• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:02
CEST 23:02
KST 06:02
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles2[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?14FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event22
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Program: SC2 / XSplit / OBS Scene Switcher
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament WardiTV Mondays Korean Starcraft League Week 77
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2024! Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 546 users

Use of DU (Depleted Uranium) Weapons in Iraq - Page 3

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 All
Silvanel
Profile Blog Joined March 2003
Poland4725 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-18 22:32:25
March 18 2013 22:29 GMT
#41
On March 19 2013 04:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 03:46 heliusx wrote:
On March 19 2013 03:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
On March 19 2013 03:21 Ettick wrote:
Is there another material that is as effective for piercing armor and as cost efficient?



Tungsten, usually alloyed with nickel and iron or cobalt to form heavy alloys, is used in kinetic energy penetrators as an alternative to depleted uranium, in applications where uranium's radioactivity is problematic, or where uranium's additional pyrophoric properties are not required (for example, in ordinary small arms bullets designed to penetrate body armor).


Other than that, I don't know that there are alternatives. Bear in mind I'm not an expert on munitions, but from my limited knowledge Uranium and Tungsten are the highest-end there is for the time being.

I was reading the wiki article on DU and came across this claim, although the source link is dead. If it's true the tungsten might be worse.
According to 2005 research,[32] at least some of the most promising tungsten alloys that have been considered as replacement for depleted uranium in penetrator ammunitions, such as tungsten-cobalt or tungsten-nickel-cobalt alloys, also possess extreme carcinogenic properties, which by far exceed those (confirmed or suspected) of depleted uranium itself: 100% of rats implanted with a pellet of such alloys developed lethal rhabdomyosarcoma within a few weeks.


The Russians use lots of Tungsten-based munitions. It actually works more effectively. The problem is, it's more expensive, since DU is dirt cheap. It's literally the spent waste from nuclear power generation and other uranium usage.



Not exactly, its a byproduct of enriching process. Also its not cheap, cheaper than tungsten, cobalt or nickel but not even close in price to regular bullets. United Nuclear sells slabs (4"x4"x1/8") for 3500$ (reagent grade though).

PS. Why people here are asking abourt laws/criminality of this aumunition? All You have to do is follow the link to wiki about depleted uranium. Everything is right there.
Pathetic Greta hater.
Godwrath
Profile Joined August 2012
Spain10121 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-18 22:41:09
March 18 2013 22:37 GMT
#42
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote:
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?

Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)


Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).

About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.

On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment.


Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.

Merely a line has to be drawn. It's one thing to consider collateral damage from a bomb and take steps to refine them to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. It's another issue to ask that those involved don't kick up a lot of dust, literally. Are you going to ask next to limit our use of lead in bullets to prevent fringe cases of lead poisoning?


What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.
Daumen
Profile Joined July 2011
Germany1073 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-18 22:45:00
March 18 2013 22:42 GMT
#43
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote:
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?

Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)


Found the actual statement from the Doctor, he says in the movie that he took Projectiles, gave him to a diplomat to bring these Projectiles into Germany(Berlin), there, 3 Universities did some research on the projectile because he wanted to know if it was radioactive, the first University was the University of Humboldt, they said its highly toxic & radioactive, we dont want to have any part in this go to the technician University, they said the same "go away, go to the radioactive Institute of the free University" though they said that they didnt want it today(it was a friday), come back Monday. On Monday there were 16 Policemen waiting for him, ready to take the Radioactive Projectile."

He was sentenced to pay a fee of 3000,- DM (Deutsche Mark, the german currency before the Euro), he refused and was imprisoned for 5 Weeks. But at that time he had the confirmation, that the Projectile was indeed radioactive.
President of the ReaL Fan Club.
Daumen
Profile Joined July 2011
Germany1073 Posts
March 18 2013 23:07 GMT
#44
On March 19 2013 07:37 Godwrath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote:
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?

Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)


Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).

About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.

Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment.


Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.

Merely a line has to be drawn. It's one thing to consider collateral damage from a bomb and take steps to refine them to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. It's another issue to ask that those involved don't kick up a lot of dust, literally. Are you going to ask next to limit our use of lead in bullets to prevent fringe cases of lead poisoning?


What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.



I remember someone ranting about the Kony 2012 thingy, he mentioned that Germany was #1 in exporting Mines AND Prosthetics etc... We Germans sell a lot of Weapons, holy crap.
President of the ReaL Fan Club.
ggrrg
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
Bulgaria2716 Posts
March 18 2013 23:14 GMT
#45
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.

These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.


My ex-physics teacher with M.Sc. in nuclear physics would like to have a word with you. The same applies to a multitude of other scientists, by the way.
DarkInfinity
Profile Joined July 2011
121 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-18 23:33:38
March 18 2013 23:23 GMT
#46
You're blowing this out of proportion, yes it's bad, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction: It has a very long half life, meaning there isn't much radiation released, and while uranium is toxic, it's far from the worst thing used in war, and there are much better things to focus attention on. Also, this is alpha, not beta or gamma decay, so it's much less penetrating, as wikipedia put it
In general, external alpha radiation is not harmful since alpha particles are effectively shielded by a few centimeters of air, a piece of paper, or the thin layer of dead skin cells that make up the epidermis
And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
March 18 2013 23:27 GMT
#47
On March 19 2013 07:37 Godwrath wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote:
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?

Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)


Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).

About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.

Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment.


Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.

Merely a line has to be drawn. It's one thing to consider collateral damage from a bomb and take steps to refine them to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. It's another issue to ask that those involved don't kick up a lot of dust, literally. Are you going to ask next to limit our use of lead in bullets to prevent fringe cases of lead poisoning?


What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.

The key point I'm trying to make is that we're better off trying to stop all war than chasing down each weapon with a list of fringe side effects that kill fewer people than alcohol does every day. Also, like others have said, the toxic part of the weapon seems to be it's heavy metal properties and NOT the radioactive properties. You're going to find similar complications with lead and tungsten that you find with uranium.

On March 19 2013 08:14 ggrrg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.

These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.


My ex-physics teacher with M.Sc. in nuclear physics would like to have a word with you. The same applies to a multitude of other scientists, by the way.

By all means, point him in my direction.
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
March 18 2013 23:29 GMT
#48
On March 19 2013 08:14 ggrrg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment. If you want a serious concern for areas ravaged by recent wars, go after abandoned land mines and other active ordinances that find themselves strewn across the countryside. That's a much better use of resources than chasing after some highly questionable claims that prey more on people's fear and lack of understanding of elements (and science) than legitimate dangers.

These populations are probably more at risk from asbestos than uranium radiation.


My ex-physics teacher with M.Sc. in nuclear physics would like to have a word with you. The same applies to a multitude of other scientists, by the way.

What are you talking about? Depleted uranium is toxic because it's a heavy metal. It has nothing to do with radiation. There are multiple studies (read the wiki) showing that its radioactivity is far less dangerous than its chemical toxicity, which is a signature of all heavy metals. It means that replacing uranium with some other heavy metal will not change much, unless you specifically chose a less chemically toxic metal.
This is not Warcraft in space!
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
March 18 2013 23:30 GMT
#49
minuscule concern from radiation unless the source of the DU is questionable.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
Chilling5pr33
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Germany518 Posts
March 18 2013 23:47 GMT
#50
On March 19 2013 08:30 oneofthem wrote:
minuscule concern from radiation unless the source of the DU is questionable.


There might be no concern as long as you dont eat or breath it but thats the case here.


F-
docvoc
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
United States5491 Posts
March 18 2013 23:54 GMT
#51
I'll just be honest here. The military is a sacred thing here in America. A lot of the military stuff we hate is getting toned down right now by Obama to some extent, but it will take another 50 years or so before the military gets toned down much more. Once Iraq and Afghanistan leave our minds, people will begin to demand even more radical change because there is no percieved threat. I will admit though, a majority of people in this country like the fact that our military can kill anything. So I doubt a majority of people will have an issue with this.
User was warned for too many mimes.
Maenander
Profile Joined November 2002
Germany4926 Posts
March 19 2013 14:22 GMT
#52
Every one of us takes in uranium via eating and drinking. Is there a study that shows that the exposure to uranium of people in war zones is significantly higher than normal?
radscorpion9
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Canada2252 Posts
March 19 2013 14:52 GMT
#53
On March 19 2013 08:27 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 07:37 Godwrath wrote:
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote:
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?

Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)


Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).

About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.

On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment.


Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.

Merely a line has to be drawn. It's one thing to consider collateral damage from a bomb and take steps to refine them to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. It's another issue to ask that those involved don't kick up a lot of dust, literally. Are you going to ask next to limit our use of lead in bullets to prevent fringe cases of lead poisoning?


What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.

The key point I'm trying to make is that we're better off trying to stop all war than chasing down each weapon with a list of fringe side effects that kill fewer people than alcohol does every day. Also, like others have said, the toxic part of the weapon seems to be it's heavy metal properties and NOT the radioactive properties. You're going to find similar complications with lead and tungsten that you find with uranium.


I think the issue is simply that depleted uranium can harm innocents, and since in theory you want to minimize the damage to innocents, we should avoid using it. Whether there are more pressing concerns is not necessarily relevant here; if we are capable of focusing on more than one thing at a time (which I'd think we are), then why not fight to make the world a safer place by reducing the chance someone will inhale this toxic metal?

For that matter, lead bullets do not pose the same threat because they apparently can't be inhaled like DU can after it is fired. You have uranium dioxide dust that can be inhaled, but as far as I know from what I've read the only way to get lead poisoning is to actually be shot by it; but they can be surgically removed before they do too much damage so its not a big deal.

Even with all that you may say this is has far too small a chance to affect anyone to be important. But I think we'd need some more reliable sources to say how dangerous it is over a sustained conflict.
sc2superfan101
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
3583 Posts
March 19 2013 15:10 GMT
#54
On March 19 2013 07:37 Godwrath wrote:
What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.

you can't impose a line beforehand and decide you won't cross it. such is the nature of war, what was immoral and overkill yesterday becomes necessary tomorrow. and the reason people haven't used nukes is not the banning, or the environmental cost. it's the pure and simple truth that killing more people has never been the true goal of war, and even the most basic strategic goals are precluded by the massive indiscriminate destruction of civilian populations. DU weapons are cheap and effective at killing single targets, nukes are effective at annihilating cities. only a terrorist or an utter moron would think that in the age of modern warfare, annihilating a city would be effective at achieving any kind of sensible strategic goal. a nuke is really only useful in a nuclear war, or in some unforeseeable "total-war" scenario that is unlikely anyway. or by terrorists who want to maximize their killing potential (but that isn't really "war" in the classic sense, and the likelihood of them getting a nuke is relatively small).

war ain't pretty. people are going to die. sometimes you will have to use weapons that have terrible consequences. we can try to limit the use as much as possible, but you can't stop war from affecting civilian populations negatively. be happy that our technological advancement has allowed for the relative mercy that modern war conducted by Western forces has right now. tbh you'd save more lives by getting better generals than you would by getting rid of DU.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
Chilling5pr33
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Germany518 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-03-20 22:27:02
March 20 2013 10:15 GMT
#55
On March 19 2013 23:52 radscorpion9 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 19 2013 08:27 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 07:37 Godwrath wrote:
On March 19 2013 06:56 Daumen wrote:
I remember hearing about the German Guy (Journalist or Doctor, not sure anymore) trying to find a University here in Germany to test a sample that he found, he got arrested. 1 University tested it(2 others rejected the request) and thats how the Public got to know about this, before it was all just a rumor and/or a very well hidden crime. It is a crime, isnt it?

Didnt the Nato ban the Weapons that could have unforeseeable damages? (Mines, radiation etc)


Suppossedly yes. Also the ammunition used by NATO is 5.56, more designed to cripple than to kill compared to 7.62, the reason given is to reduce casualties by both sides in war (but to be fair, crippling is always more useful on a war than killing). Anyways you will see many of the NATO countries being the biggest sellers of those kind of weapons (Spain a few years ago was the n1 exporting country of mines).

About the depleted uranium. I haven't seen anyone answering chemist post.

On March 19 2013 07:17 aksfjh wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:33 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
On March 19 2013 04:18 aksfjh wrote:
I'm not sure what the gripe is here. It's war, people are going to die, and poisonous substances are likely to enter the environment.


Thankfully military powers today do not share this sentiment quite to the same extent, otherwise I'm sure they'd be topping Tsar Bomba instead of striving to produce increasingly precise weapons designed specifically to reduce casualties and collateral damage.

Merely a line has to be drawn. It's one thing to consider collateral damage from a bomb and take steps to refine them to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties. It's another issue to ask that those involved don't kick up a lot of dust, literally. Are you going to ask next to limit our use of lead in bullets to prevent fringe cases of lead poisoning?


What's the line ? You were talking about it's war people is going to die. The fastest way to kill people is using a nuclear weapon. The reason why they are banned is not only because of how massive the destruction is, but how affects our planet for long long long time. It's the same argument about depleted uranium, they don't have the massive way of destruction, but a lingering effect that we should avoid.

The key point I'm trying to make is that we're better off trying to stop all war than chasing down each weapon with a list of fringe side effects that kill fewer people than alcohol does every day. Also, like others have said, the toxic part of the weapon seems to be it's heavy metal properties and NOT the radioactive properties. You're going to find similar complications with lead and tungsten that you find with uranium.



Even with all that you may say this is has far too small a chance to affect anyone to be important. But I think we'd need some more reliable sources to say how dangerous it is over a sustained conflict.


They avoided doing real researcch on this topic becouse if the result is positive they have to pay for the cost resulting throw it not the people in iraq or afghanistan (wich would cost around 200$ per affected person) its more about our own soldiers affected by it those would cost the millitary billions in the end and they want to avoid this so they avoid propper research.

If you look closely you see they try to avoid all this becouse the relative cost would be much too high, so they try to avoid the discussion overall.

And im not talking of some strange consperacy its just logical financial calculation and im disgusted by this, becouse people joining the military are mostly either having no choice or want to do it becouse they feel the moral urge to do it.
Those people should not suffer.

Ofcourse i feel bad for every child playing in a shot tank as well.

Still dont sure if its true or not.
F-
Chilling5pr33
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Germany518 Posts
April 29 2013 09:14 GMT
#56
Im watching all the Vice Magazine reports and found a short docu on this topic:



VICE magazine is a amazing source for some information about rarely documented things.
F-
Prev 1 2 3 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
RotterdaM Event
16:00
Rotti Stream Rumble 4k Edition
RotterdaM878
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 878
JuggernautJason2
StarCraft: Brood War
firebathero 211
Rock 19
Stormgate
Nathanias23
Dota 2
Pyrionflax197
League of Legends
Grubby4740
Counter-Strike
ScreaM2066
Fnx 1752
fl0m1571
shoxiejesuss932
flusha441
oskar300
Stewie2K239
sgares158
taco 135
Super Smash Bros
PPMD113
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu639
Other Games
summit1g6711
tarik_tv2358
mouzStarbuck238
ToD234
KnowMe205
Hui .111
Mew2King101
Trikslyr73
ZombieGrub61
Sick52
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick51455
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 21 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 278
• musti20045 34
• LUISG 28
• davetesta25
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 54
• Eskiya23 10
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos2502
• TFBlade1354
Other Games
• imaqtpie1816
• Shiphtur525
• WagamamaTV199
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
2h 58m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
12h 58m
WardiTV European League
18h 58m
MaNa vs sebesdes
Mixu vs Fjant
ByuN vs HeRoMaRinE
ShoWTimE vs goblin
Gerald vs Babymarine
Krystianer vs YoungYakov
PiGosaur Monday
1d 2h
The PondCast
1d 12h
WardiTV European League
1d 14h
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 18h
Replay Cast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
3 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
FEL
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Season 20
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.