a contribution by a muslim.

[Khansins]

Kudos to your effort !! I like the project. However I personally believe that such projects may not change the beliefs of the people about Islam. Many notable works have been done by Muslim Scientists and Scholars. And even currently Muslims are doing wonderful things in area of science and other walks of life.

Still I would like you to continue such innovative projects and do something for the humanity irrespective of the religion. Humanity must be your priority. Change the lives of humans. Spread love among them. Spread smiles on the people who are victims of so-called stupid Islamic terrorists. If you can do this , I believe would be a great service not to be forgotten for years.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Parkers Tan

I did play call of duty & fallout, believe me I totally know the difference between a "nuke" and a "uranium stuffed bullet".

Great. I served four years in the US Air Force, including service in the First Gulf War, and was familiarized with the 30mm A-10 DU ammunition when the 23rd TFW used my deployment base (Moron de la Frontera, Spain) as a stopover.

I said mini-nuke to make things clearer ; that the silver bullet is a type of nuclear arsenal that produce RADIATIONS, and capable of turning small areas of impact into radioactive regions for a while.

The thing is, your use of the term "mini-nuke" evokes in the mind of the uninformed reader the idea of a miniature nuclear weapon, and that needs to be countered. Whether you were deliberately doing so or simply unaware of the connotation of "nuke" in the English language, I'm not sure. But your usage is incorrect, and if you are intellectually honest, you'll acknowledge as much and not repeat the error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

http://rense.com/general56/dep.htm

Quoting from wikipedia :

Nuclear weapons[edit]
Main article: Nuclear weapons design
Depleted uranium is used as a tamper in fission bombs.

So what? Conventional explosives are used to fire off a fission weapon. Does that mean a Mk 84 is a nuclear weapon? No.

(For those who don't know, the tamper in a fission bomb is a shell around the reacting mass which reflects neutrons back into the chain reaction, increasing the efficiency of the reaction. Depleted Uranium is used for its density and tensile strength, as it will resist the shock of the reaction a fragment of a second longer and thereby increase the completeness of the reaction. DU has no other role in the weapon.)

Health considerations[edit]
Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure because, in addition to being weakly radioactive

No one is arguing that radiation is safe, nor is anyone arguoing that DU isn't radioactive. This is a red herring of an argument; stick to the points, and leave off with the irrelevancies.

So in other words ; it's a very very very small tactical-nuke.
My comment wasn't that naked.

Completely incorrect. A tactical nuclear weapon is a fission bomb fired by artillery, short-range missile, or land-mines. You are pretty proficient with your wikipedia. Go read up on what Wiki says about tactical nuclear weapons. Here, I'll even do the legwork for you:

Tactical weapons include not only gravity bombs and short-range missiles, but also artillery shells, land mines, depth charges, and torpedoes for anti-submarine warfare. Also in this category are nuclear armed ground-based or shipborne surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and air-to-air missiles.
Small, two-man portable, or truck-portable, tactical weapons (sometimes misleadingly referred to as suitcase nukes), such as the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle, have been developed, although the difficulty of combining sufficient yield with portability could limit their military utility. In wartime, such explosives could be used for demolishing "choke-points" to enemy offensives, such as at tunnels, narrow mountain passes, and long viaducts.
Other new tactical weapons undergoing research include earth penetrating weapons which are designed to target enemy-held caves or deep-underground bunkers.
There is no precise definition of the "tactical" category, neither considering range nor yield of the nuclear weapon.[2][3] The yield of tactical nuclear weapons is generally lower than that of strategic nuclear weapons, but larger ones are still very powerful, and some variable-yield warheads serve in both roles. Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Some tactical nuclear weapons have specific features meant to enhance their battlefield characteristics, such as variable yield which allow their explosive power to be varied over a wide range for different situations, or enhanced radiation weapons (the so-called "neutron bombs") which are meant to maximize ionizing radiation exposure while minimizing blast effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

Clearly, part of the definition of a tactical nuclear weapon is that it has a warhead.

We'll see if you're honest enough to admit error, now.

Um, no. I don't care about the inhuman acts America does to its soldiers, yet I care about the poor Ali-Babas & Fatimas who died by these weapons or got sick because of its radioactivity.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying: you ignore inconvenient facts which don't fit your narrative.

This one report for example is what I care for :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment

The aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[23] During a three-week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used.[24]

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

Now, you need to go from "potential" and "possible" to actual in order to, you know, make your case.

BTW, I don't hate atheists..
I wouldn't be here if I hate them.

I don't care. I wasn't insinuating anything about your personal feelings; I was simply pointing out that you are making factually incorrect claims and urging you to do the intellectually honest thing and correct your own screed.

When you stick with mistaken claims, you undermine your own credibility.

---

And some chicken shits who couldn't take the trench warfare any longer.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Pacific War knows that there was no "trench warfare" there, per se. Trenches were dug, but no static lines developed along the lines of the Western Front in WWI. It was an amphibious campaign supported by land- and sea-based air forces, one that saw usually short battles of quite some ferocity.

The bombs were dropped for two reasons: one, to save lives, and two, to demonstrate to the Soviets that American power had just taken a giant leap.