy, haven’t you? Ah, the energy of youth.
“What’s the internet?”
“You’re kidding, right?”
“No.”
–Sifl & Olly
Then help me out with my comprehension skills. You said:
and I provided a link in which I spoke, and directly to you, where did I make a mistake of comprehension? If, when you say “show me the threads”, you don’t actually mean that you want to be shown threads, what exactly do you mean?
Jurph and others have provided several links, because you asked for them. Why did you ask if you didn’t intend to even attempt to read them?
Although you are quite correct that if I had poor comprehension skills, that would not reflect badly on you. On the other hand, if you demonstrated bad faith, insults, personal attacks, repeated refusal to recognize the rules of civilized debate, failure to produce a single piece of credible evidence for a single statement, and in general behaving like a jerk - now that would reflect badly on you.
So don’t do those things. Instead, you could begin by doing what you should have done from the beginning - state a case, and show the evidence leading to support that case.
Now then - what evidence do you have that Gulf War veterans suffer health problems higher than others of similar age and socio-economic status? Why do you believe depleted uranium has anything to do with anything?
Regards,
Shodan
I say that DU-tipped weapons should be banned!! Who’s with me??? Who’s against me??? Who’s neutral??? Come on!!! Let’s freakin’ talk about DU-tipped weapons already! I’ve been reading this thread for a day now!
Come on!! Anyone? 
Oh no. You have set me off again. I am going run out of tissues at this rate. 
I am with you! Lets ban those DU tipped weapons!
IC
Dude, we’re not debat–
Oh, crap. Well, then I guess we are debating the use of DU weapons. Very well.
I say that the goal of modern warfare is to kill the enemy’s soldiers so that his state has no means of resisting the coercion you intend to visit on him. Since the goal of weapons is to kill soldiers, and since all soldiers know they are being exposed to weapons, I would leave it up to the individual armies to determine whether DU is a worthwhile investment.
For example: America’s armed forces are all-volunteer, and we generally do our best not to harm civilians[sup]1[/sup]. While we might see an increase in our weapons’ effectiveness by using DU, we should conduct studies to determine whether DU, or any of its oxides, really cause a significant number of health problems among friendly soldiers or civilians near the combat zone. If they do, that could lead to a perception that we (a) don’t care about our soldiers, which would hurt our ability to field an all-volunteer army; and (b) are endangering non-combatant civilians, which is against our policy.
North Korea, Switzerland, and Israel, on the other hand, each have some compulsory service for a portion of their populations, based on the idea that a drafted force is needed to defend their territory. Because they will get the same number of conscripts regardless of whether they treat their soldiers well, the increase in accuracy and effectiveness that DU affords would be a “free” benefit to them.
So, if the proposition is “should they be banned?” I say, no, let each country decide. If the question is “do they cause long-term illness,” I say, I haven’t seen enough evidence one way or another.
(1) All DoD personnel are briefed on and held responsible for adhering to the Law of Armed Conflict. Civilians still die; war still sucks. If you want to debate this point, let’s please take it to a different thread.
Shit! another irony meter melted!
I was sorta kidding, Jurph, but what the heck, I’m not going to start a new thread on this today…
this item disturbs me, especially this part:
Now it may be possible that the report mentioned in the quote is based on information that has no hard scientific backup. It is also quite possible that countries like the U. S. could give a rat’s ass what the Geneva Convention in general and the U. N. specifically say regarding the use of particular weapons. I, however, am generally of a mind to sit up and take notice when my country is in possible violation of International Law. It makes me uncomfortable, you see.
I’d say the best way to figure this out would be to dig into that report, point-by-point, and see if they cite the articles of which we are in breach. For example, “calculated to cause suffering” sounds like an awfully loaded phrase. If we were using U-235 (the more radioactive isotope) or even a straight-out-of-the-ground mix (naturally occurring Uranium is more radioactive than U-238), then yes, we’d knowingly be putting a radioactive substance in our bullets. Then I’d say it was “calculated.”
But the choice to use DU for destroying armored targets is an engineering choice: it’s an amazingly dense metal that happens to be pyrophoric. Because it hits so hard and burns its way through steel, it’s ideal for punching through tanks and killing everyone inside in an instant; any other round might only leave the crew crippled or badly burned. Paradoxically, its effectiveness makes it less likely to cause suffering.
Likewise, I suspect that the Conventions Against Torture are being interpreted very broadly, or out of their intended context. Of course, it’s all a WAG and I don’t have the time or energy to go full throttle digging up cites, which makes me the worst kind of hypocrite.
But I’ll pose my suspicion here: I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that the heavy metal toxicity of DU makes breathing its oxides or drinking from water sources near DU-riddled battlefields a bad idea[sup]1[/sup]. I think that uranium’s radioactivity is a red herring in this case (see my Washington Post cite above). And I bet that someone doing the development of DU did an environmental safety and health analysis, but failed to consider the long term effects.
Look me up next week and we’ll give this issue the attention it deserves. Deal?
(1) This unintended consequence of “poisoning the well” is almost certainly against the Geneva Conventions.
DU penetrators are more effective because it has “self sharpens” as it penetrates.
From here
Pyrophoric properties are mentioned but only in the sense that the diminished cross section makes it better able to penetrate.
As far as the many references to Tomahawks earlier in the thread, the Tomahawk pages at Globalsecurity.org make no mention of DU use.
Nuclear - Yes
Mongo conventional explosive - Yes
Submunition packs for soft targets - Yes
DU penetrator rounds - not mentioned
also from here.
From the same link
While the heavy metal nature of DU theoretically makes it a possible hazard, consider the quantities. You’d need a heck of a lot of DU to be able poison the area, and these things are being used in shells, not powdered and scattered over the surface. And it was being fired into tanks, which weould tend to concentrate any residue inside the interior. In short, DU is dense and tough and isn’t likely to accumulate appreciably.
In Iraq, note that Saddam’s “spokesmen” (official liars) claimed that DU had caused toxic mutant-babies among the Kurds far to the north of the fighting, not in the southern areas where we actually used DU weapons. Now, Du is heavy. Its heavier than normal dust. I highly doubt that it was somehow all scattered evenly across Kurd-lan and missed the Shiite and Sunni areas. If anything, thoe deformities (asuming there actually was a higher rate there) were caused by Saddam’s own chemical attacks, not DU.
Now, the US (and DU) ain’t in violation of anything Geneva. Its just more stupid people thinking radiation will make freaky mutant spiders and ants.
While the heavy metal nature of DU theoretically makes it a possible hazard, consider the quantities. You’d need a heck of a lot of DU to be able poison the area, and these things are being used in shells, not powdered and scattered over the surface. And it was being fired into tanks, which weould tend to concentrate any residue inside the interior. In short, DU is dense and tough and isn’t likely to accumulate appreciably.
In Iraq, note that Saddam’s “spokesmen” (official liars) claimed that DU had caused toxic mutant-babies among the Kurds far to the north of the fighting, not in the southern areas where we actually used DU weapons. Now, Du is heavy. Its heavier than normal dust. I highly doubt that it was somehow all scattered evenly across Kurd-lan and missed the Shiite and Sunni areas. If anything, thoe deformities (asuming there actually was a higher rate there) were caused by Saddam’s own chemical attacks, not DU.
Now, the US (and DU) ain’t in violation of anything Geneva. Its just more stupid people thinking radiation will make freaky mutant spiders and ants.
Who verified it? Surely you’re not stipping out the rest of my post and claiming I’m supporting your claims?
The hardness of ceramic uranium is not as a result of some weird tempering action of metallic uranium particulate… it’s a true metal oxide ceramic caused by the, for lack of better terms, burning of the uranium on impact and the condensation of the uranium oxide into small spheres. Ceramic uranium is not metal. It is an oxide.
Even if you did shatter a metal into little itty bitty pointy shards, if you melted it it would tend to round the pointy bits due to the tendency of liquids to form shapes with lower surface area to volume ratios.
You might be correct, but you also offered no specific proof with this specific material. Have you tested it yourself? Many here claim they want proof and yet, proof seems to be, what most here conmsider someone elses words from some web site. Yes, that goes for you, because you do not have the specific proof, with this specific material.
Many say depleated uranium is just that and can’t hurt you, while others claim that inside the body it can. Seems our government is satisfied with the arguing, instead of proof, for all to see.
Welcome back Boy Scout11. I, for one, am glad you have not been driven off these boards forever. On the subject of proofs and cites: you might consider in future that your original post might have garnered a less hostile response if it had been posted in the IMHO board rather than here in GD, *unless * you have proofs and cites to support your original hypothesis. That is just the way it works here. In IMHO you may still face a rough ride if your thinking and methodologies are non mainstream, but at least you can deflect requests for cites by saying it is your opinion.
I am at a loss for words at the irony here.
I agree with you that it would take a whole hell of a lot of DU to cause the concentrations necessary to cause cancers with its radiation, but because of its “self-sharpening” behavior, it does create a whole lot of burning/oxidizing DU dust. And that dust is most likely going to form uranium oxide (one of the most stable compounds of DU). Uranium Oxide is much worse for you than straight uranium because the body can’t process it as easily. Notice my Washington Post cite above only talks about straight DU; the oxide presents a chemical hazard as well as a long-term, low-dosage radiation hazard.
If you watch a tank-kill video, you’ll notice that a lot of smoke and dust get scattered everywhere. When a tank gets “popped” you can get a pretty significant dust cloud. Significant enough to poison the area? Probably not. Significant enough to be an inhalation hazard to a soldier poking around in the wreckage or accidentally hit with the shrapnel? Indeterminate.
That’s my feeling on the matter, too. The 127 tons of DU munitions we used in Iraq were concentrated in the south, not the north.
I would say that remains to be seen; radiation doesn’t make mutant spiders, but it can cause a higher rate of malignant cancers.
I propose that we open a new, uncontaminated thread, and go to work on dissecting the accusations above. That is, take each of the treaties the U.S. is accused of breaking by using DU, look up their texts, and cite the relevant paragraphs. Once we have the propositions, we debate them until we reach a resolution on each point.
I suspect our resolution will be something like “yes, DU violates this treaty and that one, but these other three are basically being thrown in for scare value alone, or are being cited because the treaty itself is badly or broadly written.”
Thank you Invidious Corgette, for both the welcome and the advice. It looks as if I will have to take alot, if not all I write , to the IMHO board. Mainstream is not exactly the way I would describe myself.
Thanks again Invidious Corgette. I am puzzled as to why one of the things I wrote on about medicine was transferred, but not that of dyslexia and how the thread got this far, since much of what I proposed could easily be seen as theory and at the end of my initial piece, I claimed that those things needed to be tested for, by the words, test, test, test. Oh well, live and learn. I’ll be looking forward to your even handedness.
Stay smart,
Jim
So you see irony in one direction, as long as it is pointed at someone different, but you do not see the irony of this boards demands for proof and yet, the proof I ask for is not given and you say nothing about that. LOL
You started it. (LOL)
You made a claim.
We asked for proof.
you refused proof, made more claims.
Someone else made a different claim.
You asked for proof.
You failed to spot the irony.
Hilarity ensued.
wash, rinse, repeat.