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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
EPT
