[quote]<strong>This is never an excuse to regress. We as a nation, as communities and as individuals should always be striving to to the best we can, regardless of what other do. Secondly, it is our level of technology that affords us the luxury of restraint. Condemning countries that do not have this ability is just wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using the same weapon isn't regressing, perhaps if we went back to using smallpox blankets we could be accused of regressing. The simple answer is that the USMil has not found something as effective as DU to use in (relatively) small, armor-piercing rounds. Like I said, they've been threatening to scrap the A-10 since the mid-80s but they can't find anything as effective.
[quote]<strong>Giving up your power to 'people who know more about this stuff' (and who really are these people?) is a recipe for disaster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those charged with researching this stuff weigh these variables and have not been able to replace DU. That's what I mean. I appreciate the wide-sweeping generalities, but that was a bit canned.
I am of the opinion that DU can be some bad shit but it is very effective at doing what it is supposed to do. Those charged with balancing all the factors seem to also think that it's bad shit that does its job very well. As I said before, the impact on civilians is a factor (perhaps a bigger factor for the U.S. than anyone else.
[quote]<strong>As jimmac points out, 'the people who know more about this stuff' have a damn piss-poor track record.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In comparison to essentially any other military in the world, that's a load of shit.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>If it's unsafe for troops it's unsafe for civilians. I see no need to risk the lives of the civilians any more than necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"necessary"
I think it's reasonable to kill the enemy tanks using a moderately dangerous substance. This isn't like thrown ebola around. It's bad shit, but it's not THAT bad. And I agree with those who make these decisions and use the weapons.
As has been preached recently, you can't prove a negative. The EU has said the weapons are safe and the U.S. Mil has said that they are bad but not a really big deal. If you don't trust that then it's your business to prove it wrong.
alcimedes:
[quote]<strong>perhaps what he should have said was that we try to kill them before they kill us while minimizing civilian casualties.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. Now let's have a look at your understanding of science. You calculate the amount (weight) of U238 and U235 that decays in your body during 100 years and then compare these numbers to dose equivalents (Rem) per year???
Either come up with the missing numbers and math or don't talk about science.
BTW: I've no idea how dangerous du is. Maybe it's harmless, But I want so see some REAL science first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I would but I can't find the info on the net and don't have the proper reference. There are tables where you can look this stuff up but I don't have them on me. But you know anyone that wants to get real dose values out before me feel free.
But by far the real numbers I have put forward cast serious doubt that du caused any birth defects. The health risk from any type of isotope like this is increased cancer rate. And even that is debatable.
Remember I'm not the one that started the anti-US hatefest thread. The burden of proof is not on me.
<strong>Remember I'm not the one that started the anti-US hatefest thread. The burden of proof is not on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think that you could possibly show a little restraint and not constantly condemn every thread you don't like as a US hatefest? If it really is, simply present arguments to shoot it down and the motives will be apparent to all. Cram it already.
Do you think that you could possibly show a little restraint and not constantly condemn every thread you don't like as a US hatefest? If it really is, simply present arguments to shoot it down and the motives will be apparent to all. Cram it already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol, i'm gonna remember this next time fellowship posts anything. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"They also carry a 30 mm Gatling gun at their front which can strafe enemy fighters on the ground at the rate of nearly 4000 rounds per minute."
Now...is this the gun that fires the ammo with DU in it (or the rockets...)?
4000 rounds per minute?
If that is correct then they are probably still cleaning up all the rounds (spent and unfired) in Iraq from the Gulf War!
...correct me if I'm wrong...I'm not knowledgable on all this "military intelligence".</strong><hr></blockquote>
A-10 not F-10
it's an attack plane so it recieves the designation of A.
yes, the gattling gun on the nose of the plane fires an insane amount of bullets and they are armour piercing DU rounds. the rate of fire is so fast that it doesn't do the customary rat-a-tat-tat, it just kind has this high pitched whine. the rounds are very small in comparison to a tank shell though. they tend bounce around the interior of the tank, turning the crew into swiss cheese upon penetration. one bad assed plane.
There's evidence that it can cause unnecessary civilian casualties long after the battles have ended. That's a problem.
A proper cleanup of the material was not allowed by the U.N. That's a problem.
If they can't be used responsibly, they shouldn't be used. If they can't be used responsibly and they're still used, those using them should be sanctioned or punished.
There might be evidence that this stuff doesn't hurt babies. Maybe it really doubles your I.Q. There's certainly no evidence of either here.
<strong>The burden of proof is not on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong.
You claim the premise of the thread is incorrect and that the evidence is support of the thread is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that what has been represent is in fact untrue.
Whe we don't have to, then it is. That was the point of that part of my post. If Iraq uses chemical weapons that contaminate civilians, should we also use them? Absolutely not! We don't have to in order to win the war.
[quote]
Those charged with researching this stuff weigh these variables and have not been able to replace DU.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure who you are referring to. If you mean the military, their aim is to use effective weapons. It is for outsiders to limit that use. If you don't mean the military, who do you mean? There haven't been any effectively conclusive studies. Furthermore, the studies that have been done are easily for anyone with a decent college education to understand.
And, most importantly, you statement demonstrates an unwillingness to read any of those studies even though the info is out there, for instance, the federation of american scientists has a good page on the debate. If you haven't read both sides objectively, how can you form an objective opinion?
The many, many doctors, military personel and various civilians that are devoting massive amounts of time to telling everyone that DU is a huge health risk are also 'people who know more about this stuff' than you, so why are you not listening to them? Making a decision either way and using that as a justification is nothing more than adopting the view that appeals to your set of beliefs the most. It is not based in fact.
You claim the premise of the thread is incorrect and that the evidence is support of the thread is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that what has been represent is in fact untrue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If SJO is going to say that d.u. caused birth defects I say PROVE IT!
But all can't. Due to your ignorance. So prove it or withdraw the claim.
Why do you have to spoil your one legit thread with such an ass-backward statement?
Can't we stick to the facts for once? It was so nice while it lasted.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thread was ass backwards from the start. I provided many more facts than anyone else here. But you know go post 10 pages of nonsense that no one will read.
SJO lives in So Cal i think....so i doubt she is an outsider spreading lies about "your" country...maybe she is just a concerned citizen who loves her country....g
asking questions is good...some get very upset when anybody questions the government...me? it makes me happy...it reminds me that i live in a democracy and a free country and the best country in the world...so SJO keep asking questions...you too groverat and your too scott and you too br and you too spj and you too pscates...etc etc etc
If SJO is going to say that d.u. caused birth defects I say PROVE IT!<hr></blockquote>
I guess what proof that has been shown is sufficient enough in my mind to warrant serious concern. Is there conclusive proof that a+b=c?* We don't need that kind of proof to know that this stuff is dangerous.
Besides, as I've said before, if the government admits that it's unhealthy for their troops, it's unhealthy for civilians. Why is that so hard to understand?
That's correct, but don't get the impression these things spray DU rounds like machine gun bullets. The extrememly high rate of fire is intended to allow at least a few bullets to hit the target in the tiny fraction of a second that the gun is aimed at it, while flying over it at 300 mph. In fact, the A-10 carries only 1350 round of ammunition for its main gun (<a href="http://www.warmachines.50g.com/planes/a-10/a-10_info.htm"; target="_blank">A-10 specs</a>), allowing less than 20 seconds of firing time per mission. Pilots are trained to fire in 1-2 second bursts to conserve ammunition (they can also select a slower rate of fire). Interesting, the 1-2 second burst rule is also supposed to prevent the gun from slowing the plane down so much it falls out of the sky (darn Newton's laws!).
I would guess the DU armor-piercing tank rounds fired by the M1 probably contributed more to the weight of DU dispensed during the Gulf War than the A-10. The A-10 has only attracted attention because of the sensationalist coverage from Yugoslavia, when "DU" was already a buzzword, but where there were obviously few tank rounds fired.
I would think the much larger Abrams' tank shells to be far more of a concern than any bullets from an A-10. Those things burn their way into tanks and make them explode. So if there is any unstable isotope in the du, it will be in the explosion. I doubt the A-10 ammo can say the same. They don't generaly create explosions like the tank ammo, so the resultant spread must be far less. DU's safety is more in question after a target is hit, not so much in handling or before a round's use. Even then, I'm having a hard time imagining how so much of the stuff must be used to create these kinds of health concerns in the general populace, and what the hell the populace is doing so radioactive poisoning is spreading like they claim it is.
Does any one remember when the F-117 was shot down in Bosnia? They showed news footage of epople dancing on the plane's wreckage and taking pieces home in their hands. The radar absorbing material used for the skin of that plane is carcenogenic, enough so that contact with bare skin can potentially cause a cancer in that person. I guess we should stop using stealth technology in wars too.
Comments
[quote]<strong>This is never an excuse to regress. We as a nation, as communities and as individuals should always be striving to to the best we can, regardless of what other do. Secondly, it is our level of technology that affords us the luxury of restraint. Condemning countries that do not have this ability is just wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Using the same weapon isn't regressing, perhaps if we went back to using smallpox blankets we could be accused of regressing. The simple answer is that the USMil has not found something as effective as DU to use in (relatively) small, armor-piercing rounds. Like I said, they've been threatening to scrap the A-10 since the mid-80s but they can't find anything as effective.
[quote]<strong>Giving up your power to 'people who know more about this stuff' (and who really are these people?) is a recipe for disaster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those charged with researching this stuff weigh these variables and have not been able to replace DU. That's what I mean. I appreciate the wide-sweeping generalities, but that was a bit canned.
I am of the opinion that DU can be some bad shit but it is very effective at doing what it is supposed to do. Those charged with balancing all the factors seem to also think that it's bad shit that does its job very well. As I said before, the impact on civilians is a factor (perhaps a bigger factor for the U.S. than anyone else.
[quote]<strong>As jimmac points out, 'the people who know more about this stuff' have a damn piss-poor track record.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In comparison to essentially any other military in the world, that's a load of shit.
bunge:
[quote]<strong>If it's unsafe for troops it's unsafe for civilians. I see no need to risk the lives of the civilians any more than necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"necessary"
I think it's reasonable to kill the enemy tanks using a moderately dangerous substance. This isn't like thrown ebola around. It's bad shit, but it's not THAT bad. And I agree with those who make these decisions and use the weapons.
As has been preached recently, you can't prove a negative. The EU has said the weapons are safe and the U.S. Mil has said that they are bad but not a really big deal. If you don't trust that then it's your business to prove it wrong.
alcimedes:
[quote]<strong>perhaps what he should have said was that we try to kill them before they kill us while minimizing civilian casualties.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I had hoped that would be assumed.
<strong>
I agree. Now let's have a look at your understanding of science. You calculate the amount (weight) of U238 and U235 that decays in your body during 100 years and then compare these numbers to dose equivalents (Rem) per year???
Either come up with the missing numbers and math or don't talk about science.
BTW: I've no idea how dangerous du is. Maybe it's harmless, But I want so see some REAL science first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I would but I can't find the info on the net and don't have the proper reference. There are tables where you can look this stuff up but I don't have them on me. But you know anyone that wants to get real dose values out before me feel free.
But by far the real numbers I have put forward cast serious doubt that du caused any birth defects. The health risk from any type of isotope like this is increased cancer rate. And even that is debatable.
Remember I'm not the one that started the anti-US hatefest thread. The burden of proof is not on me.
"They also carry a 30 mm Gatling gun at their front which can strafe enemy fighters on the ground at the rate of nearly 4000 rounds per minute."
Now...is this the gun that fires the ammo with DU in it (or the rockets...)?
4000 rounds per minute?
If that is correct then they are probably still cleaning up all the rounds (spent and unfired) in Iraq from the Gulf War!
...correct me if I'm wrong...I'm not knowledgable on all this "military intelligence".
<strong>Remember I'm not the one that started the anti-US hatefest thread. The burden of proof is not on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you think that you could possibly show a little restraint and not constantly condemn every thread you don't like as a US hatefest? If it really is, simply present arguments to shoot it down and the motives will be apparent to all. Cram it already.
<strong>
Do you think that you could possibly show a little restraint and not constantly condemn every thread you don't like as a US hatefest? If it really is, simply present arguments to shoot it down and the motives will be apparent to all. Cram it already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol, i'm gonna remember this next time fellowship posts anything. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong><a href="http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2002/mar/25/text/wnw_4-1-p.htm"; target="_blank">From this article on the F-10 fighter in Afganistan...</a>
"They also carry a 30 mm Gatling gun at their front which can strafe enemy fighters on the ground at the rate of nearly 4000 rounds per minute."
Now...is this the gun that fires the ammo with DU in it (or the rockets...)?
4000 rounds per minute?
If that is correct then they are probably still cleaning up all the rounds (spent and unfired) in Iraq from the Gulf War!
...correct me if I'm wrong...I'm not knowledgable on all this "military intelligence".</strong><hr></blockquote>
A-10 not F-10
it's an attack plane so it recieves the designation of A.
yes, the gattling gun on the nose of the plane fires an insane amount of bullets and they are armour piercing DU rounds. the rate of fire is so fast that it doesn't do the customary rat-a-tat-tat, it just kind has this high pitched whine. the rounds are very small in comparison to a tank shell though. they tend bounce around the interior of the tank, turning the crew into swiss cheese upon penetration. one bad assed plane.
A proper cleanup of the material was not allowed by the U.N. That's a problem.
If they can't be used responsibly, they shouldn't be used. If they can't be used responsibly and they're still used, those using them should be sanctioned or punished.
There might be evidence that this stuff doesn't hurt babies. Maybe it really doubles your I.Q. There's certainly no evidence of either here.
<strong>
...
Remember I'm not the one that started the anti-US hatefest thread. The burden of proof is not on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott could you speak up.
Your Goose-stepping and heal clicking is hard to hear over.
<strong>The burden of proof is not on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong.
You claim the premise of the thread is incorrect and that the evidence is support of the thread is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that what has been represent is in fact untrue.
Using the same weapon isn't regressing
<hr></blockquote>
Whe we don't have to, then it is. That was the point of that part of my post. If Iraq uses chemical weapons that contaminate civilians, should we also use them? Absolutely not! We don't have to in order to win the war.
[quote]
Those charged with researching this stuff weigh these variables and have not been able to replace DU.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure who you are referring to. If you mean the military, their aim is to use effective weapons. It is for outsiders to limit that use. If you don't mean the military, who do you mean? There haven't been any effectively conclusive studies. Furthermore, the studies that have been done are easily for anyone with a decent college education to understand.
And, most importantly, you statement demonstrates an unwillingness to read any of those studies even though the info is out there, for instance, the federation of american scientists has a good page on the debate. If you haven't read both sides objectively, how can you form an objective opinion?
The many, many doctors, military personel and various civilians that are devoting massive amounts of time to telling everyone that DU is a huge health risk are also 'people who know more about this stuff' than you, so why are you not listening to them? Making a decision either way and using that as a justification is nothing more than adopting the view that appeals to your set of beliefs the most. It is not based in fact.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Remember I'm not the one that started the anti-US hatefest thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do you have to spoil your one legit thread with such an ass-backward statement?
Can't we stick to the facts for once? It was so nice while it lasted.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Wrong.
You claim the premise of the thread is incorrect and that the evidence is support of the thread is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that what has been represent is in fact untrue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If SJO is going to say that d.u. caused birth defects I say PROVE IT!
But all can't. Due to your ignorance. So prove it or withdraw the claim.
<strong>
Scott could you speak up.
Your Goose-stepping and heal clicking is hard to hear over.
Oh so I'm a Nazi now huh? Because I say that those that spread lies about my country are anti-American and post out of hate for the US?
Seems to me the Nazis are the ones that used lies to dupe people to their cause. That aint me.
What was that internet rule about calling someone a Nazi in a thread?
<strong>
Why do you have to spoil your one legit thread with such an ass-backward statement?
Can't we stick to the facts for once? It was so nice while it lasted.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thread was ass backwards from the start. I provided many more facts than anyone else here. But you know go post 10 pages of nonsense that no one will read.
asking questions is good...some get very upset when anybody questions the government...me? it makes me happy...it reminds me that i live in a democracy and a free country and the best country in the world...so SJO keep asking questions...you too groverat and your too scott and you too br and you too spj and you too pscates...etc etc etc
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
Oh so I'm a Nazi now huh? Because I say that those that spread lies about my country are anti-American and post out of hate for the US?
Seems to me the Nazis are the ones that used lies to dupe people to their cause. That aint me.
What was that internet rule about calling someone a Nazi in a thread?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Gee I love it when they completely swallow the hook.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Goose-step: Military version of the reptilian high-stand display used to figuratively stomp an enemy.( Not exclusive to Nazis )
But it does seem to portray your effort here, stomping on everyone left and right.
It was a simple play on the meaning since you seem to be marching, at times blindly, to the drumming of G.W. Bush and the Republicans.
<strong>
What was that internet rule about calling someone a Nazi in a thread?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know but the next time Mika calls me one would you please come to my defense?
If SJO is going to say that d.u. caused birth defects I say PROVE IT!<hr></blockquote>
I guess what proof that has been shown is sufficient enough in my mind to warrant serious concern. Is there conclusive proof that a+b=c?* We don't need that kind of proof to know that this stuff is dangerous.
Besides, as I've said before, if the government admits that it's unhealthy for their troops, it's unhealthy for civilians. Why is that so hard to understand?
EDIT: *where a=1; b=2; and c=3.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
That's correct, but don't get the impression these things spray DU rounds like machine gun bullets. The extrememly high rate of fire is intended to allow at least a few bullets to hit the target in the tiny fraction of a second that the gun is aimed at it, while flying over it at 300 mph. In fact, the A-10 carries only 1350 round of ammunition for its main gun (<a href="http://www.warmachines.50g.com/planes/a-10/a-10_info.htm"; target="_blank">A-10 specs</a>), allowing less than 20 seconds of firing time per mission. Pilots are trained to fire in 1-2 second bursts to conserve ammunition (they can also select a slower rate of fire). Interesting, the 1-2 second burst rule is also supposed to prevent the gun from slowing the plane down so much it falls out of the sky (darn Newton's laws!).
I would guess the DU armor-piercing tank rounds fired by the M1 probably contributed more to the weight of DU dispensed during the Gulf War than the A-10. The A-10 has only attracted attention because of the sensationalist coverage from Yugoslavia, when "DU" was already a buzzword, but where there were obviously few tank rounds fired.
Does any one remember when the F-117 was shot down in Bosnia? They showed news footage of epople dancing on the plane's wreckage and taking pieces home in their hands. The radar absorbing material used for the skin of that plane is carcenogenic, enough so that contact with bare skin can potentially cause a cancer in that person. I guess we should stop using stealth technology in wars too.