<strong>Neutron bomb the battle field.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Drop "The Nude Bomb" - Get Smart (1980)
Famed "Get Smart" agent Maxwell Smart (Don Adams) is on his most dangerous case ever, trying to stop KAOS from dropping a bomb that would destroy all existing fabric worldwide.
[quote] The A-10 allows us to kill armored vehicles without putting our soldiers at risk...armored vehicle v. armored vehicle is very dangerous for our soldiers. <hr></blockquote>
If there really is no risk with the toxicity of this material then this makes absolute sense. However, if there are, or there is a good chance that there are, long term problems with a substance that is not only toxic because its a heavy metal but is also radioactive then that needs to be taken into account.
Why do we assume that the immediate health concerns of fighting men, who have chosen to be in that arena, count for more than the civilians (now and in the future) who have no such choice?
[quote] DU bullets != chemical weapons<hr></blockquote>
The point wasn't that one was equal to the other, rather that whenever foreign or toxic material is introduced into an environment there is the potential for harm far beyond what is immediately apparant. Im sure US troops, some seen pumping exfoliant out through what looked like fire hoses were badly affected too. Didn't US veterans experience side effects, father malformed babies too? In Vietnam the legacy today seems too high a price to pay.
(I bet the politicians/military at the time said AO was safe in order to get soldiers to use it.)
[quote] There is no better means. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you are right, DU sounds like the most effective means. What do forces without DU do? Are shaped charges, high explosive shells etc no longer effective? Taliban armour still requires fuel, spares and maintenance, can't these essentials be denied to the same effect as taking them out directly?
BTW... for what its worth I dont buy the idea that du means less bullets. I dont think people used to fire 'bullets' at tanks to destroy them before du anyway, but what rate of fire does an A-10 have 2-4k rounds per minute? These are not sniper planes.
Comments
<strong>
...I think the fact that DU is free and effective is what perpetuates its usage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup it's free,
we are getting rid of Nuclear waste ( Okay, Nuclear by product )
One bullet at a time. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>Neutron bomb the battle field.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Drop "The Nude Bomb" - Get Smart (1980)
Famed "Get Smart" agent Maxwell Smart (Don Adams) is on his most dangerous case ever, trying to stop KAOS from dropping a bomb that would destroy all existing fabric worldwide.
Just imagine all of those liberated women. :eek:
If there really is no risk with the toxicity of this material then this makes absolute sense. However, if there are, or there is a good chance that there are, long term problems with a substance that is not only toxic because its a heavy metal but is also radioactive then that needs to be taken into account.
Why do we assume that the immediate health concerns of fighting men, who have chosen to be in that arena, count for more than the civilians (now and in the future) who have no such choice?
[quote] DU bullets != chemical weapons<hr></blockquote>
The point wasn't that one was equal to the other, rather that whenever foreign or toxic material is introduced into an environment there is the potential for harm far beyond what is immediately apparant. Im sure US troops, some seen pumping exfoliant out through what looked like fire hoses were badly affected too. Didn't US veterans experience side effects, father malformed babies too? In Vietnam the legacy today seems too high a price to pay.
(I bet the politicians/military at the time said AO was safe in order to get soldiers to use it.)
[quote] There is no better means. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you are right, DU sounds like the most effective means. What do forces without DU do? Are shaped charges, high explosive shells etc no longer effective? Taliban armour still requires fuel, spares and maintenance, can't these essentials be denied to the same effect as taking them out directly?
BTW... for what its worth I dont buy the idea that du means less bullets. I dont think people used to fire 'bullets' at tanks to destroy them before du anyway, but what rate of fire does an A-10 have 2-4k rounds per minute? These are not sniper planes.