Unless, of course, the aliens are in on it, then all bets are off. [/B][/QUOTE]
Those dastardly aliens use giant invisible cosmic vacum cleaners to hoover up all the radiation and dispose of it in space...Err ....well they used to..until they got an offer from some guys in Yurrup wanting to make extra strong Blue vein Cheeze..
I hardly think it outside the realm of reality that Pakistan would request such inspections..After-all, there are many complex machinations going on behind the scenes that you and I are not privvy to.
And even though the probability might seem low, even you cannot rule that scenario out.
( Or are you a one of those psychologists who dismisses alternate realities that dont fit your profilled definition of such ?
I guess you missed my many many posts in the Matrix thread. I'm probably a litte TOO into alternate possiblities for my own good.
Of course Pakistan asking for inspections is not out of the question. However, I do believe that if they did, they would either be denied or publicized if they were allowed. "Look, we have nothing to hide!" Chances are, however, that there was no way a foreign country could get access to US stockades and supplies. Even if there were nothing to hide.
On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles...
actually aside from some of the depleted uranium bullets fired from some of our attack aircraft, notedly the a-10, most of the weapons used would not likely to have been of the hardened uranium variety. not everything we use is, nor are they always needed. most of what we attacked over there were what one would call a "soft targets". exceptions being made to some of the cave networks that were just as likely to have been attacked with fuel air exlosives and your standard laser/sat guided bombs than any type of bunker buster.
actually aside from some of the depleted uranium bullets fired from some of our attack aircraft, notedly the a-10, most of the weapons used would not likely to have been of the hardened uranium variety. not everything we use is, nor are they always needed. most of what we attacked over there were what one would call a "soft targets". exceptions being made to some of the cave networks that were just as likely to have been attacked with fuel air exlosives and your standard laser/sat guided bombs than any type of bunker buster.
Not doubting your sources, but why would A-10 Wart-Hog pilots be using bullets..I think you mean cannons..& err..... yes these could be used effectively against tanks and missile batteries..
But it makes me wonder though, if anyone has tested the A-10 pilots for radiation sickness?
Second point re Air - fuel bombs..
Yep, much cheaper to produce..& extremely effective in sucking the life out of anything within a quarter mile radius...an area of destruction that easily approaches that of a mini nuke...
Not doubting your sources, but why would A-10 Wart-Hog pilots be using bullets..I think you mean cannons..& err..... yes these could be used effectively against tanks and missile batteries..
But it makes me wonder though, if anyone has tested the A-10 pilots for radiation sickness?
Second point re Air - fuel bombs..
Yep, much cheaper to produce..& extremely effective in sucking the life out of anything within a quarter mile radius...an area of destruction that easily approaches that of a mini nuke...
if you want to get technical, then yes it's a 30 millimeter canon. however, since it doesn't explode upon impact and just kind of bounces around once penetrating a tanks armored shell, it's a big assed bullet.
re: the fuel air, yep your right, mushroom cloud and all, but no radiation.
warthog jockeys have appeared on these boards before, <we defer to those out of Army NDA> but IIRC the Titanium tub the pilot sits in is buffered by a lead magazine drum 'sheath' from the nasty DU ammo
ground crew probably got more exposure in terms of Roentgens than riders
-
old school folks hypothesizing about wacky radiation-vs-blast dynamics may recall the 70's Neutron bomb (in the opposite direction... all rad, minimal physical damage). by now we couldn't have gone as far the other way? mmmmkay.
warthog jockeys have appeared on these boards before, <we defer to those out of Army NDA> but IIRC the Titanium tub the pilot sits in is buffered by a lead magazine drum 'sheath' from the nasty DU ammo
DU isn't evil until it's powdered. While I wouldn't want to play with it in a nice game of catch, there isn't enough radiation to penetrate normal clothes+skin let alone irradiate anything while it is in the drum. Sure you could hold it in you hand and rub a round for a couple days and might have a problem later, but you would have to be pretty stupid to do that.
Breathing or eating where the powder is present can circumvent that protection, get enough of the dust and get sick. Casual one time exposure won't normally be a problem, but sneaking around a vehicle or arty piece that has been strafed (and therefore rounds have fragmented/powdered) would definitely not fall in the good thing category.
didn't we conclusively establish that DU rounds are not dangerous due to radioactivetly, but were rather dangerous as a heavy metal, like lead etc.?
i swear there was a huge thread on just this subject. DU rounds aren't bad because of radiation, they're bad because they're a heavy metal and heavy metals do bad things to you.
but then i guess we torture iraqis with heavy metal, or something like that, so go figure.
didn't we conclusively establish that DU rounds are not dangerous due to radioactivetly, but were rather dangerous as a heavy metal, like lead etc.?
i swear there was a huge thread on just this subject. DU rounds aren't bad because of radiation, they're bad because they're a heavy metal and heavy metals do bad things to you.
but then i guess we torture iraqis with heavy metal, or something like that, so go figure.
Did anyone actually read the article? It specifically pointed out that DU was *not* the cause.
The chance of the US military was trying out a bunch of kick-ass new weapons sould have got Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here all goosebumped, instead of regurgitating the kindergarten "conspiracy theory" reactions.
I don't understand what the difference is between the DU weapons and what they describe as "radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads." Certainly doesn't sound nuclear anyway.
Interesting that according to this page, there's a lot of uranium mining all around Afghanistan, but not actually in Afghanistan. I thought I would see if that might have something to do with it.
My other thought is what would be the point of these radiation weapons?
Why is it always the same 2 or 3 people that post these things and argue over them so viciously? It's like they are just looking for something wrong with Bush because they don't like him. So much so that they'll believe 'World Weekly News' as long as it gives them something that is against him. Or maybe it is just 'America' in general? I don't exactly like Bush all that much, but I somehow think that Gore would have done a worse job on the other end of the spectrum (ie, Bush did too much after 9-11, and Gore would have done too little). But I'm not exactly jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by me. Some of you people are just jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon with little regard for anything else as long as you have an arguement and it is against whatever it is that you hate. I mean they even attack some of the people that show different views, even if those people are very polite about it, these people counter-attack a punch with a nuclear warhead, so to speak.
problem was the article was full of innuendo, but very light on facts. i think people turned to DU rounds because it's the most plausable source of radiation. (at least off-hand)
problem was the article was full of innuendo, but very light on facts. i think people turned to DU rounds because it's the most plausable source of radiation. (at least off-hand)
Again, the administration has stated that they have 'light weight' nuclear weapons and that they were considering using them. DU aside, this is what Rumsfeld said more than once.
Why is it always the same 2 or 3 people that post these things and argue over them so viciously? It's like they are just looking for something wrong with Bush because they don't like him. So much so that they'll believe 'World Weekly News' as long as it gives them something that is against him. Or maybe it is just 'America' in general? I don't exactly like Bush all that much, but I somehow think that Gore would have done a worse job on the other end of the spectrum (ie, Bush did too much after 9-11, and Gore would have done too little). But I'm not exactly jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by me. Some of you people are just jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon with little regard for anything else as long as you have an arguement and it is against whatever it is that you hate. I mean they even attack some of the people that show different views, even if those people are very polite about it, these people counter-attack a punch with a nuclear warhead, so to speak.
The source (BBC) is a fairly conservative, UK government subsidized/policed news service...not exactly the bullsh¡t "gutter-press" like the Weekly Norld News, National Enquirer or Fox. The scientist doing the research is an ex. U.S. Army colonel whose organization is based out of Washington DC. According to the article the findings are soon to be published in 4 scientific journals (it didn't mention which ones)...but if it's any decent peer reviewed scientific publication....then the material should be taken seriously.
Comments
Those dastardly aliens use giant invisible cosmic vacum cleaners to hoover up all the radiation and dispose of it in space...Err ....well they used to..until they got an offer from some guys in Yurrup wanting to make extra strong Blue vein Cheeze..
Originally posted by aquafire
I hardly think it outside the realm of reality that Pakistan would request such inspections..After-all, there are many complex machinations going on behind the scenes that you and I are not privvy to.
And even though the probability might seem low, even you cannot rule that scenario out.
( Or are you a one of those psychologists who dismisses alternate realities that dont fit your profilled definition of such ?
I guess you missed my many many posts in the Matrix thread. I'm probably a litte TOO into alternate possiblities for my own good.
Of course Pakistan asking for inspections is not out of the question. However, I do believe that if they did, they would either be denied or publicized if they were allowed. "Look, we have nothing to hide!" Chances are, however, that there was no way a foreign country could get access to US stockades and supplies. Even if there were nothing to hide.
[B]I guess you missed my many many posts in the Matrix thread. I'm probably a litte TOO into alternate possiblities for my own good.
Yeas I did miss the Matrix threadssszzzzzzz
(Hand Dials old looking balck telephone to get out of Matrix thread sequence )..............
Originally posted by aquafire
On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles...
actually aside from some of the depleted uranium bullets fired from some of our attack aircraft, notedly the a-10, most of the weapons used would not likely to have been of the hardened uranium variety. not everything we use is, nor are they always needed. most of what we attacked over there were what one would call a "soft targets". exceptions being made to some of the cave networks that were just as likely to have been attacked with fuel air exlosives and your standard laser/sat guided bombs than any type of bunker buster.
Originally posted by running with scissors
actually aside from some of the depleted uranium bullets fired from some of our attack aircraft, notedly the a-10, most of the weapons used would not likely to have been of the hardened uranium variety. not everything we use is, nor are they always needed. most of what we attacked over there were what one would call a "soft targets". exceptions being made to some of the cave networks that were just as likely to have been attacked with fuel air exlosives and your standard laser/sat guided bombs than any type of bunker buster.
Not doubting your sources, but why would A-10 Wart-Hog pilots be using bullets..I think you mean cannons..& err..... yes these could be used effectively against tanks and missile batteries..
But it makes me wonder though, if anyone has tested the A-10 pilots for radiation sickness?
Second point re Air - fuel bombs..
Yep, much cheaper to produce..& extremely effective in sucking the life out of anything within a quarter mile radius...an area of destruction that easily approaches that of a mini nuke...
Originally posted by aquafire
Not doubting your sources, but why would A-10 Wart-Hog pilots be using bullets..I think you mean cannons..& err..... yes these could be used effectively against tanks and missile batteries..
But it makes me wonder though, if anyone has tested the A-10 pilots for radiation sickness?
Second point re Air - fuel bombs..
Yep, much cheaper to produce..& extremely effective in sucking the life out of anything within a quarter mile radius...an area of destruction that easily approaches that of a mini nuke...
if you want to get technical, then yes it's a 30 millimeter canon. however, since it doesn't explode upon impact and just kind of bounces around once penetrating a tanks armored shell, it's a big assed bullet.
re: the fuel air, yep your right, mushroom cloud and all, but no radiation.
ground crew probably got more exposure in terms of Roentgens than riders
-
old school folks hypothesizing about wacky radiation-vs-blast dynamics may recall the 70's Neutron bomb (in the opposite direction... all rad, minimal physical damage). by now we couldn't have gone as far the other way? mmmmkay.
warthog jockeys have appeared on these boards before, <we defer to those out of Army NDA> but IIRC the Titanium tub the pilot sits in is buffered by a lead magazine drum 'sheath' from the nasty DU ammo
ge)[/QUOTE
]
Impressive Obbi-Wan !
Breathing or eating where the powder is present can circumvent that protection, get enough of the dust and get sick. Casual one time exposure won't normally be a problem, but sneaking around a vehicle or arty piece that has been strafed (and therefore rounds have fragmented/powdered) would definitely not fall in the good thing category.
i swear there was a huge thread on just this subject. DU rounds aren't bad because of radiation, they're bad because they're a heavy metal and heavy metals do bad things to you.
but then i guess we torture iraqis with heavy metal, or something like that, so go figure.
Originally posted by alcimedes
didn't we conclusively establish that DU rounds are not dangerous due to radioactivetly, but were rather dangerous as a heavy metal, like lead etc.?
i swear there was a huge thread on just this subject. DU rounds aren't bad because of radiation, they're bad because they're a heavy metal and heavy metals do bad things to you.
but then i guess we torture iraqis with heavy metal, or something like that, so go figure.
Did anyone actually read the article? It specifically pointed out that DU was *not* the cause.
The chance of the US military was trying out a bunch of kick-ass new weapons sould have got Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here all goosebumped, instead of regurgitating the kindergarten "conspiracy theory" reactions.
Go figure.
Interesting that according to this page, there's a lot of uranium mining all around Afghanistan, but not actually in Afghanistan. I thought I would see if that might have something to do with it.
My other thought is what would be the point of these radiation weapons?
Did anyone actually read the article?
problem was the article was full of innuendo, but very light on facts. i think people turned to DU rounds because it's the most plausable source of radiation. (at least off-hand)
just a thought.
Originally posted by alcimedes
problem was the article was full of innuendo, but very light on facts. i think people turned to DU rounds because it's the most plausable source of radiation. (at least off-hand)
Again, the administration has stated that they have 'light weight' nuclear weapons and that they were considering using them. DU aside, this is what Rumsfeld said more than once.
Originally posted by alcimedes
but any evidence of their use?
I think the glow-in-the-dark piss is considered by some to be one bit of evidence.
Originally posted by bunge
I think the glow-in-the-dark piss.....
Glow-in-the-dark piss, I hate it when that happens.
Originally posted by pyr3
Why is it always the same 2 or 3 people that post these things and argue over them so viciously? It's like they are just looking for something wrong with Bush because they don't like him. So much so that they'll believe 'World Weekly News' as long as it gives them something that is against him. Or maybe it is just 'America' in general? I don't exactly like Bush all that much, but I somehow think that Gore would have done a worse job on the other end of the spectrum (ie, Bush did too much after 9-11, and Gore would have done too little). But I'm not exactly jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by me. Some of you people are just jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon with little regard for anything else as long as you have an arguement and it is against whatever it is that you hate. I mean they even attack some of the people that show different views, even if those people are very polite about it, these people counter-attack a punch with a nuclear warhead, so to speak.
The source (BBC) is a fairly conservative, UK government subsidized/policed news service...not exactly the bullsh¡t "gutter-press" like the Weekly Norld News, National Enquirer or Fox. The scientist doing the research is an ex. U.S. Army colonel whose organization is based out of Washington DC. According to the article the findings are soon to be published in 4 scientific journals (it didn't mention which ones)...but if it's any decent peer reviewed scientific publication....then the material should be taken seriously.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here
U R 1 KEWL KAT