RE: Apocalypse might be your fault after all
October 30, 2017 at 1:23 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2017 at 2:03 pm by WinterHold.)
(October 28, 2017 at 12:30 pm)Khemikal Wrote: This thread needs a dose of reality, lol.
DU rounds are explicitly used for their greater penetrative profile. If we wanted to irradiate or poison people..we have better weapons to do that with. Their use in the middle east was largely -not- tank busting, but shooting through concrete reenforced firing positions. With a DU round, you can hit the people on one floor without risking the people on the next, or in the next room..for that matter. You have to worry about or accept damage to buildings or people -behind- the target, but them's the breaks. Famously, Iraqi tanks in desert storm tried to use busted tanks for cover, but the du 120 smoothbore fired through the dead tanks and hit the target behind.
The choice facing a du user is thus;
Take fire from an enemy rpg, blast the room with du, or take down the entire building with he. In order to reduce collateral damage, including civilian casualties, du is preferred over he (obviously letting some asshole fling rockets at you is a non-option). The problem, after action, with du rounds isn't so much that they're radioactive, it's that they're poisonous - like all heavy metal rounds.
It's understandable to use poisonous material like Uranium to produce more lethal weaponry; let it be Depleted Uranium shells or simple poison arrows.
The better weapons will attract lots of attention; just like Chemical weapons like nerve gas.
Using Depleted Uranium despite its radioactive properties points in the best cases to apathy about Iraqi civilian casualties. A racist consequence seen practiced one time after the other after the other, from Abu-Ghuraib prison to the battle of Falluga, the blind airstrikes, and testemonies of American soldiers of the brutalities done to civilians and prisoners. It's like dropping two birds with one stone: penetration+ poising of enemies.
Apathy and neglecting of the consequences of one bad use of lethal weapons and methods of war. A crime against the enemies and the American soldiers themselves.
(October 28, 2017 at 12:44 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:(October 28, 2017 at 12:42 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Armor piercing ordnance is a FAR more benign use for the material than as the tertiary stage in a Teller-Ulam device.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/...4aug98.htm
From the link you provided:
Quote:When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large. However, the amount which remains in the body depends on a number of factors, including the amount inhaled or ingested, the particle size and the ability of the particles to dissolve in body fluids.
If I'm understanding this probably; then wind and sand storms can carry the particles to nearby towns. The Abram tanks fire Silver Bullets (DU shells); their armor also have DU. Iraq is a desert environment, with lots of wind and sand storms.
(October 28, 2017 at 1:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote: After all this fun, a question materializes for you Atlas. You stated that The Great Satan was the terrorist in this, that we do what they do...
Should I take that to mean that you believe terrorists choose their munitions to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties...and then accept responsibility for the cleanup of whatever ords they select after action?
And why would that matter? they are terrorists already, and nobody expects mercy from them, unlike the tank that came as a liberator, but fired radioactive "democracies" knowing it will hurt people, under the excuse of Saddam having invisible W.M.Ds. Iraq turned into a shithole after the American invasion; and every person is saying it.
(October 30, 2017 at 12:40 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You've made an impressive retreat from reality in describing the middle east as "not at all islamic".....Atlas.
If it was Islamic; it would've became something similar to the first Islamic system under prophet Mohammed peace be upon him. Human rights won't be chopped, wealth won't be in the bellies of fatcats and bandits. It won't be like Iraq or Saudi Arabia or ISIS.