In war, yes you do. You don't make Tickle Me Elmo dolls out of asbestos because it's a toy. When it comes to the effectiveness of rounds you're talking life and death, you're talking war.
There is no better alternative, so they should remain in use until there is a better alternative. <hr></blockquote>
But we weren't at war with the Afghan people, why shouldn't their long term-suffering be taken into account?
Surely its a matter of proportionality...if there is no other way and its a war we must fight then so be it. But if the same ends can be acheived by other means and the people who are to be on the receiving end have no say in the internal affairs of their country why not moderate our response?
I can't believe that the might of US military would have been defeated but for the use of DU.
(BTW I was watching John Pilger's documentary on present day Vietnam last night, he said that 6lbs of chemicals had been dumped in South Vietnam for every single man, woman and child. The result today is a huge number of malformed babies and miscarriages.)
The consequences of what seems appropriate today may last for many years and affect people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict.
What are the principles that we fight for exactly?
<strong>Don't forget what is left behind in a tank was also already there to begin with, like the radium dials and the munitions and such. Even if you hit a tank with a rocket that took it out you would have toxic stuff in the air. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. And I know my point is based at least part speculation (although not emotional as you claim...I'm not crying about dead babies.) Even the remains from the shuttle are dangerous (R.I.P.)
As for looking for evidence, I had no stance prior to this thread. What I see is a nasty substance that is so effective its side-effects are overlooked (as per groverat.)
That's not the logical end, that's just fucking stupidity. I shouldn't even have to contend that, I certainly hope you haven't drifted so far into defensive mode that you can't see how amazingly moronic what you just said is. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"This is our best method of killing tanks, so we keep it."
What you're saying is that regardless of the side effects, they're so effective at killing tanks we should keep using them.
How is that such a jump? It's not really. If there were a connection between DU and those baby pictures you would still be for using DU because of its effectiveness. How does that differ from a Nuke? There is nothing more effective than a Nuke I'd say.
bunge the bad part about all this is that you're agreeing with us and you just don't realize it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be the case. All of the evidence that points to the fact that DU is dangerous could be bunk. I suppose all of the claims of safety from the Military could be bunk too.
The crap is effective, that's the issue. We need to use something, we don't need to use the absolute most effective bullets if they have dangerous side effects. Consider it the price/performance ration of weapons.
If there truly no side effects, I say make a plane that can carry 30 of these guns and have them each loaded with 100,000 of these damn bullets. I don't believe that it's "harmless" though.
That may be the case. All of the evidence that points to the fact that DU is dangerous could be bunk. I suppose all of the claims of safety from the Military could be bunk too.
The crap is effective, that's the issue. We need to use something, we don't need to use the absolute most effective bullets if they have dangerous side effects. Consider it the price/performance ration of weapons.
If there truly no side effects, I say make a plane that can carry 30 of these guns and have them each loaded with 100,000 of these damn bullets. I don't believe that it's "harmless" though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A possible replacement is already being looked at.
OK...you don't help your argument by saying "well, these other guys are worse!" That's exactly what you do in your land mine example.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I said it was safe. You want to worry about something? Worry about land mines. News flash. Great Satan didn't put them there.
<strong> News flash. Great Satan didn't put them there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn't?
[quote]We did. du is safe. More people will die from the Russian land mines.<hr></blockquote>
Why bring up land mines in the first place if not to make du seem relatively better? If it's safe, simply end your statement with "We did. du is safe." Period. That's all. No need to bring up landmines if you aren't politicking like everyone else.
<strong>But we weren't at war with the Afghan people, why shouldn't their long term-suffering be taken into account?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, and in that evaluation the wartime use of DU outweighs the civilian impact.
[quote]<strong>But if the same ends can be acheived by other means and the people who are to be on the receiving end have no say in the internal affairs of their country why not moderate our response?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no better means. If there were better means the argument against DU would be much stronger.
[quote]<strong>I can't believe that the might of US military would have been defeated but for the use of DU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The A-10 allows us to kill armored vehicles without putting our soldiers at risk. Helicopters are easier targets in desert terrain and going armored vehicle v. armored vehicle is very dangerous for our soldiers.
[quote]<strong>(BTW I was watching John Pilger's documentary on present day Vietnam last night, he said that 6lbs of chemicals had been dumped in South Vietnam for every single man, woman and child. The result today is a huge number of malformed babies and miscarriages.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
DU bullets != chemical weapons
bunge:
[quote]<strong>What you're saying is that regardless of the side effects, they're so effective at killing tanks we should keep using them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"regardless of the side effects"?
Of what we know now, absolutely.
If it later turns out that DU releases a plague of locusts o'er the land then no.
[quote]<strong>How is that such a jump? It's not really. If there were a connection between DU and those baby pictures you would still be for using DU because of its effectiveness. How does that differ from a Nuke? There is nothing more effective than a Nuke I'd say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The after-effects and direct effects of a nuclear weapon are so different from a few hundred DU-tipped rounds they cannot be compared. To kill an armored vehicle a nuclear weapon is overkill to say the very least.
What you're trying to do now is make it seem like I think effectiveness trumps all. I have made it very clear that DU isn't good, but the good beats the bad in the end evaluation in regards to its use.
This is a very very weak and sad debate tactic. But of course you will continue to act as if I am saying that effectiveness trumps all because it's all you have left. Keep on keepin' on, Rush.
<strong>Keep on keepin' on, Rush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ouch....
"Absolutely, and in that evaluation the wartime use of DU outweighs the civilian impact."
I think this sums up the crossroads we're at. This is a subjective that I'm inclined to disagree with (but I'm "keeping an open mind" about.) I guess I just don't trust the military when on one hand they say it's safe and on the other they use "precautionary" measures for their own troops. If they've done enough studies, why the precautionary measures?
As Billy Preston says "will it go round in circles." That's about where we'll go from here.
I promise to keep an open mind until I read more, and hope I don't get near any of the stuff.
Spent a little time looking up DU on Google and my gut feelings about the stuff appear to be correct.
It is toxic, and considered a potential hazard at an attack site. It's less radioactive than when in its natural state, although the US DID for a time use depleated plutonium which was apparently potentially dangerously radioactive.
There are alternatives: Tungsten. It's only about 60-80% as effective, but with advances in weapons technology the bullets can now be fired faster and harder than before so their effectiveness is raised to be almost equal to that of DU shells. It's expensive though.
So the key is this: the US has something like 1.2 billion pounds of DU and they give it away for free to weapons manufacturers simply because there's nothing else they can do with it. It's the price/performance ratio. They know it's unhealthy, but it's free.
To me that's wrong. It's especially wrong when we don't allow proper cleanup tools into Iraq after the gulf war so the country CAN'T properly handle the battlefields.
Next up, reading all the rightist propaganda already linked in this this thread...
<strong>DU is not only heavy, but very hard and holds itself together rather well as it penetrates armor. It doesn't wholesale powder or disintegrate, although it won't be unscathed after hitting a target either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I guess the Tungsten rounds flatten as they enter a tank so they can't penetrate as far, but the DU rounds actually elongate and thus can pierce through the tank.
<strong>The lighter, more brittle tungsten round is just fine against aircraft and lightly armored vehicles, but not particularly well suited to shred a main battle tank.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I've read it's about 60-80% as effective in current guns, but improved weapons can fire the bullets faster and harder so the tungsten rounds are about or almost as effective as current DU rounds. I think the fact that DU is free and effective is what perpetuates its usage.
Comments
[QUOTE] posted 02-03-2003 02:12 PM Â*Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In war, yes you do. You don't make Tickle Me Elmo dolls out of asbestos because it's a toy. When it comes to the effectiveness of rounds you're talking life and death, you're talking war.
There is no better alternative, so they should remain in use until there is a better alternative. <hr></blockquote>
But we weren't at war with the Afghan people, why shouldn't their long term-suffering be taken into account?
Surely its a matter of proportionality...if there is no other way and its a war we must fight then so be it. But if the same ends can be acheived by other means and the people who are to be on the receiving end have no say in the internal affairs of their country why not moderate our response?
I can't believe that the might of US military would have been defeated but for the use of DU.
(BTW I was watching John Pilger's documentary on present day Vietnam last night, he said that 6lbs of chemicals had been dumped in South Vietnam for every single man, woman and child. The result today is a huge number of malformed babies and miscarriages.)
The consequences of what seems appropriate today may last for many years and affect people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict.
What are the principles that we fight for exactly?
<strong>Don't forget what is left behind in a tank was also already there to begin with, like the radium dials and the munitions and such. Even if you hit a tank with a rocket that took it out you would have toxic stuff in the air. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true. And I know my point is based at least part speculation (although not emotional as you claim...I'm not crying about dead babies.) Even the remains from the shuttle are dangerous (R.I.P.)
As for looking for evidence, I had no stance prior to this thread. What I see is a nasty substance that is so effective its side-effects are overlooked (as per groverat.)
<strong>
That's not the logical end, that's just fucking stupidity. I shouldn't even have to contend that, I certainly hope you haven't drifted so far into defensive mode that you can't see how amazingly moronic what you just said is. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"This is our best method of killing tanks, so we keep it."
What you're saying is that regardless of the side effects, they're so effective at killing tanks we should keep using them.
How is that such a jump? It's not really. If there were a connection between DU and those baby pictures you would still be for using DU because of its effectiveness. How does that differ from a Nuke? There is nothing more effective than a Nuke I'd say.
<strong>
bunge the bad part about all this is that you're agreeing with us and you just don't realize it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be the case. All of the evidence that points to the fact that DU is dangerous could be bunk. I suppose all of the claims of safety from the Military could be bunk too.
The crap is effective, that's the issue. We need to use something, we don't need to use the absolute most effective bullets if they have dangerous side effects. Consider it the price/performance ration of weapons.
If there truly no side effects, I say make a plane that can carry 30 of these guns and have them each loaded with 100,000 of these damn bullets. I don't believe that it's "harmless" though.
Since DU is more effective than lead, we use less of it. Result: less toxicity on the battlefield.
We *are* using the less toxic weapon. Sheesh.
If something else rolls around that is in the same realm of effectiveness, with less toxicity, I'd imagine it would get used rather quickly.
<strong>
That may be the case. All of the evidence that points to the fact that DU is dangerous could be bunk. I suppose all of the claims of safety from the Military could be bunk too.
The crap is effective, that's the issue. We need to use something, we don't need to use the absolute most effective bullets if they have dangerous side effects. Consider it the price/performance ration of weapons.
If there truly no side effects, I say make a plane that can carry 30 of these guns and have them each loaded with 100,000 of these damn bullets. I don't believe that it's "harmless" though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A possible replacement is already being looked at.
<a href="http://www.liquidmetal.com/applications/index.cfm?drill=defense"; target="_blank">http://www.liquidmetal.com/applications/index.cfm?drill=defense</a>;
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the pic.
<strong>
A possible replacement is already being looked at. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Good.
<strong>
But we weren't at war with the Afghan people, why shouldn't their long term-suffering be taken into account? </strong><hr></blockquote>
We did. du is safe. More people will die from the Russian land mines.
<strong>
We did. du is safe. More people will die from the Russian land mines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK...you don't help your argument by saying "well, these other guys are worse!" That's exactly what you do in your land mine example.
<strong>
OK...you don't help your argument by saying "well, these other guys are worse!" That's exactly what you do in your land mine example.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I said it was safe. You want to worry about something? Worry about land mines. News flash. Great Satan didn't put them there.
<strong> News flash. Great Satan didn't put them there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn't?
[quote]We did. du is safe. More people will die from the Russian land mines.<hr></blockquote>
Why bring up land mines in the first place if not to make du seem relatively better? If it's safe, simply end your statement with "We did. du is safe." Period. That's all. No need to bring up landmines if you aren't politicking like everyone else.
<strong>But we weren't at war with the Afghan people, why shouldn't their long term-suffering be taken into account?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely, and in that evaluation the wartime use of DU outweighs the civilian impact.
[quote]<strong>But if the same ends can be acheived by other means and the people who are to be on the receiving end have no say in the internal affairs of their country why not moderate our response?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no better means. If there were better means the argument against DU would be much stronger.
[quote]<strong>I can't believe that the might of US military would have been defeated but for the use of DU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The A-10 allows us to kill armored vehicles without putting our soldiers at risk. Helicopters are easier targets in desert terrain and going armored vehicle v. armored vehicle is very dangerous for our soldiers.
[quote]<strong>(BTW I was watching John Pilger's documentary on present day Vietnam last night, he said that 6lbs of chemicals had been dumped in South Vietnam for every single man, woman and child. The result today is a huge number of malformed babies and miscarriages.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
DU bullets != chemical weapons
bunge:
[quote]<strong>What you're saying is that regardless of the side effects, they're so effective at killing tanks we should keep using them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"regardless of the side effects"?
Of what we know now, absolutely.
If it later turns out that DU releases a plague of locusts o'er the land then no.
[quote]<strong>How is that such a jump? It's not really. If there were a connection between DU and those baby pictures you would still be for using DU because of its effectiveness. How does that differ from a Nuke? There is nothing more effective than a Nuke I'd say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The after-effects and direct effects of a nuclear weapon are so different from a few hundred DU-tipped rounds they cannot be compared. To kill an armored vehicle a nuclear weapon is overkill to say the very least.
What you're trying to do now is make it seem like I think effectiveness trumps all. I have made it very clear that DU isn't good, but the good beats the bad in the end evaluation in regards to its use.
This is a very very weak and sad debate tactic. But of course you will continue to act as if I am saying that effectiveness trumps all because it's all you have left. Keep on keepin' on, Rush.
<strong>Keep on keepin' on, Rush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ouch....
"Absolutely, and in that evaluation the wartime use of DU outweighs the civilian impact."
I think this sums up the crossroads we're at. This is a subjective that I'm inclined to disagree with (but I'm "keeping an open mind" about.) I guess I just don't trust the military when on one hand they say it's safe and on the other they use "precautionary" measures for their own troops. If they've done enough studies, why the precautionary measures?
As Billy Preston says "will it go round in circles." That's about where we'll go from here.
I promise to keep an open mind until I read more, and hope I don't get near any of the stuff.
It is toxic, and considered a potential hazard at an attack site. It's less radioactive than when in its natural state, although the US DID for a time use depleated plutonium which was apparently potentially dangerously radioactive.
There are alternatives: Tungsten. It's only about 60-80% as effective, but with advances in weapons technology the bullets can now be fired faster and harder than before so their effectiveness is raised to be almost equal to that of DU shells. It's expensive though.
So the key is this: the US has something like 1.2 billion pounds of DU and they give it away for free to weapons manufacturers simply because there's nothing else they can do with it. It's the price/performance ratio. They know it's unhealthy, but it's free.
To me that's wrong. It's especially wrong when we don't allow proper cleanup tools into Iraq after the gulf war so the country CAN'T properly handle the battlefields.
Next up, reading all the rightist propaganda already linked in this this thread...
<strong>DU is not only heavy, but very hard and holds itself together rather well as it penetrates armor. It doesn't wholesale powder or disintegrate, although it won't be unscathed after hitting a target either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I guess the Tungsten rounds flatten as they enter a tank so they can't penetrate as far, but the DU rounds actually elongate and thus can pierce through the tank.
<strong>The lighter, more brittle tungsten round is just fine against aircraft and lightly armored vehicles, but not particularly well suited to shred a main battle tank.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I've read it's about 60-80% as effective in current guns, but improved weapons can fire the bullets faster and harder so the tungsten rounds are about or almost as effective as current DU rounds. I think the fact that DU is free and effective is what perpetuates its usage.