Depleted Uranium weapons.

[Ladofsubs]

The US military and NATO reject all the studies linking the use of Depleted Uranium weapons to increased rates in cancer and birth defects, in both our own troops and civilians living in war zones. Do you agree with the Military's claims?

Here's a video showing both sides:
www.youtube.com/user/3dbabes?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/F_xyoC9YfKE
www.youtube.com/user/3dbabes?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/TZwyh0ttxak

If Depleted Uranium is safe, then why did Kuwait ship 6,700 TONs of sand contaminated with Depleted Uranium by the US military, all the way across the world to be buried in Idaho in 2008?

Here is the news article:

tdn.com/business/local/article_0a5745e3-eae4-553f-89ff-daf7dd07b94c.html


Just curious, thanks.

[Growler]

Not trying to take the piss, but imagine that: Weapons that are dangerous.

DU makes great long-rod penetrators for anti-armor direct-fire weapons. It works, and it works well. I remember during basic, having to clean up the live-fire range at Knox (recovering TOW wire, for instance, breaking down wood targets, resetting target carriers, etc). Found an old M60 hulk being used for M1 & M2/3 training. You could easily see the roughly-50-cent-piece sized holes the APFSDS (Sabot) rounds made; in a couple of cases, you could stand on one side of the hulk and see your buddy on the other side through the exit hole the round made.

DU works, and it works well. But yeah, stuff's dangerous. It's kinda designed to be.

[Gerald]

The question you ask, is not an easy one, and this because of insufficient evidence, this has done studies over many years in the context.

[Platapus]

DU is pretty safe, DU dust/smoke on the other hand is not so safe.

I wonder if DU would qualify as a chemical weapon?

[Gerald]

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

http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-defence/27335-du-weapon-great-deal-sustain-planet.html

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=28818

[TLAM Strike]

DU makes great long-rod penetrators for anti-armor direct-fire weapons.
Not to mention great re-entry bodies that add to the yield to our bombs. :rock:

[gimpy117]

oh boy...here we go. I Don't think it's really that dangerous. By what I can tell, accounts are grossly over exaggerated by well... environmental/ anti-war activists. I sat in on a meeting once, discussing just this, and it was almost to the level of nonsensical babble. No hard evidence to back it up, conspiracy theories were abounding. I don't want to "lump" OP in with these nuts, and that not what im saying, but ever since then I've been skeptical about all the "studies"

also, your news article is talking about lead, not Uranium. Its been a couple years...but last time i was in chemistry lead was not radioactive. Quite the opposite really as it absorbs more radiation than any substance.

[Jimbuna]

Not to mention great re-entry bodies that add to the yield to our bombs. :rock:

Trust you :DL

I should imagine it's extremely dangerous if your sitting inside an armoured vehicle :O:

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/izrL0.jpg

[Growler]

Trust you :DL

I should imagine it's extremely dangerous if your sitting inside an armoured vehicle :O:

Sitting inside an moving armoured vehicle is dangerous enough without people shooting at you. We used to joke that you could tell who the gunners were by the interesting shapes their noses took after being broken a few too many times by hitting their faces on the gunners primary sights of their vehicles while moving quickly.

[Jimbuna]

Sitting inside an moving armoured vehicle is dangerous enough without people shooting at you. We used to joke that you could tell who the gunners were by the interesting shapes their noses took after being broken a few too many times by hitting their faces on the gunners primary sights of their vehicles while moving quickly.

Spot on...I have heard this from friends ion similar positions :DL