NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me know what you think. Any ideas you might have to make it more acceptable?

Category: Global Disarmament
Resolution Name: Ban of Depleted Uranium
Description:
A scientific study funded by the nations of the region of Tcherbra has observed the following concerning the use of depleted uranium in ammunition.

1) Regular ammunition is just as effective as depleted uranium ammunition.
2) The manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunitions poses a more serious health hazard than the manufacturing of regular ammunition.
3) The use of depleted uranium ammunitions is hazardous to those who are the victim of the ammunition and those who use the ammunition. Cancer rates increase. Fetal deformities increase. These hazards are not present in the use of regular ammunitions. Of course, immediate fatalities do not increase or decrease whether depleted uranium is used or not.

Furthermore, though the name "Depleted Uranium" insinuates a nonradioactive isotope, it is not. It is merely 40% less active than regular uranium with a half-life of 1.5 billion years.

The use of depleted uranium in ammunitions poses a serious health risk to not only the soldiers of the enemy but the soldiers who use them.

Alarmed by this fact, the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt a new policy concerning depleted uranium.

1) All depleted uranium ammunitions currently in existence are to be sent to a single cosmic, uninhabited object approved by the UN Space Consortium. See the resolution entitled "U.N. Space Consortium". All U.N. Nations are expected to follow the resolutions "Oceanic Waste Dumping" and "Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning".

2) Manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunition is to be ceased immediately.

3) All persons having health problems as a result of the use of depleted uranium in past battles are to be informed of the cause of their problems, and shall be able to seek medical treatment as outlined in the resolutions: "Required Basic Healthcare", "RBH Replacement", and "Legalise Euthanasia".

4) Nations who participated in the use of depleted uranium ammunitions are not required to pay any reparations to families and/or individuals effected by depleted uranium ammunitions since medical care is already provided. However, this policy does not imply that nations cannot give reparations should they so desire.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.

I would like to see a proposal banning all use of Uranium for anything but scientific testing (for science, not the military), and energy generation.

I like this proposal. The only thing that I don't think is good is shooting radioactive matireial into space. It isn't reliable, and the chance of a failure where the rocket crashes and/or explodes could have devastating consequences.

Regular ammunition is not as effective as DU ammunition - DU is armor piercing due to density.

DU is also used as armor due to it's density.

Not a chance of voting for this one, it's beyond silly if you have any war at all.

Xerxes855, we appreciate your support. However, we did not mean to imply the "shooting off" of radioactive material. We wanted the radioactive material to be deported to an object in space, not just floating around by itself. The UN Space Consortium will have to approve of the object. Note that we are implying one single object and not several scattered throughout the universe.

Vastiva, I actually meant to say that "1) Regular ammunition is just as effective in killing people as depleted uranium ammunition." We shall add that edit if it is more acceptable.

"DU is also used as armor due to it's density."
Sounds even more hazardous to armies who are using it as armor.

"Not a chance of voting for this one, it's beyond silly if you have any war at all."
I take it all wars fought before the 1980s were "silly"?

Xerxes855, we appreciate your support. However, we did not mean to imply the "shooting off" of radioactive material. We wanted the radioactive material to be deported to an object in space, not just floating around by itself. The UN Space Consortium will have to approve of the object. Note that we are implying one single object and not several scattered throughout the universe.

Vastiva, I actually meant to say that "1) Regular ammunition is just as effective in killing people as depleted uranium ammunition." We shall add that edit if it is more acceptable.

Still unacceptable. There these things called tanks....



"DU is also used as armor due to it's density."
Sounds even more hazardous to armies who are using it as armor.

Do more research.



"Not a chance of voting for this one, it's beyond silly if you have any war at all."
I take it all wars fought before the 1980s were "silly"?

:headbang: Technology moves forward, requiring more and better improvements to counter them. DU shells is just part of it. This is not a historical arguement.

And reread what I said - your proposal is silly. War is actually rather fun.

Depleted uranium is harmful because is it's a heavy metal. All heavy metals, from lead to mercury and so on, are toxic. That's just how chemistry works. If you ban DU, armies will simply move to other forms of ammunition that are equally, if not more hazardous. Do you really want every UN military switching from depleted uranium to mercury? Talk about damage.

Just as Sophista advocated the last time this issue came before the United Nations, a more effective policy would be to make nation's financially responsible for the reprecussions of using these kind of munitions. If you have to go and clean up the mess you've made while paying restitution to civilans who are now suffering from related diseases, you'll be a bit more careful hurling the stuff around.

Depleted uranium is harmful because is it's a heavy metal. All heavy metals, from lead to mercury and so on, are toxic. That's just how chemistry works. If you ban DU, armies will simply move to other forms of ammunition that are equally, if not more hazardous. Do you really want every UN military switching from depleted uranium to mercury? Talk about damage.
The most dangerous part about depleted uranium (if it's not the only dangerous part of it) occurs when biological beings breathe it in. Once that stuff gets in, it probably won't come out. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature. It would seem unfeasible for a military to use mercury ammunitions unless they froze it before they used it. This seems impractical. Besides, the depleted uranium seems like it would linger in the air longer than mercury since the mercury can more easily go to liquid form from gaseous form than depleted uranium go to solid form from gaseous form.

Technology moves forward, requiring more and better improvements to counter them. DU shells is just part of it. This is not a historical arguement.
This proposal would encourage technology to move forward more rapidly, wouldn't you agree?

Do more research.
As the opportunity arises, I intend to do so. However, it remains an empirical observation that regular ammunition is just as effective as killing people as depleted uranium ammunition. They both get the job done. It doesn't matter if one or the other is wearing armor in this sentence. It really doesn't.

War is actually rather fun.
I only hope you're referring to war in video games.

Just as Sophista advocated the last time this issue came before the United Nations, a more effective policy would be to make nation's financially responsible for the reprecussions of using these kind of munitions. If you have to go and clean up the mess you've made while paying restitution to civilans who are now suffering from related diseases, you'll be a bit more careful hurling the stuff around.
The reprecussions of radiation are long lasting. We have not found a good purpose for depleted uranium that I am aware of, otherwise I would not be advocating the removal of it from the Earth. None can put a price on human life. I would personally rather outlaw war and instruments of war altogether, but I feel that the atrocities of depleted uranium bullets are far worse than the atrocities of lead bullets. (And there's always some goofball that thinks war is fun...)

I am getting very much from these messages, and I continue to look forward to any other responses.

On the subject of tanks, you think that any army relies on infantry to take out tanks? Generally in a skirmish, there are these things called planes. They drop nifty things called bombs, and shoot these awesome sci-fi things called missiles. It is so incredible, they like, explode, and kill people, and blow stuff up, like tanks for example. If DU is outlawed, maybe there will be research to a safer solution? Maybe we modify it to give a country a certain amount of time to dispose of DU ammuntion and armaments? Maybe we give everyone nuclear capabilities and say, hey without this they'd have to use...multiple bombs to effectivly end the world, let's just get all these stupid laws out of the way. Hell, let's just give the the supplies to poison all the water, it's not like they weren't going to die anyways, this way it takes no research and is nice and quick.

Yeah so... planes dont take out tanks much, Incline. Attack helicopters (like the apache) and other tanks do the majority of that, along with anti-tank infantry.

I'd certainly like to agree with Tihland on this one. Depleted Uranium doesn't only affect humans, it also destroys the environment, which IS A BAD THING!!! I don't know about you, but the people of Canadanadia sure as hell like having a habitable environment to live in.

Regular ammunition is not as effective as DU ammunition - DU is armor piercing due to density.

DU is also used as armor due to it's density.

Not a chance of voting for this one, it's beyond silly if you have any war at all.
Uranium isnt a whole lot more dense than lead is, and regular lead bullets coated in teflon pierce armor better than DU ammo does.

Oh goody, another DU proposal for me to pick at :rolleyes:

1) Regular ammunition is just as effective as depleted uranium ammunition.
Incorrect. "regular" ammo does not penetrate armour as effectively...Nothing like as effectively
2) The manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunitions poses a more serious health hazard than the manufacturing of regular ammunition.
Untrue. Most nations which have the technology would be sensible enough to know how to manage it effectively.
3) The use of depleted uranium ammunitions is hazardous to those who are the victim of the ammunition....
Well...obviously really. You get shot by a bullet, it's not going to be "safe" :rolleyes:
...and those who use the ammunition.
And you have credible sources to back that assumption? In RL The UN, Nato, and UK governments have all made extensive efforts to determine any threat. None has been found.
Cancer rates increase. Fetal deformities increase.
Credible Evidence please. I know there are plenty of scaremongering tinpot minorities out there which will claim evidence....but that is not what you can call credible.
But I have another source on congenital deformities which would suggest there is no evidence to support your claim.
Clinical observations on congenital malformations
Health institutions visited have not observed any changes in congenital malformations, with the exception of Mitrovica/Mitrovicë hospital. There the mission was informed about three recent congenital malformations observed in the hospital, but compiled data on the number of births and congenital malformations observed over the last few years were not available. No conclusion could be drawn regarding any changes in malformations with the limited information available at the visit.
Source:http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf

These hazards are not present in the use of regular ammunitions.
Depends on the manufacturing process.
Of course, immediate fatalities do not increase or decrease whether depleted uranium is used or not.
Unless they are in a tank. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, though the name "Depleted Uranium" insinuates a nonradioactive isotope, it is not.
If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that DU only produces minor amounts of alpha radiation, which is stopped by anything as thick as skin...I’ll back up this assertion with this:
Uranium isotopes emit mainly alpha particles, a type of radiation which can only travel about 30 µm in soft tissue and cannot penetrate dead superficial skin layers, paper or glass. Alpha particle exposure to internal organs only occurs therefore when the depleted uranium is taken up in the human body, for example through inhalation, ingestion or the contamination of open wounds. Uranium also emits beta radiation. Beta particles have a greater ability to penetrate skin, but exposure is also superficial and beta radiation also only presents a hazard if internalized.

Source:http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf
It is merely 40% less active than regular uranium with a half-life of 1.5 billion years.
I'll quote myself quoting from another source....
Misconception 1: DU is dangerously radioactive.
DU is not "dangerously radioactive" and this is not just the MOD's opinion. The World Health Organisation and the Royal Society have described DU as being only "weakly radioactive" and an editorial in the British Medical Journal states that "Uranium is not very radioactive".
DU is used widely for a range of civilian applications. For example, it is often used as shielding in hospitals to protect radiographers and patients from radiation during X-rays and in aircraft as counterweights.
source: http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/misconceptions.htmAnd another....
Health aspects of DU
Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.
However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.
Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long the uranium has been separated chemically from its decay products. If thorium-234 and protactinium-234 has built up through decay of U-238, these will give rise to some beta emissions. On this basis, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of 39 kBq/g quoted (12.4 kBq/g if pure).
In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers.
Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route.
Source: http://www.uic.com.au/nip53.htm
Shall I continue?
1) All depleted uranium ammunitions currently in existence are to be sent to a single cosmic, uninhabited object approved by the UN Space Consortium. See the resolution entitled "U.N. Space Consortium". All U.N. Nations are expected to follow the resolutions "Oceanic Waste Dumping" and "Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning".
Ahhh, the UNSC....Good thing I'm a member of that isn't it? I imagine I could tie up the whole process for some time....Decades probably, maybe a couple of centuries...

3) All persons having health problems as a result of the use of depleted uranium in past battles are to be informed of the cause of their problems, and shall be able to seek medical treatment as outlined in the resolutions: "Required Basic Healthcare", "RBH Replacement", and "Legalise Euthanasia".
Are there PROVEN health problems from DU? Another self quote:
The only RL event that used DU that has been studied in detail is in Kosovo. I'll just add a couple of the relelvant points here:
As part of the post-conflict assessments conducted in the Balkans, the first-ever assessment of the environmental impact of depleted uranium when used in a real conflict situation was carried out in 2000 2001 resulting in a UNEP report entitled “Depleted Uranium in Kosovo – A Post-Conflict Assessment” of March 2001. The report stated that analyses of the samples collected showed only low levels of radioactivity. Furthermore, the results suggested that there was no immediate cause for concern regarding toxicity. However, major scientific uncertainties persist over the long-term environmental impacts of depleted uranium, especially in terms of groundwater.
As a result of these scientific uncertainties, UNEP called for precautionary measures and recommended action to be taken to clean-up and decontaminate the polluted sites, to raise awareness of the local population, and to monitor the situation in the future. UNEP made an effort to inform both the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Kosovo Force, in order to ensure that they had all the relevant information and recommendations to take necessary steps on the ground.
Source:http://www.unon.org/css/doc/gc22/22.../K0263733-E.docI’ll also add this:
During the Gulf War, soldiers were exposed to depleted uranium by ‘friendly fire’. Fragments from penetrating depleted uranium rounds are embedded in the bodies of several soldiers and others inhaled depleted uranium aerosols generated by the impact of the depleted uranium munitions penetrating the target. Thirty-three US veterans seriously injured in friendly fire incidents have been monitored by the Baltimore Veteran Administration Medical Center since 1993. About half of them have depleted uranium fragments in their bodies. A subsequent study considered 29 veterans from the original 33. Though these veterans have higher concentrations of uranium in their urine, indicating that depleted uranium is being oxidized by body fluids, no adverse kidney effects have been observed (McDiarmid 1998 and 2000; US Department of Defense 2000).
Source:http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf
Note that increased uranium in urine? It's obviously leaving the body....which shoots down the assertion you made that "Once that stuff gets in, it probably won't come out."

I’ll also add this…
Based on its observations, the WHO mission concluded that, in general, elevated human health risks are unlikely. However, quantitative information on the level of environmental contamination (to be provided in the forthcoming UNEP report) and subsequent human exposure is needed to confirm this conclusion.

Source:http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf

And I’ll sum up this particular section here….

Scientific and medical studies have not established a link between exposure to depleted uranium and the onset of cancers, congenital abnormalities or serious toxic chemical effects on organs.

No convincing evidence is available to indicate any health impacts to the Kosovo population associated with the use of depleted uranium.

Unnecessary speculation and anxiety about the potential for risks from depleted uranium, which, from what the mission can judge so far, are not present or minimal, are being fuelled by the different opinions expressed as a consequence of the normal process of scientific debate, as well as by the lack of a common communication strategy.

For a typical type of attack site on soft soil, only a very small fraction of the depleted uranium from the penetrators is likely to exist in the form of uranium oxides or metallic dust on the surface. These are the forms likely to be more mobile in smokeand by wind dispersal. However, even if dispersed, they are likely to become diluted to background concentrations and even then, if some reached nearby settlements, they are not very soluble. Subsequently, even if inhaled or ingested, only a tiny percentage is likely to be absorbed in the body and even then most of what is absorbed would be quickly eliminated from the body through the kidneys.

The likelihood of depleted uranium entering agricultural products is not known but can reasonably be expected to be small given that most of the depleted uranium is in a solid, very slow degrading metallic form.

Source:http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf

the DSH has long held the opinion that any resolution concerning DU should seek to urge NS UN member states towards a responsible usage of DU, and futher urge such nations to ensure clean-up operations are executed. I'd also urge the UN nations to contribute any research in this matter to debate at another time.

Once a significant scientific consensus is developed which suggests DU is as harmful as the scaremongers suggest, then my government will gladly shift it's opinion. But until then we remain seized on this matter.

You know who else likes Uranium? Saddam Hussein does, now you're going to be abducted and abused by US soldiers because you have been obtaining weapon delivery systems. :fluffle:
Sleep tight.

Incorrect. "regular" ammo does not penetrate armour as effectively...Nothing like as effectively

It does if you coat it in teflon, a far less complicated process to do


Untrue. Most nations which have the technology would be sensible enough to know how to manage it effectively.

Hopefully


Unless they are in a tank. :rolleyes:

Not many regular infantry units open fire on tanks, that's a waste of ammunition. That is left to anti-tank units, attack helicopters, other tanks, or artillery pieces.


If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that DU only produces minor amounts of alpha radiation, which is stopped by anything as thick as skin.

Uranium gives off a substantial amount of gamma radiation, which is not stopped by anything nearly as thin as skin. It penetrates quite deep.


I'll quote myself quoting from another source....

You can't quote yourself and count that as proof for your own point, that'd be like me writing a book about something I know nothing about, then writing an essay for class and using my book as a source.

Well I heard you liked cottage cheese, that's right, I said it.Yes, you did, and I'm sure if I close my eyes and click me heels three times I'll be rushed away to a magical place where it actually makes some sense.Just about everything I saidI agree with.

Hell, where I study at a college lab, a module in our Chemistry 2 study was devoted to nuclear chemistry, we spent 2 hours one day playing about with Alpha, Beta and even one small Gamma source, as part of the work we had to do to pass, and alpha particles are only dangerous if you breathe in or swallow a emitter source, and honestly, if it hits you as fast as a DU shell from a Main Battle Tank gun would, I doubt you'll be too worried about swallowing it ... But as I've noted, most of us have clearly left our common sense out-side. Silly me ... ;)

Uranium gives off a substantial amount of gamma radiation, which is not stopped by anything nearly as thin as skin. It penetrates quite deep.
While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount
of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low
Source:www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
There are other sources which claim Gamma radiation is exceptionally low.

Originally Posted by Hirota
I'll quote myself quoting from another source....

You can't quote yourself and count that as proof for your own point, that'd be like me writing a book about something I know nothing about, then writing an essay for class and using my book as a source.

Yes I can. I was making the point that I have quoted a source before, and was simply using the same quote from the original source again...sorry if that was confusing.

The point I was making was that I've heard this arguement dozens of times before, and for some reason not one resolution has passed, or a single proposal reach quorum on this matter. It suggests how far this one will probably go.

It does if you coat it in teflon, a far less complicated process to do

Not if you have a lot of DU with nothing else to use it for...Trust me, us Hirotans find a lot of use for DU but we still have tonnes of the stuff! Any nations interested in purchasing some can contact our Trade minister

TO:T.R. Kom, Le Représentant de Komokom. Ministre Régional de Substance.
Thank you for your general endorsement on this subject :)

While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount
of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low
Source:www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
There are other sources which claim Gamma radiation is exceptionally low.

Yeah good job, too bad that link you gave us supports our stance that DU is hazardous. Thanks for the help.


Not if you have a lot of DU with nothing else to use it for...Trust me, us Hirotans find a lot of use for DU but we still have tonnes of the stuff! Any nations interested in purchasing some can contact our Trade minister


It's still easier to coat regular lead bullets in teflon than it is to make bullets out of DU.

Yeah good job, too bad that link you gave us supports our stance that DU is hazardous. Thanks for the help.

:rolleyes: Of course it is - it's about as toxic as lead is. We are not making any claim otherwise, and our government has never done so. However, if you are going to ban DU for it's hazardous properties, you have to ban lead too...the radioactive element of DU is not the problem when you highlight concerns about the health impact of DU, it's the toxicity that is the concern, and as has been mentioned, it's about as deadly as lead.

It's still easier to coat regular lead bullets in teflon than it is to make bullets out of DU.

Maybe, but i think that is down to Individual governments to decide, don't you?

The Rep of Komokom would be interested in the pro-teflon-party here showing some evidence of " teflon coated brilliance " being more effective then more dense DU " powah ". Ahem. Oh, and while we're at it, we have to ban mercury too, its really toxic. Not to mention a variety of other metals.

And don't even get me started on liquids that when mixed release toxic gas. No, really don't, after I put them down a lab sink I had to flush it for + 5-10 minutes to prevent fumes forming and venting up the plumbing into the lab ... ( face -> palm )

Just a side note (and nothing to do with the matter at hand), whether or not a bullet is coated in Teflon doesn't have anything to do with its ability to penetrate armor. The Teflon coating just serves to help the bullet slide down the barrel smoothly, which reduces wear on the inside of the barrel. Early armor-piercing handgun bullets had hard steel cores that tended to damage gun barrels, so they were coated in Teflon to help prevent wear. The armor penetration comes from the bullet's steal core, not the Teflon coating. Some people who shoot extremely expensive and high-precision guns (think competition target shooters, that sort of thing) use Teflon coated standard lead bullets that don't have any special armor penetration abilities, simply because it's less stressful on the gun's internals.

Penetrability, on the other hand, is based on the kinetic energy carried by the bullet. Kinetic energy, as every physics student knows is the product of velocity and mass. (More precisely, kinetic energy is equal to 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. Penetrating ability is also influenced by the shape of the bullet and the hardness of its surface.)

To say a "normal" bullet coated in teflon will shoot through a tank is a simplistic description - the density is more relevant.

Just a side note (and nothing to do with the matter at hand), whether or not a bullet is coated in Teflon doesn't have anything to do with its ability to penetrate armor. The Teflon coating just serves to help the bullet slide down the barrel smoothly, which reduces wear on the inside of the barrel. Early armor-piercing handgun bullets had hard steel cores that tended to damage gun barrels, so they were coated in Teflon to help prevent wear. The armor penetration comes from the bullet's steal core, not the Teflon coating. Some people who shoot extremely expensive and high-precision guns (think competition target shooters, that sort of thing) use Teflon coated standard lead bullets that don't have any special armor penetration abilities, simply because it's less stressful on the gun's internals.

Penetrability, on the other hand, is based on the kinetic energy carried by the bullet. Kinetic energy, as every physics student knows is the product of velocity and mass. (More precisely, kinetic energy is equal to 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. Penetrating ability is also influenced by the shape of the bullet and the hardness of its surface.)

To say a "normal" bullet coated in teflon will shoot through a tank is a simplistic description - the density is more relevant.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll find an idiot answer to this one too.

Fact of the matter - if teflon was as good at armor piercing as DU, the US army wouldn't have HUDAP shells, it would have teflon shells for the simple matter that teflon is a whole lot cheaper then DU. It doesn't. Why? Because DU is a heavy dense material that penetrates armor better then lead with a teflon coating.

There are also - as was pointed out but Im sure the proposer missed - medical uses for DU, such as protection from X-ray devices. However, what the hell, throw the baby out with the bathwater and prove ignorance reigns supreme.

Once again, DU is not a significant gamma source. However, up comes the gamma arguement. Whoo hoo! Yep, prove you don't know what you're talking about again please.

Is DU dangerous? Yep - and so is lead, mercury, etc. Knowing how to handle it makes it safe.

Oh yes - as for the "can't use mercury as a bullet" idea - Wrong. A mercury tipped bullet makes a beautiful hollowpoint and has the additional action of heavy metal poisoning AND blasting a hole through the fleshy target as the high speed liquid metal tears through. Because of it's density, it does this well. We use it in crowd control as it's >60% fatal on a hit.

It might also be a good time to point out clearly, that in war and other violent conflict things get killed by other things. And that starting at the lower end of the tools of trade and working your way up from there to save the world may not be very effective ...

Soldier 1 : " Well, they've declared war on us, what do we have in the stocks ? "

Soldier 2 : " No guns, shells, tanks, planes, rockets, or even large sticks. Oh, but we have a couple nuclear tipped cruise missiles. That will have to do I guess "

Soldier 1 : " Yeah, it will have to, but hey, I'm just glad we got rid of all the DU ordinance, that stuff was sucky on the environment "

Soldier 2 : " Yeah, so now, we insert the two keys and turn them clock-wise and then I push the big red button ... "

I had a similar resolution going, but it obviously failed to reach quorum.
I'll back this one if it comes to a vote.

1) All depleted uranium ammunitions currently in existence ...
Tihland, I'll leave the technical rebuttal to Hirota, who is obviously doing a great job at it. In the meantime, I'll address the diplomatic failure of this proposal.

The UN only has the power to make demands of UN nations. At present, that's slightly less than one-third of all nations. Even the most casual glance at NationStates and International Incidents will reveal that many of the combatants are not members of the UN. They won't be affected.

All this proposition will do is make UN members targets for superior ammunition technology. And that's reason sufficient to end it.

To say a "normal" bullet coated in teflon will shoot through a tank is a simplistic description - the density is more relevant.
As I said, no regular infantry units should be opening fire on tanks, that's a job left to units that can actually inflict substantial damage on it without wasting an insane amount of ammunition.


There are also - as was pointed out but Im sure the proposer missed - medical uses for DU, such as protection from X-ray devices. However, what the hell, throw the baby out with the bathwater and prove ignorance reigns supreme.
Perhaps we should just ban DU's use in ammunition, because as I've said a number of times, any regular infantry unit who opens fire on a tank is going to get reprimanded by their superior due to wasting ammunition. Only anti-tank units, tanks, attack helicopters, and artillery pieces should be attacking enemy armor.

Please people, keep in mind this is the first draft, and we are trying to refine it to be better for everyone... also why we're discussing it here first.

Lead bullets are just as effective as DU bullets at killing enemy soldiers, therefore there is no use for DU. You keep making the argument that DU bullets pierce armor better, but you fail to understand one simple thing: REGULAR INFANTRY UNITS DO NOT OPEN FIRE ON ARMOR! That would just be a stupid waste of ammunition.

Edit: Lead is just as good at shielding x-rays as DU is, and when its encased in those apron things, not at all dangerous as compared to DU.

While I have to agree with the previous orator that infantry units don't open fire on armor, depleted uranium ammunition is currently under developement for use against troop wearing armoured vest and enemy fighting from behind cover. In fact, DU ammunition is already used by the US for the M-82 semi-automatic rifle.

I like the way that Gamma Radiation is mentioned but not Alpha and Beta radiation.
Alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper or even just several feet of air, but its low penetrating power makes it extremely hazardous, and the most likely to cause mutation within body cells. Inhaled, it would be extremely dangerous.

[Real-life reference: after the Gulf War cancer rates in Iraq in areas in which DU ammunition was used increased by about 400%]

[Real-life reference: after the Gulf War cancer rates in Iraq in areas in which DU ammunition was used increased by about 400%]

Link, proof?

in response to this dumb prposal, draganovia wishes to obtain as much heavy metal as humanly possible strictly for military purposes. :cool:

The King's Minister for the Popular Defence would like to remind the participants in this debate that infantry units do indeed open fire on armoured vehicles, including tanks. A light infantry platoon generally includes at least one demolitions specialist, equipped with an anti-tank missile such as the TOW or AT-6, both of which are man-portable, shoulder-fired missiles. Heavy or mechanised infantry, of course, has substantially greater firepower to engage tanks, using infantry fighting vehicles or light armoured vehicles.

Furthermore, aircraft also engage tanks on a regular basis. The Royal Air Force of Denbighshire is one of many air services that employ the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II, an aircraft expressly designed for the close-air support role which makes use of, amongst other kit, a 30mm cannon. Advances in smart weaponry have also developed missiles with infrared, TV, or radar guidance which are quite capable of knocking a tank or armoured vehicle out of service.

Furthermore, the Minister believes that this debate has made it evident that while the use of depleted-uranium munitions is certainly not a positive prospect, there is not a clear and definitive alternative to their use. The Minister, on behalf of the King's Government, would recommend the Draft Resolution be amended to fund a study by which comparable munitions would be developed and tested. The Draft Resolution, it is hoped, would garner far more support if Member States had access to a clear and reliable alternative to the current depleted-uranium rounds, one that perhaps exceeded depleted-uranium munitions in power and penetrating ability.

I like the way that Gamma Radiation is mentioned but not Alpha and Beta radiation.
Alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper or even just several feet of air, but its low penetrating power makes it extremely hazardous, and the most likely to cause mutation within body cells. Inhaled, it would be extremely dangerous.Actually, I thought we touched on alpha and beta early on, mainly to point out that was what we were looking at, not % 100 " generic evil gamma rays " as often picked upon when debate over radio-actives comes up ... ;)

Real-life reference: after the Gulf War cancer rates in Iraq in areas in which DU ammunition was used increased by about 400%Actually Myrth, if you could furnish us with a linkage I'd be most thank-fully thank-filled. And not just because its a nice distraction from doing my lab reports.

I've been meaning to get around to this, but sadly a burst of inspiration in DoGA L1 sent me into a part positioning spree. Yet, here we goes :
Let me know what you think. Any ideas you might have to make it more acceptable?Burn it, burn it then salt it completely, ;)
Category: Global Disarmament
Resolution Name: Ban of Depleted UraniumGood, something in this proposal I can agree with.Description: A scientific study funded by the nations of the region of Tcherbra has observed the following concerning the use of depleted uranium in ammunition.Yes, but not as concerning as some of the decisions made in this proposal regarding these claimed " findings ", may-haps its important to note " behind the couch " or similar location of acadmic standing do not equate adequately proven findings.
1) Regular ammunition is just as effective as depleted uranium ammunition.No, no it is not. Not when it comes to anti-armor use it does not. This is, for lack of better terminology, rubbish.
2) The manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunitions poses a more serious health hazard than the manufacturing of regular ammunition.Not if you do it right, and I think any regulation of this is up to nationally based Occupational Health and Safety organisations, personally.3) The use of depleted uranium ammunitions is hazardous to those who are the victim of the ammunition and those who use the ammunition.And, war, as they say, is hell. Did we mention that DU munitions are * shot * at things ? Namely tanks and other hard targets ? That the idea in combat is, yes, horror-shock, to kill things ?Cancer rates increase. Fetal deformities increase.This I think is something I'm going to leave to Hirota's and Myrth's positioning of proofs, as I've not dived into this murky subject as objectively as they have.These hazards are not present in the use of regular ammunitions.Because we all know a high explosive tank round will kill you much safer then a evil DU ank shell.Of course, immediate fatalities do not increase or decrease whether depleted uranium is used or not.So your proposal has no short term effects, though if we all stop using DU, does that not mean other less effective munitions go into use, thus increasing the risk of personel on the battle-field ?Furthermore, though the name "Depleted Uranium" insinuates a nonradioactive isotope, it is not. It is merely 40% less active than regular uranium with a half-life of 1.5 billion years.Don't go poking me with Half-life, half life is how long it lasts, not to what level of radio-activity it'll turn me green with. I also leave this up to Hirota's fact finding. Ha, U.N. + fact finding, I might have made a mild jest there, oh, I am a witty fellow am I not ...The use of depleted uranium in ammunitions poses a serious health risk to not only the soldiers of the enemy but the soldiers who use them.I find the mild discrimination in that those who don't use DU being " the enemy " rather ironic in this situation, ;)

* And lets face it, if you use the shit right, risks are minimal. Just because I work in a college lab with toxic chemicals for three days a week does not mean I'm in grave danger of getting Spon-Plague later on.Alarmed by this fact, the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt a new policy concerning depleted uranium.Once people here actually support it in numbers large enough to warrant its submittion, once you can gain enough delegate suppor to endorse it, once you get it onto the open floor for vote. Now, if we can just clear up the " Bad Substance, ! Bad, Bab, Bad ! Substance ! Take it away, take it awaaaaay !" arguments ...1) All depleted uranium ammunitions currently in existence are to be sent to a single cosmic, uninhabited object approved by the UN Space Consortium.Oh god. I can see it now, " Tihland saves the world by firing DU into the sun " ... :DSee the resolution entitled "U.N. Space Consortium".Oh, sparkly thing. All U.N. Nations are expected to follow the resolutions "Oceanic Waste Dumping" and "Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning".Pointless clause, they alredy do, thanks to game-mechanics, this is flesh-out space filler, ha, space filler, like you want DU to be ...

" Now that she's back in the atmos-sphere, drops of DU in her hair, air-air-aaair ... " ;)2) Manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunition is to be ceased immediately.Well, there goes several economies, the loss of many jobs, not just specialists in fields of industry, science and engineering, but many common worker-man/woman/etc, jobs as well.3) All persons having health problems as a result of the use of depleted uranium in past battles are to be informed of the cause of their problems, and shall be able to seek medical treatment as outlined in the resolutions: "Required Basic Healthcare", "RBH Replacement", and "Legalise Euthanasia".But if they are ill, they are already entitled to do so under those resolutions. Redundant clause. Sounds awfully like some ones trying to invent a " N.S. Gulf War Syndrome " to me ...4) Nations who participated in the use of depleted uranium ammunitions are not required to pay any reparations to families and/or individuals effected by depleted uranium ammunitions since medical care is already provided.Oh, so you already know the above clause is redundant. Go figure.However, this policy does not imply that nations cannot give reparations should they so desire.Of course it does not, redundant clause again, because the above line demonstrates they are not required too any-way, not that they can't.Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.Not bloody likely.

REGULAR INFANTRY UNITS DO NOT OPEN FIRE ON ARMOR!

Infantry aren't the only ones who use DU ammunition, ya know...

As I said, no regular infantry units should be opening fire on tanks, that's a job left to units that can actually inflict substantial damage on it without wasting an insane amount of ammunition.

Perhaps we should just ban DU's use in ammunition, because as I've said a number of times, any regular infantry unit who opens fire on a tank is going to get reprimanded by their superior due to wasting ammunition. Only anti-tank units, tanks, attack helicopters, and artillery pieces should be attacking enemy armor.

Please people, keep in mind this is the first draft, and we are trying to refine it to be better for everyone... also why we're discussing it here first.

Lead bullets are just as effective as DU bullets at killing enemy soldiers, therefore there is no use for DU. You keep making the argument that DU bullets pierce armor better, but you fail to understand one simple thing: REGULAR INFANTRY UNITS DO NOT OPEN FIRE ON ARMOR! That would just be a stupid waste of ammunition.

Edit: Lead is just as good at shielding x-rays as DU is, and when its encased in those apron things, not at all dangerous as compared to DU.


Sir, my infantry carries MBT SRRs. They are DU headed rockets. They do nasty things to tanks and other armored vehicles.

Should I see your infantry, I will be most happy to run it over as obviously the sense to arm infantry with weaponry capable of dealing with tanks and armored vehicles is beyond your military planners.

Please fire your lead bullets at my troops. Their body armor will stop it. However, your troops will be swiss cheese because of the AP rounds mine use.

As to the arguement of lead not being as dangerous as DU - please use lots of lead in your paint, and keep some in your water. I'm sure you'll love the result.

You are 100% right there Vastiva, you only left out the fact you don't drink DU or slap it all over the walls of your house.

The King's Minister for the Popular Defence would like to remind the participants in this debate that infantry units do indeed open fire on armoured vehicles, including tanks. A light infantry platoon generally includes at least one demolitions specialist, equipped with an anti-tank missile such as the TOW or AT-6, both of which are man-portable, shoulder-fired missiles. Heavy or mechanised infantry, of course, has substantially greater firepower to engage tanks, using infantry fighting vehicles or light armoured vehicles.

By regular infantry units I mean the ones carrying assault rifles, not the ones with anti-armor missiles. If you read my post all the way through I mentioned that anti-armor units (the guys with the TOWs and AT-6's etc) are the ones who shoot at armor units, not the guys with regular guns.


Furthermore, aircraft also engage tanks on a regular basis. The Royal Air Force of Denbighshire is one of many air services that employ the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II, an aircraft expressly designed for the close-air support role which makes use of, amongst other kit, a 30mm cannon. Advances in smart weaponry have also developed missiles with infrared, TV, or radar guidance which are quite capable of knocking a tank or armoured vehicle out of service.

As I said, they do.


Furthermore, the Minister believes that this debate has made it evident that while the use of depleted-uranium munitions is certainly not a positive prospect, there is not a clear and definitive alternative to their use. The Minister, on behalf of the King's Government, would recommend the Draft Resolution be amended to fund a study by which comparable munitions would be developed and tested. The Draft Resolution, it is hoped, would garner far more support if Member States had access to a clear and reliable alternative to the current depleted-uranium rounds, one that perhaps exceeded depleted-uranium munitions in power and penetrating ability.
This representative of Canadanadia agrees that should be added to the draft.

* The Rep of Komokom watches the point fly right over Feminaziculous's head, and leaps to catch it.

VALUE = D.U. IS NOT > VALUE = dangerous THEN VALUE = Lead.

Or, as we were trying to point out, DU is not much more dangerous then lead. And as a matter of fact, an anwful lot of paint used to contain high quantities of toxic lead, as did much petrol, and in years past, plumbing was made of lead too. Lead was even used still to join pipes together. I won't even go into the old womans make-ups being based on lead.

Sir, my infantry carries MBT SRRs. They are DU headed rockets. They do nasty things to tanks and other armored vehicles.

Should I see your infantry, I will be most happy to run it over as obviously the sense to arm infantry with weaponry capable of dealing with tanks and armored vehicles is beyond your military planners.

Please fire your lead bullets at my troops. Their body armor will stop it. However, your troops will be swiss cheese because of the AP rounds mine use.

As to the arguement of lead not being as dangerous as DU - please use lots of lead in your paint, and keep some in your water. I'm sure you'll love the result.

I was referring to infantry regulars, as I have pointed out a number of times, not the anti-tank units. I hope your armor covers your face as my special ops forces will have no problem taking you on from a distance, and I don't need DU to pierce your flak jackets.


Or, as we were trying to point out, DU is not much more dangerous then lead. And as a matter of fact, an anwful lot of paint used to contain high quantities of toxic lead, as did much petrol, and in years past, plumbing was made of lead too. Lead was even used still to join pipes together. I won't even go into the old womans make-ups being based on lead.


Lead sure is plenty dangerous, but it doesn't give off harmful radiation ;)

Hang on - in NS there's no Hague Convention, is there?
So all non-standard munitions are currently legal?

That means incendiary bullets! Toxic bullets! Those wretched things that expand when they're in the body...all in all, yucky.

IIRC, the RW Hague Convention banned all 'non-standard munitions' so that anything created after the treaty would still be illegal. Can this proposal be fleshed out to ban all of these nasties?

Thanks!
(And looking forward to voting in favour)

By regular infantry units I mean the ones carrying assault rifles, not the ones with anti-armor missiles. If you read my post all the way through I mentioned that anti-armor units (the guys with the TOWs and AT-6's etc) are the ones who shoot at armor units, not the guys with regular guns.Actually, I thought DU machine-gun / cannon rounds were available to use against light armor untis that troops may engage, to knock out the crew and deprive the enemy of an asset in the field, or possibly make a capture of their wheeled materials ... I'm also sure sniper units could use DU based rifle variants to knock out light armor vehicles too. Or anti-tank guns ...The Royal Air Force of Denbighshire is one of many air services that employ the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II, an aircraft expressly designed for the close-air support role which makes use of, amongst other kit, a 30mm cannon ...Yes, the A-10 or " Tank-Buster " as it is lovingly called by those who make use of it ... I wonder if DU rounds feature in there in any-way, I think they do / could ...I hope your armor covers your face as my special ops forces will have no problem taking you on from a distance, and I don't need DU to pierce your flak jackets.While you two both pull them out to measure, might I ask we keep this debate back on the DU topic ?

I was referring to infantry regulars, as I have pointed out a number of times, not the anti-tank units. I hope your armor covers your face as my special ops forces will have no problem taking you on from a distance, and I don't need DU to pierce your flak jackets.

As a matter of fact, you do. Normal rounds do nothing. And my infantry regulars carry anti-tank weaponry as a matter of course.

As to the faceplates, shall indeed be working on those.


Lead sure is plenty dangerous, but it doesn't give off harmful radiation ;)

I'd say you should research the topic before attempting to continue this, but there is always that statement about some people's minds being like concrete - all mixed up and permanently set.

Let me know what you think. Any ideas you might have to make it more acceptable?

Category: Global Disarmament
Resolution Name: Ban of Depleted Uranium
Description:
A scientific study funded by the nations of the region of Tcherbra has observed the following concerning the use of depleted uranium in ammunition.

1) Regular ammunition is just as effective as depleted uranium ammunition.

As being a military expert, I can tell you you're wrong here. The most powerfull conventional ammunition used in APFSDS-T rounds is the tungsten penetrator rod. However the density, thus the weight and power of APFSDS-T rounds made of depleted uranium is far greater and thus more effective.

2) The manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunitions poses a more serious health hazard than the manufacturing of regular ammunition.

Because depleted uranium is a radioactive material more precautions and preventive measures are taken then with the production of 'ordinary' tungsten penetrator rods. The safety and health of employees manufacturing the depleted uranium rods is guaranteed.

3) The use of depleted uranium ammunitions is hazardous to those who are the victim of the ammunition and those who use the ammunition. Cancer rates increase. Fetal deformities increase. These hazards are not present in the use of regular ammunitions. Of course, immediate fatalities do not increase or decrease whether depleted uranium is used or not.

When a depleted uranium penetrator rod impacts, it penetrates the armour of the victim tank and, if the armour is thick enough, will shatter inside of the vehicle. Indeed usage of depleted uranium rods sends out a dustcloud of radioactive parts. These parts however, provide a radiation strength hardly greater than the levels of radioactivity present in nature. Major cancer rate increases and fetal deformities have not been proven. The only part in the world where depleted uranium rounds have been used in large quantities, southern Iraq, has not shown dramatic increases in both rates or any other effect that might be connected to the usage of depleted uranium.

Furthermore, though the name "Depleted Uranium" insinuates a nonradioactive isotope, it is not. It is merely 40% less active than regular uranium with a half-life of 1.5 billion years.

The name depleted uranium indicates that it can not be used for the purpose of nuclear fission and thus is 'depleted'. Depleted uranium never insinuated it being non-radioactive, nor has it ever been described as non-radioactive.

The use of depleted uranium in ammunitions poses a serious health risk to not only the soldiers of the enemy but the soldiers who use them.

The usage poses a minor health risk. However, since the usage of depleted uranium in both rounds as armour increases the chances of survival of the soldiers using them, the minor health risk can be ignored in a discussion to ban it. However, the research to further decrease the health risk should continue as it is now.

Alarmed by this fact, the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt a new policy concerning depleted uranium.

1) All depleted uranium ammunitions currently in existence are to be sent to a single cosmic, uninhabited object approved by the UN Space Consortium. See the resolution entitled "U.N. Space Consortium". All U.N. Nations are expected to follow the resolutions "Oceanic Waste Dumping" and "Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning".

Who is going to pay for this? The UN has no budget. Don't you think that storing it on a big site creates a far greater hazard to public health?

2) Manufacturing of depleted uranium ammunition is to be ceased immediately.

I pointed out that the usage of depleted uranium is acceptable. Manufacturing should be allowed to continue, however there should be research to come up with an even better, non-radioactive, alternative. Better alternatives is the ebst way to get rid of something.

3) All persons having health problems as a result of the use of depleted uranium in past battles are to be informed of the cause of their problems, and shall be able to seek medical treatment as outlined in the resolutions: "Required Basic Healthcare", "RBH Replacement", and "Legalise Euthanasia".

Agreed. But first it should be determined if health problems are in fact caused by depleted uranium.

4) Nations who participated in the use of depleted uranium ammunitions are not required to pay any reparations to families and/or individuals effected by depleted uranium ammunitions since medical care is already provided. However, this policy does not imply that nations cannot give reparations should they so desire.

Agreed. But first it should be determined if health problems are in fact caused by depleted uranium.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Nation States United Nations does hereby adopt the preceding policy.

How about no?

Somebody mentioned alpha radiation not being harmful, because it's stopped by skin.

Can I point out that alpha radiation does more damage inside the body, precisely because of its low penetration?

If the Draft Resolution is amended to fund a study, as recommended by the King's Minister previously, to develop alternatives to DU weaponry, Denbighshire will be pleased to offer its enthusiastic support. Otherwise, it seems to the Prime Minister that there is no conclusive evidence on whether or not DU munitions pose a health risk. Lacking any conclusive evidence, a ban is probably not in order, unless the conditions noted above are adhered to.

There are no good arguements for getting rid of DU currently, only emotional ones filled with numbers the proposer calls facts but cannot back with any evidence whatsoever.

On the other side, the opposition has shown DU under current conditions to be usable, the workers who create it safe under guidelines; that DU weaponry is superior to "regular" weaponry... in short, not one arguement of the proposer has any strength at all.

Particularly the question - who is going to move the obscene number of tons of DU into space, and how? Using what funds? At a slow track, Vastiva possesses well in excess of 2000 tons of DU, and I'm a smaller nation. Therefore, proposer has come up with a "magic" solution he cannot implement, which is worse then meaningless.

Vote NO because of gaping holes in the proposal.

Yes, but not as concerning as some of the decisions made in this proposal regarding these claimed " findings ", may-haps its important to note " behind the couch " or similar location of acadmic standing do not equate adequately proven findings.
At this point, I would like to remind Komokom and everyone else a few things. First of all, this is a game. Secondly, as much as the U.N. is a forum for discussing ideas and agreeing upon certain issues, there is still a hint of role-playing to be expected. Thirdly, this is a game. Fourthly, since we are using a hint of role-playing, it should probably come to your attention that Tihland was ranked 333 of the world's smartest citizens in the last U.N. poll. Since Tihland has been a part of this resolution since it began, our very smart scientists are highly credible. And finally, this is a game.

Now pay attention to what I'm about to say, because there seems to be some serious reading problems going on.

This was mentioned in the fourth post of my thread:
I actually meant to say that "1) Regular ammunition is just as effective in killing people as depleted uranium ammunition." We shall add that edit if it is more acceptable.
And I even meant to imply that it is just as effective in killing unarmored people. But let's review some of the things that have been stated since that time concerning this quote from the resolution. "1) Regular ammunition is just as effective as depleted uranium ammunition."
Incorrect. "regular" ammo does not penetrate armour as effectively...Nothing like as effectively.
No, no it is not. Not when it comes to anti-armor use it does not. This is, for lack of better terminology, rubbish.
Do me a favor, would you please? At least read the posts of the proposer of the resolution to pick out any changes that may have occurred.

Did we mention that DU munitions are * shot * at things ? Namely tanks and other hard targets ? That the idea in combat is, yes, horror-shock, to kill things ?
It has come to my attention that DU munitions are not really used against soldiers but against tanks and things such as that. Why couldn't you people have just said that?! Sheesh... I do not claim to be an expert at DU munitions, and I do keep an open mind.

This is the just the first draft, people. The second draft will be posted soon.

Here's the information you've all been waiting for! The evidence that suggests DU poses health risks can be found at the following website. I expect those of you that have stated over and over there is no proven negative health consequences to apologize (oh no!) and accept accountability for your mistakes.
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREPORT/mirror_dureport.html

So your proposal has no short term effects, though if we all stop using DU, does that not mean other less effective munitions go into use, thus increasing the risk of personel on the battle-field ?
You are implying the risk of using DU has no risk over using "less effective" munitions. Quite false.


The use of depleted uranium in ammunitions poses a serious health risk to not only the soldiers of the enemy but the soldiers who use them.I find the mild discrimination in that those who don't use DU being " the enemy " rather ironic in this situation.
You have made a false assumption. Nowhere in the original statement do I state that the enemy is not using DU munitions. And nor did I intend to imply that. I should add ", whether or not the enemy is using DU munitions." Or would that be an unnecessary redundancy? The whole reason that I repeated certain things was to make sure my fellow U.N. members would not make false assumptions and think logically the correct things based on these statements. But it has been made clear to me several times that U.N. members do not necessarily posess the necessary logical and critical thinking skills to understand the things that are said. I do not mean this in any offensive tone.

* And lets face it, if you use [it] right, risks are minimal. Just because I work in a college lab with toxic chemicals for three days a week does not mean I'm in grave danger of getting Spon-Plague later on.
It's your choice to work with toxic chemicals. You probably also know of safety considerations. Soldiers may not know they are using DU munitions, and, therefore, don't think twice about radiation safety. Enemy soldiers also no doubt don't know their enemy is using DU munitions. This is not to mention of how long the munitions stay out for civilians to mess with after the battles are over.

In relation to point 1:
Pointless clause, they alredy do, thanks to game-mechanics, this is flesh-out space filler, ha, space filler, like you want DU to be ...
I put that clause in to remind fellow U.N. members that they are following many resolutions that have passed throughout history. I also wanted to make it clear we already have ways of getting rid of toxic waste as outlined in these resolutions. Maybe I should just use the suggestions from those instead of developing my own. And on the idea of space filler, most of your responses in this thread are just space filler and do nothing at all.

In relation to Point 2:
Well, there goes several economies, the loss of many jobs, not just specialists in fields of industry, science and engineering, but many common worker-man/woman/etc, jobs as well.
You know, instead of coming up with some selfish way of mooting a point, you could develop something even more acceptable. I would suggest something like: "Manufacturing depleted uranium cannot be ceased unless you also stop nuclear power plants. Depleted uranium is a byproduct of spent nuclear fuel rods." There will always be jobs for people to go to, but nuclear power plants are one of the only ways to produce a lot of power cheaply. I will not listen to any complaints about "economies" since I consider economies to be ways of filling people's lives with nothingness. That topic is for another thread, and I will not discuss it here.

4) Nations who participated in the use of depleted uranium ammunitions are not required to pay any reparations to families and/or individuals effected by depleted uranium ammunitions since medical care is already provided.But if they are ill, they are already entitled to do so under those resolutions. Redundant clause.
I mention this clause because, as I said earlier, I want to make sure U.N. members are aware of our health care programs, and the fact that DU does cause health problems when not handled carefully. You don't need to be making false assumptions as you did earlier.

In your continuing responses to redundancy:
I say things explicitly so that no member nations can try to go outside the scope of this proposal. No reparations are necessary because health care is already provided. Some may make the argument that it doesn't matter if a person gets health care, only that they get paid for their suffering. I wanted to make sure that this was not the case, and I explicitly stated it. My redundancies are meant to clarify and make clear this proposal. Some redundancies are quite necessary.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll find an idiot answer to this one too.
I consider this highly offensive. I did not ask anyone to post on this thread. I did not order anyone to post on this thread. People have posted here on their own free will, just like yourself.

I am keeping a very open mind about this debate, and I expect all of you to do the same. There is evidence that suggests DU causes cancer and fetal deformities. Studies done by the countries who use them attempt to show otherwise. Stop believing what you want to believe, and start believing the truth. I expect a much kinder debate when the next draft is posted. None of this name calling. None of these put downs. None of this arrogance! It's time to start being the cooperative body we are supposed to be!

whats nice about putting DU into bombs is that we can sit at a distance in our lawn chairs and get a nice tan at night!! :cool: :cool:
also we would get lots of glass as we would nuke only desert areas. ;)

I can say with full seriousness that, should this resolution be passed, I will withdraw from the UN. I do not wish to be caught with my proverbial pants down when it comes to facing a non-UN enemy who is all too happy to use DU munitions.

Basically, the benefits outweight the risks.

Second draft coming soon.

...There will always be jobs for people to go to, but nuclear power plants are one of the only ways to produce a lot of power cheaply. I will not listen to any complaints about "economies" since I consider economies to be ways of filling people's lives with nothingness. That topic is for another thread, and I will not discuss it here....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vastiva
Don't worry, I'm sure he'll find an idiot answer to this one too.


I consider this highly offensive. I did not ask anyone to post on this thread. I did not order anyone to post on this thread. People have posted here on their own free will, just like yourself.

I am keeping a very open mind about this debate, and I expect all of you to do the same. ...

Economies = Nothingness ... true socialist utopian vaccuum

"Open Mind" = "Believe as I do or you're inferior"

The simple people of Iakeokeo invite those using DU to please use it to hunt our native reptiles, birds, aquatic life and, if we're being REALLY bad, our population, as we like to encourage rapid evolution of those species and people who could use a little evolution.

I might also note that being out in the sun is probably more harmful than exposure to DU.

Oh yeah,... also,.. if you use the stuff, you should also be nice enough to clean up your mess when you're through playing your little war games.

Is this entire planet made up of lawyer-headed mommy-wannabees..!?

YOU know who you are..!! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Hello Industrial Experiment!
I assure you that your issue with the current draft will be resolved in the next draft. I most assuredly assure you! :D

I might also note that being out in the sun is probably more harmful than exposure to DU.
I mentioned in my big long post on the previous page to go to this website showing statistics and graphs of the increase in cancer and fetal deformities since the use of DU in southern Iraq.
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREPORT/mirror_dureport.html

The second draft is almost ready for posting. It is completely redone from the first draft. I hope all of you are able to read the second draft when it is ready.

Thank you,
The UN Representative to the Royal Democratic Kingdom of Tihland

I mentioned in my big long post on the previous page to go to this website showing statistics and graphs of the increase in cancer and fetal deformities since the use of DU in southern Iraq.
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREP...r_dureport.html

Iraqi scientists under control of Saddam? Hmm....reliable source I'm sure.

The UN, WHO and NATO did a much more reliable, third party investigation in Kosovo. I would much rather trust the findings of those bodies than any Iraqi "university" of Tikrit (Former presidents hometown....)

Oh, thanks Hirota, I forgot to mention the credibility of several sources too ... ;)
I do not claim to be an expert at DU munitions,Some-how, I think we noticed that.and I do keep an open mind.And that will certainly explain the second draft banning " nukes " , as well as DU.N. in all / certain conditions ...

Iraqi scientists under control of Saddam? Hmm....reliable source I'm sure.

The UN, WHO and NATO did a much more reliable, third party investigation in Kosovo. I would much rather trust the findings of those bodies than any Iraqi "university" of Tikrit (Former presidents hometown....)

What are you talking about Hirota? The website mentioned is not from Iraqi scientists under control of Saddam. I have examined the report and have not seen this accusation at all. Please make a direct quote.

Here are some more references for you to check. Also, there is a large response on page 4 of this thread from me that people are avoiding. I recommend reading it.

More Sources:
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/DUREPORT/mirror_dureport.html
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/depleted_morality/
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/uran-j26.shtml
http://www.firethistime.org/scientificargumentagainstdu.htm
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/DepletedUranium.html

You're not understanding the health consequences of depleted uranium on the radioactive side. It emits alpha particles. When these particles are inhaled, they harm the person. The depleted uranium may also consist of trace amounts of plutonium and other substances used in nuclear fuel rods where the depleted uranium is manufactured from.

I see that you realize it's harmful on the toxic side. However, I fail to understand why you still would not want to ban these harmful substances in favor of less harmful substances.

I know I'm not UN so take this as a comment in passing. It is true that inhaling depleted uraniumis unhealthy, no one will argue with you on that. But you must recognize the fact that the DU is a solid shell and should you be inhaling its gaseous form it's ethier just impacted and shattered into a billion hot shards of metal or has exploded and your inhaling superheated gas. There's not any other way to inhale it really because its so dense the cloud, once inertia was overcome, would drop becuase its not boyent in air. If your that close I think that long term health risks are of minimal concern, you'll be lucky to live for the next few seconds.

As another interesting point, I'm not UN. So if I feel the need to shell your armoured position with several thousand tons of DU that's my perogative. I think that the ppl here apossing the ban are more worried about ppl like me who isn't encumbered by needles regulations in warefare. Should this go through any ground based conflicts will always go to me unless I'm outgunned because my rounds will tear your tanks to shreads while your's will be performing at a recorded ineffeciency.

Anyways sorry to but in, an friend of mine was shaking their head at this so I felt the need to add in

Anyways sorry to but in, an friend of mine was shaking their head at this so I felt the need to add in
The Podium is always available to guests and non-members, especially when they show such respect for these halls. Speak and be welcome, Ambassador.

Your prior point was already made (and apparently ignored). I'll repeat it for ego gratification.The UN only has the power to make demands of UN nations. At present, that's slightly less than one-third of all nations. Even the most casual glance at NationStates and International Incidents will reveal that many of the combatants are not members of the UN. They won't be affected.

All this proposition will do is make UN members targets for superior ammunition technology. And that's reason sufficient to end it.
Do come again. Your comments have graced our presence.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus, Frisbeeteria

It's okay Nova Hope. We won't pass anything like that anymore. After all, we aren't allowed to use bioweapons at all against anyone. If you read my second draft, you'd see that I take non-member nations into account. Basically, we can use DU stuff on non-member nations in the second draft.

It's okay Nova Hope. We won't pass anything like that anymore. After all, we aren't allowed to use bioweapons at all against anyone. If you read my second draft, you'd see that I take non-member nations into account. Basically, we can use DU stuff on non-member nations in the second draft.

I feel so privledged to know that you'll repeal your ideal on humanatarianism for me. This does reinforce the UN has a self propegating entity, a bit of a yay UN boo world. If your attitude hasn't changed about the lethality of the DU then why would you feel its okay to use it against a nation who's decieded not to sign a piece of paper.

I feel so privledged to know that you'll repeal your ideal on humanatarianism for me. This does reinforce the UN has a self propegating entity, a bit of a yay UN boo world. If your attitude hasn't changed about the lethality of the DU then why would you feel its okay to use it against a nation who's decieded not to sign a piece of paper.
Nova Hope, I apologize from all of humanity for what appears to be an atrocity. I wish I could persuade certain people that nuclear/radioactive weapons shouldn't be used, period. Heck, I wish I could outlaw all lethal weapons and war altogether. But I cannot, as there are UN nations and non-UN nations alike, who wish to have horrible wars upon each other anyway. I consider my second draft to be a great compromise, but you have made an excellent point. I will call for a ban of the use on radioactive/nuclear stuff on non-member nations who do not use or house radioactive/nuclear stuff. I will also consider ways of preventing first strikes using radioactive/nuclear stuff if it already hasn't been done so in passed resolutions.

Remember, Nova Hope, it is better to ban radioactive/nuclear weapons in certain circumstances than never to have banned at all. Please continue giving your input as it is vital to this debate.

Remember, Nova Hope, it is better to ban radioactive/nuclear weapons in certain circumstances than never to have banned at all

Nice assumption.