scary as hell wepons the US uses

this might be old news to some, but this made me cry when i saw it

a very interesting flash

if you like what you see, at the end click to go to the website

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

OOOOOOO scary.

The first nuclear war was WWII, which killed way more people than DU munitions have or ever will. Aside from the inflammatory and emotional appeal of that flash movie (which was well done) I am sure being politically opposed to Saddam Hussein's regime was far more unhealthy,

It's kind of strange to damn a weapon system's after effects as unhealthy, isn't it? When its primary mission is killing?

[Edited on Dec 08, 2003 by stockula]

Unfortunately uranium is doing much more than just killing. Not all mutagenized subjects die. Some of them reproduce. This affects the evolution of the human race in that area, and, to a lesser extent, the world. It also affects every other living species in that area.
I personally generate radioactive waste on a fairly routine basis at work--in fact, my lab uses more radioisotope than any other on campus. The one we use, however, has a half-life of only two weeks. Paradoxically, I use it in research with intent to make us more responsible stewards of the environment. Uranium is really nasty stuff, though, a whole different story.
Wish I could be skeptical on this one but I have read too many papers.

well in both cases the stated objective was to liberate the people from tyrany. uning wepons that raise defect rates et all does not seem to be exactly liberating.

that said, i am glad saddam is gone. he was an evil man, but to replace evil with another form of evil does not change the scope of things. the us government, not bush per say -- as it was done before he got into office and i am sure will continue after he is gone, believes that lives otehr than american citizens are there to be trampled, chewed up and spit out. i am including us soldiers in this as they are inflicted to these wepons and the conditions that make them acceptable.

You dont know DU caused Gulf War Syndrome. It might have been those anthrax shots, That's the other leading thesis.

It's just funny that upon the exact sites where actual a-bombs were dropped, we see metropolisies today. And yet everyone's crying about the horror and holocaust of some DU rounds from A-10's/

Like what happened in Japan, the benefits of American occupation and what stems from it will outshine all the cause celebre outrage over DU and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, sovereign ruler of the Iraqi people, hallowed be his name.

The WHO info is interesting and I think it's probably legit for the most part. Immediate risks from depleted stuff are probably not that high unless the dosage is quite also quite high. But one thing those studies probably don't(and can't) account for are long-term environmental effects. In a real, open ecosystem things are so complicated. Certain molecules will achieve extremely high concentrations in living tissues whose biochemical makeup does not allow them to be excreted or processed; they become points of nucleation, if you will, for the substance in question. So I suppose it becomes a quantitative question--given that we poison the environment, and therefore ourselves, in so many ways, is this a way that is really worth getting riled up about?

I don't suppose you'd like to provide a peer reviewed scientific study that conclusivly proves that would you?

Generally speaking, shooting anything at people is going to cause harm, whether it's radioactive or not. The question at hand is how much harm the increase in radioactivity is going to cause. The evidence seems to point to "not much".

Another DU debate with another batch of SG liberal noobs... how refreshing. Ingestion? Are people all of a sudden using burned out tank hulks in the desert to collect rain water and drinking it? God this debate is soooo old, and it's still a bunch of horse shit. Get real, DU rounds aren't going anywhere for a long time, no country in the world who uses tanks or has any chance of ever fighting tanks is gonna ban it.

Oh and one more thing nadir, I really really really doubt that flash trash made you cry.... Were you chopping onions?

You know, you guys are right. we should stop using DU. it's too dangerous, and the side effects too unpredictable. I propose that instead we start outfitting our vehicles with neutron bombs. All the nuclear devastation, with none of that mess!

DDT is a notorious(and admittedly overused) example of how a chemical thought to be harmless because of wide dispersion was able to persist in the environment in which it was introduced and concentrate to harmful levels. The only reason people didn't get sick from DDT is that we weren't really eating the animals like the eagles that had accumulated such high amounts. It's not necessary to ingest something directly--eating something else that has can be even worse.
But it is entirely possible that the defensive capability of DU rounds may actually outweigh the poisoning of the ecosystem. I agree that they probably aren't going anywhere soon.

Although most of the pics were from the aftermath of the nuclear bombing in Japan and the reactor disaster of Chernobyl the message is very real, I think you'll find that only the US uses DU rounds currently as they are very expensive, currently US tanks are more than a match for the tanks that any of their agressors would be able to field, the fact that the gun on the M1 Abrahms can outrange nearly all its equivalent tanks is where their strength lies rather than the DU rounds which were not even needed to knock out the out of date Iraqi T-55s and ealy model T-72s. On a side note Neutron bombs cause more radiation than nuclear bombs as they are designed to destroy all living matter but cause no structural damage, as a result the radiation is a lot more intense.

WoW! You couldn't be more wrong. Get this straight, right now. EVERY country who use tanks use DU rounds. EVERY single one, not just the US.

Do you have proof to back up that statement? I know that a lot of countries have it but the US were the only ones that used it in Kosovo and the US used a lot in the gulf where the UK also did but in vastly smaller amounts, my point was about having used DU in wars, also that the US and UK dont need to use them with their Challenger and Abrams tanks, as the guns they use have among the best hit-kill ratios using normal AP ammunition of any gun, when you consider that they are going up against vastly inferior tanks and aroured vehicles, is there any need to use DU rounds? I agree with you maxx about that the animation is greatly overstating the threat posed by DU, but against the threat of nuclear waste it is very real.


[Edited on Dec 08, 2003 by JosephSco]

what a load of scare-tactic crap. Great little piece of propaganda. And if you don't want me to call it that remove the evil song and overly graphic pictures which are just there to get a gut reaction. Let me see this as a text article and then maybe I'll wise up and pay attention.

until then, enjoy your music video.

It's all propaganda, both sides - some folks swallow it whole - both sides. If anyone want's to consider both sides and make a rational stance based on something that is not propagandized to hell, those people I respect. Those who question everything but their point of view are discouraging and those who question nothing scare the shit out of me.

I would propose that pedestrian Ak-47's and normal HE or shaped charge tank rounds , in the hands of despots and their armies, have killed many more people than DU rounds.
DU rounds causing Gulf War Syndrome?..Yes , it is one THEORY being bantered about as to the cause of this mysterious malaise, but then again so are the THEORIES of Chem warfare antidote shots, and the THEORY that chemical weapons were released by the Iraqis, or errantly by US bombing of depots. There has been NO definitive proof as to the main culprit. YET.

Would anyone want this shit in their backyard? No.. seriously.

edit: I can't spell

[Edited on Dec 08, 2003 by robinbanks]

Anyone wanting any unbiased,scientific information about US armaments,weapons systems, need look no further than;

HERE

There's a whole host of things used in warfare that I'm not keen on having in my backyard.

I'm sorry, did google stop servicing the UK when I wasn't looking.

Here's a tip: its really bad form to make a categorical and completely incorrect statement and then demand "proof" when you're rebutted. Thye burden of proof is rather on you and could have easily been met with a three second search.

http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/

Whoa, Maxx getting all semiotic on the CE boards. How 'bout that.

I agree with you completely. Further, these cost/benefit analyses are a bit easier when the possible threat of this stuff is so far removed. While I agree with most everyone that the threat of depleted uranium is not very convincing at this time, this stuff has only been used in combat since the first gulf war (correct me if I'm wrong). Since that time, thousands of veterans have come down with bizarre medical problems (admittedly, with no direct link to depleted uranium, but a mystery nonetheless). Wouldn't we be more skeptical if these weapons were used in our own countries?

Then again, many of us live with the threat of radiation and pollution everyday without saying a word.