Depleted Uranium Ammunition

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by super mecha, May 24, 2011.

  1. super mecha

    super mecha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Posts:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Likes:
    +0
    In war, the advantages of Depleted Uranium munitions help the United States stomp other countries into the ground.

    The United States and its NATO allies maintain that Depleted Uranium dust (a by-product) doesn't cause cancer and birth defects, however, 136 countries are siting other research saying that it does.

    Which side do you think is right?


    Here is the wikipedia entry:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
     
  2. Transbot90210

    Transbot90210 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    14,849
    News Credits:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    236
    Likes:
    +7
    I will go with the countries that say it does. If you had someone in a Uraniam free environment and someone in an eviroment with minimal traces of Uraniam, my bet would be on the Uranium dude getting cancer.
     
  3. Detroa

    Detroa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Posts:
    1,878
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    142
    Likes:
    +15
    Ebay:
    I wasn't even aware there were people maintaining it doesn't cause cancer and other horrible things, I thought it was a fact for everyone.

    Well, if it's not then, I find it "funny" that the only ones maintaining it doesn't are the ones using it, especially when they're 28 against 136. ^^'
     
  4. Nachtsider

    Nachtsider Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Posts:
    12,544
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +3
    I'd only be concerned about the DU affecting people on my side.
     
  5. Murasame

    Murasame CHIMICHANGAS

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Posts:
    15,450
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    The Lost Light
    Likes:
    +277
    How could one even remotely think that depleted Uranium won't cause Cancer? I never heard of anyone saying it would not! :lol 
     
  6. Murasame

    Murasame CHIMICHANGAS

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Posts:
    15,450
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Location:
    The Lost Light
    Likes:
    +277
    But war is seldom about good and evil, mostly it's because of oil (when the US sends troops somewhere) or just power. And the people who live in areas where soldiers must fight a war for their government pay the price for something they mostly don't even want.

    So I'd rethink that thought a bit.

    And in addition, enemies could be one day allies. There was never any evil or good side or country, it's always about the ones who lead a country.
     
  7. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,507
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +136
    I'm pretty sure that exposure to depleted uranium is well-known and proven to cause health issues, if not as a carcinogen, then as a toxic heavy metal.

    It certainly doesn't help that depleted uranium, when heated, has a tendency to spall particles off the surface, increasing the exposure to particles as well as reducing the body's ability to "filter" them out.
     
  8. firehawc_69

    firehawc_69 cloppers = ignore list

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Posts:
    10,631
    News Credits:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +10
    They proved that the "Gulf War Syndrome" was caused by exposure to depleted uranium projectiles. Like Aernaroth stated, once the projectiles are fired, they heat up and expel radioactive particles. That stuff gets ingested by the guys firing it and they get extremely ill, cancer or not.
     
  9. 46+2

    46+2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Posts:
    5,604
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +0
    There are alot of things permitted or deemed ok for use only by the US and no one else. Dont know if I can go any further with what I want to say due to forum policies.
     
  10. DethPike

    DethPike Master of Sinanju

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Posts:
    3,559
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    Ebay:
    I'm confused - the people that we SHOOT THEM AT get cancer later, or the people that MAKE the munitions are getting cancer?

    Because I don't care if the people we shoot them at get cancer. Tragedy.

    But if the guy making them got cancer I'd actually feel quite bad.
     
  11. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,507
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +136
    All of the above. Anyone exposed during the manufacturing, firing, or... shall we say... interception of the rounds is at risk of significant health problems due to their tendency to emit highly toxic, reactive (but not radioactive) particles when heated.

    Also tragic is that these rounds, since they punch THROUGH targets and land elsewhere, or since they are used in strafing runs, often stay in the environment, unrecovered and a continuing contaminative source. They do their job exceptionally well, but the long-term implications of their use are troubling.
     
  12. Bumblethumper

    Bumblethumper old misery guts

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Posts:
    8,807
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Likes:
    +20
    I dunno, seems to me that if you launch a war to seize another country's resources, it's pretty straightforward that you've done an evil thing.
     
  13. Nachtsider

    Nachtsider Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Posts:
    12,544
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +3
    As far as I'm concerned? Me and anyone on my side are the good guys.
     
  14. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,507
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +136
    Then I'd advise you to be very careful and responsible about which sides you choose.
     
  15. Moonscream

    Moonscream YES, We EXIST!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Posts:
    4,334
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Location:
    The best, the Pacific Northwest!
    Likes:
    +17
    It means the people who are AROUND the DU ammo - whether shooting, being shot by, manufacturing, or being unfortunate enough to just be in the area - are getting cancer. Our military members are around them the most, as are the civilians who live in the area they're shot or dropped into, where they're often left.

    --Moony
     
  16. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Source? Or actually, I'll make it easy for you--that's bullshit. No one has "proved" anything about GWS. It's still extremely controversial.
     
  17. Bryan

    Bryan ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Posts:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +0
    Also, I give a fuck about DU giving anyone illness. I think it's reasonable to think that use in a combat environment places exposed individuals (targets, users, civilians) at increased risk of various health issues.

    But it's kinda like the dude who shoulder checks you at the bar. When you beat his ass, because he was asking for it, he acts all like "Hey, I bumped him by accident, what's his problem?" But if you don't, he brags about how he punked you. So folks oughta stop trying to punk the biggest, baddest dude in the bar, and if they do, don't cry about it when you get a facefull of DU. GET SOME.
     
  18. VictoryLeo19

    VictoryLeo19 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Posts:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Likes:
    +5
    There's really no uranium in combat zones besides tank armor. They ask us everytime we come back from a deployment if we've been near a burned out tank. Afghanistan, yeah you'll run into a blown up tank now and again. Iraq invasion, definitely, but not anymore these days. It's in the metal we use for our abrahams, and big time in the metal used for the old russian tanks.
     
  19. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    23,507
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Likes:
    +136

    There's plenty of evidence for DU exposure causing a wide array of health ills in animal studies (and both of us know no-one will knowingly and in good conscience test its effects on live human subjects), and a pretty good amount of human study evidence available from the uranium mining industry regarding human effects. It's a heavy metal toxin, and as such, can hamper brain function (especially in the young), can cause renal and gastrointestinal problems, accumulates in several organs (liver, spleen, kidneys, as you would expect), and can have mutogenic effects (birth defects in offspring of those exposed).

    Does it do a good job of punching through armor? Sure. But I can't say I'm a huge supporter of its use, for the same reason I'm not a huge supporter of agent orange, cluster munitions, or most forms of landmines: It can continue to cause damage after the conflict is over, and a completely unacceptable level of that post-conflict damage will impact civilians. In this particular case, it puts the troops using it at what I feel is an undue risk. Is it an absolutely necessary part of a nation's arsenal which outweighs this risk? You'll have to convince me of that, and bravado, posturing and a standpoint that's basically "They asked for it" isn't helping your case.
     
  20. cagliostro

    cagliostro Victi Vincimus

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Posts:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    This, fuck the other side.
     

Share This Page