Should DU be considered a WOMD?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Sep 29, 2004.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    link

    At least the US service men and women don't have to live (and give birth) in Iraq

    link

     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2E2DF9B-1E0C-43F4-BBF6-074C1367E27C.htm
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    pun unintentional, btw. here we go: there will be fallout from this for years to come. eventually, DU ordinance will be banned and we'll feel as stupid about it then as we do using mustard gas in WWI now.
     
  4. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #4
    i wouldn't rate it as weapons of mass destruction..rather i would rate it as 'stupid' ...
    howmany armies use them ? 2 or 3 ?
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    I'd say it'll be more like land mines, though. We'll feel stupid, but many will insist that its continued use is neccessary and in the meanwhile it'll be lying around everywhere hurting people.

    At least a landmine can only kill you or blow a limb off.
     
  6. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #6
    and it is only a one-time deal. Mine explodes. Damage done.

    DU is forever (pretty much)...
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Very nasty stuff. And did you know that the Abrams tank has DU-reinforced armour as well? It seems our armaments manufacturers are very cavalier with their materials.
     
  8. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    As opposed to?
     
  9. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #9
    I've been wondering for some time, being that we're not usually facing MBT's, hardened targets, Hind Gunships, et al... Do we really need all this?

    If you drop a load of compressed cars out the back of a B-52 at high altitude, or a load of recycle-destined beer bottles or even a load of frozen turkeys... Wouldn't that do the job?
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    I would happily contribute to the war effort...
     
  11. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #11
    You have to admit the irony couldn't be lost on prohibitionist religious extremists to be taken out by a load of booze remnants.

    It's an action that says: " We got so upset about you all over there that we got plastered and decided to show you just HOW plastered."

    Edit: shards of glass will go right through Kevlar BTW...
     
  12. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #12
    haha frozen turkeys ...just the image of an hercules crew throwing them out of the plane is priceless ....

    serious: actually the training ammunition of the 120mm gun (made out of concrete) has enough power to penetrate the armour of older russian tanks (T-72 and older) and practically all APCs...
    i'm pretty sure that there could be something found between concrete and uranium
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    As opposed to the irony of using 21st century weapons to attack 19th century defenses ? ( laser-guided bunker-buster vs. mud hut )

    or

    Of compromising the effacy of your fighting forces by using radioactive armor and munitions, which were intended to increase that effacy?
     
  14. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #14
    I suppose we could fit the laser-guidance retrofit kits to some oldschool limestone cannonballs... ;)
     
  15. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Depleated uranium rounds give an edge against armored targets. They are most definitely NOT WoMD. It's not like they explode, or they irradiate immediately. They are simply meant to better penetrate armor.
     
  16. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #16
    I am aware of this fact (the density aids in armor-piercing). So was the military, which is why they are using them.

    <rest of post deleted because it was obviously crap>
     
  17. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #17
    They qualify more directly as Nondiscriminant Ordinance (see also Landmines).
     
  18. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #18
    Fair enough mischief...

    The general point is that they are still bad, I guess...
     
  19. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #19

    I (mostly) disagree.

    While I will agree that expose to increased levels of radiation are detrimental to health and the environement, even potentially deadly, DU shells should NOT be considered WoMD. That's just grasping at straws. Perhaps my definition of "mass" greatly differs from those at the state department. One simply cannot lob a DU shell 5000, 2500, or even 1000 miles and cause "mass destruction". In this instance, an HE shell is MUCH closer to a WoMD than a DU shell. Just because it's radioactive doesn't make it a WoMD.

    Why haven't we invaded Ford Motor Company? Surely the SUVs that they produce degrade the environment, destroy the ozone, pollute our lungs, as well as roll over and squish us. It kills far more Americans every year then DU shells. Is every Explorer and Expidition that I see on the street a potential WoMD? Invade Detroit! Occupy Detroit! See?? We TOLD you there was WoMD in Detroit! There's no reason to wonder why we've spend $150 billion on this war in Detroit.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    I agree that DU shells do not properly qualify as WoMD, but they are nevertheless unnecessarily inhumane and indiscriminate in their effects, and should be abjured voluntarily by all civilized countries, as should landmines.
     
  21. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #21
    well boeing 747s contain between 450 to 1500 kg of of DU as counterweights (as far as i know but i heard that they were switching over to somethign else after 'complaints') _that's_ even more nice ...
    the difference is that the DU sabots of the m256 (and the shells of the warthog) vaporize after penetrating the target and radioactive dust is 'created'
     
  22. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #22
    Now now....

    The Ford line of SUV's is officially referred to as a "Life expectancy limitation device" and isn't utterly indiscriminant... you must be travelling above 15MPH and either smoking, talking on a Cell Phone, spilling coffee, checking a map, panic stopping, cornering.... you know... non-standard driving. ;)
     
  23. diamond geezer thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #23
    Yellow, would you consider a "dirty bomb" (a explosive device filled with radoiactive material), to be a WOMD?
     
  24. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    Good question. Supposing one of sufficient strength could aerate a large amount of nuclear material over a relatively large area. Possibly. It would come down to one's definition of how large a "mass" is. Enough to double or triple the amount of lethal rads a thousand people are exposed to? Yes. That would be a weapon of mass destruction, accounted in human lives.

    Given that, would a box of DU .50 caliber shells detonated as a 'dirty' bomb suffice? I don't know, I'm not a munitions or nuclear engineer. If a sufficient amount of DU could be smuggled into the U.S. and then used to manufacture a 'dirty' bomb, then I would probably rethink my stance on DU rounds being classified a WoMD.

    Would I consider a country that possessed DU rounds as a potential enemy because of possession of potential WoMD? No. Possession of, or the ability to manufacture chemical or biological or (non-dirty) nuclear weapons? Yes.

    However, if possession of nuclear material, even if it's only in the form of depleted uranium, is the justification for invading a foreign land, then we've got a long road ahead of us.
     
  25. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #25
    how many countries out there, besides those who already have them , have the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction ?
    nuclear weapons: >25
    chemical weapons:>50
    but thats only my guess

    how many DU is already in the US ? there are other uses for DU than tank rounds etc. liek i said before ..i nairplanes and a lot of other things..are these secured enough..is the danger worth it ?
     

Share This Page