Can U justify use of Uranium against Iraqi civilians ?
- Thread starter Anomalous
- Start date
so you say. why tho should we believe you. you and professor shite-lite seem to only just go 'ohhhh no it isn't---ohhh no it isn't' that. what te fuks that? show some piggin evidence for your assertions man, so we can examine it! this is extremely serious shit!Clockwood said:
Anomalous said:
Yer, but the light wasnt right!
kriminal99
Registered Senior Member
Everything Ive read from the US govt claims that DU in the way it is used is not dangerous.
I have personally had experience with DU, so why don't I enlighten some of the less educated among us?
Depleted Uraniam (DU) is created through the purification process of natural uraniam. Natural Uraniam is made of 99.2% U-238, a relatively stable isotope of uranium The rest is made of U-235, which when struck be by a nuetron has a tendency to split and create a chain reaction i.e. you regular nuclear explosion. Depleted Uranium products are made of of U-238.
DU is highly prized as a military weapon for two reasons: 1. It is extremely dense, in fact it is two and a half times as dense stainless steel. When fired, or droppped, or shot, or whatever, it maintains more speed because of it's higher weight due to inertia. The other reason is that Uranium is pyrophoric, which means like magnesium or aluminum, it burns. So when it lances through something heavy, like tank armor, it creates a spalling effect which will kill those inside the armoured vehicle in question, and most likely ignite any ordnance inside, causing a catausrophic explosion.
As to it's health effects, it is still partially dangerous, because it contains miniscule amounts of U-235. However, it is minimal compared taking a long distance flight over polar regions. In fact, a days exposure on the beach is more dangerous in terms of millirads exposure. Radiation exposure is not the biggest problem associated with DU. It is the inhalation of Uraniam Oxide. There have been a few stories I have heard about where tankers in the ODS (Operation Desert Storm) who climbed inside Iraqi tanks after destroying them with sabot rounds (A tank round which uses a sub-caliber dart of DU), and later got lung cancer. However, considering the location of most tank battles in ODS, where most if not all of the rounds containing DU were used, it is highly unlikely that higher lung cancer rates are caused by DU exposure. It is an accepted fact that for many years during the 70s, 80s, and early 90's , Saddam Huessien had manufactured and used chemical weapons inside Iraq's borders. Now there is no OSHA in Iraq, nor is there an EPA. It is highly likely that a fair amount of chemicals, were released into the surronding environment. Long-term, low-dose chemical weapons exposure causes many of the same effects as DU exposure. It is quite possible that higher cancer rates have been caused by chemical weapons exposure.
Now can I justify the use of DU againts civilians? The answer is no I cannot, because I highly doubt that it has happened. To answer this question, I must determine what you mean by civilians. Do you mean innocent bystanders, terrorists dressed up like civilians, former soldiers who are now civilians, or just any Iraqi in general. Considering the conent of your posts, I would guess that you meant any Iraqi who has been killed in Iraq. So let's analyse the issue. I doubt that DU rounds play any major part in combat operations in Iraq. This is beacuse their use is somehat limited. Sabots are designed to be used against armored vehicles. Not a whole lot of those involved on the terrorist side. They will "over-penatrate" any other object. That means you will get a couple of holes the size of a silver dollar and not much else, simply due to a sabot's high speed and lack of explosives. Also, sabots are expensive to build and maintain. It is cheaper to build a more effective high-explosive weapon which will do more. In an insuregency, DU is overkill. It actually is more dangerous because it will not stop with killing a single person. It will usually pass through the person and damage or kill whatever is behind the person. Simply put, DU rounds are too effective for urban combat, and cause more trouble than they're worth. Now if you are trying to argue the whole collateral damage as a result of ODS and the tank battles at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, then you may be correct that DU has harmed civilians, but take a look at how many people Saddam Huessien has murder, raped, and tortured over his 30 year reign of terror, it becomes clear that the war in Iraq saved more Iraqi lives than it cost. If you just are completely are against the war, and are just trying to find something else persuade people, that my post will probably not change your mind. But I'd like to think I've at least educated the people to the facts of the situation rather than somones under-informed opinion.
Depleted Uraniam (DU) is created through the purification process of natural uraniam. Natural Uraniam is made of 99.2% U-238, a relatively stable isotope of uranium The rest is made of U-235, which when struck be by a nuetron has a tendency to split and create a chain reaction i.e. you regular nuclear explosion. Depleted Uranium products are made of of U-238.
DU is highly prized as a military weapon for two reasons: 1. It is extremely dense, in fact it is two and a half times as dense stainless steel. When fired, or droppped, or shot, or whatever, it maintains more speed because of it's higher weight due to inertia. The other reason is that Uranium is pyrophoric, which means like magnesium or aluminum, it burns. So when it lances through something heavy, like tank armor, it creates a spalling effect which will kill those inside the armoured vehicle in question, and most likely ignite any ordnance inside, causing a catausrophic explosion.
As to it's health effects, it is still partially dangerous, because it contains miniscule amounts of U-235. However, it is minimal compared taking a long distance flight over polar regions. In fact, a days exposure on the beach is more dangerous in terms of millirads exposure. Radiation exposure is not the biggest problem associated with DU. It is the inhalation of Uraniam Oxide. There have been a few stories I have heard about where tankers in the ODS (Operation Desert Storm) who climbed inside Iraqi tanks after destroying them with sabot rounds (A tank round which uses a sub-caliber dart of DU), and later got lung cancer. However, considering the location of most tank battles in ODS, where most if not all of the rounds containing DU were used, it is highly unlikely that higher lung cancer rates are caused by DU exposure. It is an accepted fact that for many years during the 70s, 80s, and early 90's , Saddam Huessien had manufactured and used chemical weapons inside Iraq's borders. Now there is no OSHA in Iraq, nor is there an EPA. It is highly likely that a fair amount of chemicals, were released into the surronding environment. Long-term, low-dose chemical weapons exposure causes many of the same effects as DU exposure. It is quite possible that higher cancer rates have been caused by chemical weapons exposure.
Now can I justify the use of DU againts civilians? The answer is no I cannot, because I highly doubt that it has happened. To answer this question, I must determine what you mean by civilians. Do you mean innocent bystanders, terrorists dressed up like civilians, former soldiers who are now civilians, or just any Iraqi in general. Considering the conent of your posts, I would guess that you meant any Iraqi who has been killed in Iraq. So let's analyse the issue. I doubt that DU rounds play any major part in combat operations in Iraq. This is beacuse their use is somehat limited. Sabots are designed to be used against armored vehicles. Not a whole lot of those involved on the terrorist side. They will "over-penatrate" any other object. That means you will get a couple of holes the size of a silver dollar and not much else, simply due to a sabot's high speed and lack of explosives. Also, sabots are expensive to build and maintain. It is cheaper to build a more effective high-explosive weapon which will do more. In an insuregency, DU is overkill. It actually is more dangerous because it will not stop with killing a single person. It will usually pass through the person and damage or kill whatever is behind the person. Simply put, DU rounds are too effective for urban combat, and cause more trouble than they're worth. Now if you are trying to argue the whole collateral damage as a result of ODS and the tank battles at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, then you may be correct that DU has harmed civilians, but take a look at how many people Saddam Huessien has murder, raped, and tortured over his 30 year reign of terror, it becomes clear that the war in Iraq saved more Iraqi lives than it cost. If you just are completely are against the war, and are just trying to find something else persuade people, that my post will probably not change your mind. But I'd like to think I've at least educated the people to the facts of the situation rather than somones under-informed opinion.