NationStates Jolt Archive

First an introduction:
Uranium and other radiating metals are very heavy. Indeed, Uranium is AFAIK the heaviest stuff that appears naturally.

The heavier a bullet, the easier it can penetrate armour. And that's the way DU Ammunition works.

Some Western countries (most notably the US, although I believe Britain played with the idea too) use this kind of ammunition - and have used it in the Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Problem is of course that this leaves behind what is essentially mild atomic waste: Extremely toxic and radiating. And no one bothers cleaning it up properly.

The Pentagon of course argues that the stuff doesn't pose any health risks, but the safety procedures for US pesonell who have to handle it are apparently quite strict now - after some people have blamed the Gulf War Syndrome on radiation poisoning.

Here's an article about what happens to essentially toxic sites now, where destroyed tanks spray radiation all over the place.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3388.htm

I had another link concentrating on what may happen to US soldiers exposed to it, but since it contains a picture of a child with leukemia, I didn't want to offend anyone and won't post it (:rolleyes:). Find it yourself, it's not difficult.

So should we outlaw DU Ammunition?
To me it seems like this stuff is pretty close to what you would call a "dirty bomb" if the other side used it. Super-fine and heated Uranium dust covering the place after impact and all...

Vapourised Uranium - safe? Once you breath in the stuff into the human body, it pretty much stays and messes around.

First an introduction:
Uranium and other radiating metals are very heavy. Indeed, Uranium is AFAIK the heaviest stuff that appears naturally.


Osmium is "heavier". (Higher specific weight).

Osmium is "heavier". (Higher specific weight).
Thanks
Yeah, I see there's a few things. Iridium too. But I guess they can't be manufactured and formed like Uranium.

Thanks
Yeah, I see there's a few things. Iridium too. But I guess they can't be manufactured and formed like Uranium.

In the case of osmium I think it is because it is extremely brittle and the oxide is very toxic, like insanely toxic. So probably not good for firearms applications. (Though it is used in some alloys).

Iridium has been used for firearms in the past (something to do with the venting, because it is highly non-reactive). I would imagine cost is a factor here.

Both of these are just guesses however. And as I think of it, the US must produce a fair amount of DU from it's own nuclear weapons programs in any case, so maybe that's why they use it. As would the UK and france to a lesser extent, but not other NATO countries.

And as I think of it, the US must produce a fair amount of DU from it's own nuclear weapons programs in any case, so maybe that's why they use it. As would the UK and france to a lesser extent, but not other NATO countries.
DU Spiked with Plutonium and other Fission Products
Recent revelations about the radioactivity of DU are disturbing. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology discovered that DU munitions used in Kosovo were contaminated with uranium-236, an isotope of uranium not found in natural uranium ore. Numerous medical scientists have found traces of U-236 in the urine of Gulf War veterans. This means that the ingested uranium could not have come from natural sources, as claimed by the military. It also means that some DU cannot simply be naturally occurring uranium with the fissionable U-235 removed from it, as the U.S. government had claimed until recently.
U-236 is created only inside nuclear reactors, a product of the fission process for which there is no other source. Some DU has come from reprocessed reactor fuel. As quoted earlier, the Pentagon, NATO, and the British Ministry of Defense have always downplayed the danger of DU, saying it was “less radioactive than uranium ore.” But at least half of the DU (250,000 metric tons) is now known to have been left over from the reprocessing of irradiated reactor fuel (done to extract weapons-grade plutonium), leaving it salted with fission products.[48] See Table 1, “Reprocessed Nuclear Reactor Waste Products,” for details on this nuclear waste that has been added to the DU available to weapons manufacturers.
The Pentagon officially acknowledged at a NATO press conference in February 2001 that extremely carcinogenic substances were used by the U.S. armed forces:
"...shells used in the 1999 Kosovo conflict were tainted with traces of plutonium, neptunium and americium byproducts of nuclear reactors that are much more radioactive than depleted uranium.[49]"
In a January 2000 letter, the U.S. Department of Energy’s David Michaels said, “One may normally expect that depleted uranium contains a trace amount of plutonium.”[50]
The fission products (Table 1) created inside nuclear reactors are now known to contaminate the uranium-238 used in DU munitions. Three hundred and twenty tons of DU ammunition was shot into Iraq and Kuwait in the 1991 bombardment, three tons into Bosnia in 1995, and ten tons into Kosovo in 1999. Out of the roughly 720,000 tons of DU available to weapons merchants, some 250,000 tons are now known to be spiked with these extremely radioactive isotopes.[51]
http://www.idust.net/Docs/MilWeaponsTreatise.htm
This suggests they are actually using their nuclear waste for this (at least partly).

http://www.idust.net/Docs/MilWeaponsTreatise.htm
This suggests they are actually using their nuclear waste for this (at least partly).

Well then I am definitely against it, there are just too many factors to consider when using nuclear waste, not least of which is the amount of plutonium &c. in those rounds.

Should be banned.

Uranium is a chemically very toxic heavy metal, which accumulates in the human body, and so is plutonium. Radiation is overadvertised, probably out of ignorance, but possibly to downplay the chemical toxicity. It does not matter whether it's nuclear waster, or if it's less radioactive than uranium ore. Vaporizing and spreading this sort of chemical poison into the environment is in any case criminally irresponsible, but as usual, Americans go with the "whacha gonna do about it" routine.

uranium not safe? say it ain't so! well it is depleted right? :p

Whispering Legs please give us the govt's line about how it's harmful only to whatever it's aimed at and no cleanup is needed. Tell us how the dust that goes into the atmosphere wont harm a single cell on any living creature.

uranium not safe? say it ain't so! well it is depleted right? :p

Whispering Legs please give us the govt's line about how it's harmful only to whatever it's aimed at and no cleanup is needed. Tell us how the dust that goes into the atmosphere wont harm a single cell on any living creature.


I never had you figured for pre-emptive strikes against an individual...

There are dangers with depleted uranium ammunition, but I thought the point of weapons was to be dangerous, at least to your enemies. I favour using depleted uranium, but I'd prefer that our military looks into ways of making it safer for our forces to use it. There are no absolutes; that's why I voted other.

There are dangers with depleted uranium ammunition, but I thought the point of weapons was to be dangerous, at least to your enemies. I favour using depleted uranium, but I'd prefer that our military looks into ways of making it safer for our forces to use it. There are no absolutes; that's why I voted other.

The point is, if it leaves some sort of "fallout" it can be dangerous not only for friendly soldiers, but also (and mainly) for civilians.

I never had you figured for pre-emptive strikes against an individual...


Well I just wanted to cell him out on the defense of such a glorious weapon. Whaat did I say against any individual? There wasn't a single foul word or put down was there? Sure something may have been implied but I wouldn't call it a strike although it was preemptive.

This will probably sounds strange, but:
While I don't favor the use of DU Ammo, I favor even less an international treaty banning it. Why, you ask? Because I'm such a nut about national sovereignty. Okay, okay, this affects war more than it does a country's ability to self-rule, but the whole 'enroachment on national sovereignty' issue feels like a 'slippery slope' IMHO

Well I just wanted to cell him out on the defense of such a glorious weapon. Whaat did I say against any individual? There wasn't a single foul word or put down was there? Sure something may have been implied but I wouldn't call it a strike although it was preemptive.

I could see if you put words in the mouths of a group, maybe label them pro gun or pro war or whatever, but I'm surprised you put words in Whispering Legs mouth specifically. It was antagonistic, No?
Its the type of thing certain types would get all hysterical about if it were done to someone sharing their particular views.

I could see if you put words in the mouths of a group, maybe label them pro gun or pro war or whatever, but I'm surprised you put words in Whispering Legs mouth specifically. It was antagonistic, No?
Its the type of thing certain types would get all hysterical about if it were done to someone sharing their particular views.


I only repeated what WL has already said in the past. I wouldn't call that putting words in someones mouth.

I believe most countries use Tungsten.

I only repeated what WL has already said in the past. I wouldn't call that putting words in someones mouth.

If thats the case, I take back my criticism. My appologies.

If thats the case, I take back my criticism. My appologies.
:fluffle:

:fluffle:

you naughty boy..

BUMP

So many people vote that they don't mind the stuff, but almost no one actually posts why!
Please do.

I believe most countries use Tungsten.
Yep. The U.S. refuses to. Know why?






It costs more.

Yep. The U.S. refuses to. Know why?






It costs more.

well we certainly didnt get rich by being better educated or harder workers.

Yep. The U.S. refuses to. Know why?

also because Du is 'pyrophoric' which means that when it is turned into fine particles in contact with air, as frequently happens when it is smashed into the side of a tank, it will explode instead of merely passing through like a tungsten kinetic penetrator.
I think Du generally gets a bad reputation because of knee-jerk reactions from mentioning Uranium or plutonium. I'm not aware that anyone has actually conclusively linked Du inhalation with illness. Studies of soldiers from the first gulf war who have been in contact with Du haven't turned up any related illnesses.

On the other hand tungsten has been suspected to be the cause of a leukemia cluster in Fallon, Nevada, although again that is inconclusive.

I think Du generally gets a bad reputation because of knee-jerk reactions from mentioning Uranium or plutonium. I'm not aware that anyone has actually conclusively linked Du inhalation with illness. Studies of soldiers from the first gulf war who have been in contact with Du haven't turned up any related illnesses.
Read the link I provided at the very top in case you haven't yet.

I've seen a guy on TV a few months ago who said he had done a study and found it was responsible for the higher incidence of deformed babies from Gulf War Veterans. But I'm afraid I don't have a copy, and I've been busy with Uni and couldn't find it...

At any rate, whether or not it is effective, there surely should be some sort of rule regarding using nuclear waste, firing it at people, spreading dangerous uranium dust all over the place and then not cleaning it up.

Read the link I provided at the very top in case you haven't yet.

I've seen a guy on TV a few months ago who said he had done a study and found it was responsible for the higher incidence of deformed babies from Gulf War Veterans. But I'm afraid I don't have a copy, and I've been busy with Uni and couldn't find it...

At any rate, whether or not it is effective, there surely should be some sort of rule regarding using nuclear waste, firing it at people, spreading dangerous uranium dust all over the place and then not cleaning it up.
I agree with controls on the 'purity' as it were of DU.

As to the deformed babies caused by DU issue, most of the arguments seem to be heavier on sensationalism than any proof that it is in fact Du causing this as opposed to any number of other causes.

Yes, we should allow it. However...

As a note, the US doesn't just use DU rounds for guns, it armours some tanks with it too (not pure, of course. Layered)

As to the deformed babies caused by DU issue, most of the arguments seem to be heavier on sensationalism than any proof that it is in fact Du causing this as opposed to any number of other causes.
Here's what the British "Guardian" says. I wish they would include links to this "new research"...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,772633,00.html

---
This quotes a number of apparently credible reports from both US and international authorities.
But it contains pictures of deformed babies...can't post it. If you really want to read it, I might have to send you a telegram, I think that's still legal.

And this is by the UK Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/24/ngulf124.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/24/ixnewstop.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm
This may disspell a few myths/answer some questions.

This may disspell a few myths/answer some questions.
Thanks (althought the neutrality of the source might be disputed...;))
But this doesn't at all cover what happens both to the enemy soldiers and to the civilians who have to deal with the stuff out of all the safety equipment the US military uses.

Global Security's neutrality is disputable?:confused:

Here's what the British "Guardian" says. I wish they would include links to this "new research"...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,772633,00.html

---
This quotes a number of apparently credible reports from both US and international authorities.
But it contains pictures of deformed babies...can't post it. If you really want to read it, I might have to send you a telegram, I think that's still legal.

And this is by the UK Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/24/ngulf124.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/24/ixnewstop.html
At the risk of sounding a pedant, neither of those articles contains a study which states that concentrations of depleted uranium inhaled by gulf war veterans leads to birth defects. Don't get me wrong, i was uninformed when i made my earlier statements and these articles do point towards a potential link, but they frustratingly avoid any sort of direct connection. For instance I would have liked to have seen the uranium levels in the urine of the 16 british veterans tested in the schott study in the guardian article; did they match with the levels of chromosomal damage reported?
Another thing which got me about the guardian article was this statement

'This confirms that we have been exposed to ionising radiation,' said Shaun Rusling, chairman of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association. 'That is the only way we could have this level of chromosome damage.'

Surely there are lots of causes for chromosomal damage not just ionising radiation? But putting that comment there implies that the schott stufy has linked DU to chromosome damage when it hasn't.

So it still seems to me that a study that definitively links DU to these health problems, as opposed to any one of the chemicals that soldiers were exposed to in the gulf either from injections or from one of saddam's stockpiles, is still lacking.

Global Security's neutrality is disputable?:confused:
Well, it is a rather ... "patriotic" website in my opinion. There's American flags everywhere, and the people who make the website apparently love fancy toys that kill people.
That leads me to believe that they are likely to fall into official Pentagon line in a case like this - where common sense indicates that this is questionable at best, and the Pentagon maintains it's great.

...So it still seems to me that a study that definitively links DU to these health problems, as opposed to any one of the chemicals that soldiers were exposed to in the gulf either from injections or from one of saddam's stockpiles, is still lacking.
Do be fully honest, I don't really care what the Pentagon does to its soldiers, it's none of my business. Nonetheless, there is a statistically significantly higher number of birth defects with the babies of both the Gulf War and the Kosovo War as well as this "Balcan War Syndrome" that British soldiers are on about. So at least Saddam's weapons seem to be out of the picture for now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/408122.stm
I'm much more concerned with the civilians who have to live in the ruins that are radiating weakly and are potentially very toxic indeed. I would think that for weaponry like this to even be considered there should be a very careful plan regarding clean-up and safety measures for the local population.

As many of you know I was in a M1A1 in combat in gulf war I. We fired many du rounds(silver bullets) while there. Was in what many would consider a du hotspot with burnt out T-72's all around and other armored vehicles. I have read about the du cases. Out of the buddies I still talk to from our regiment I have not heard one case that could be attributed to possible du exposure. Out of the four of us from my tank there are not one of us that has had problems related to either the gulf war syndrome or du. All our kids are fine. I have had two since 1991. Both are healthy and normal as for myself. So being there in that enviroment I havent seen the real proof for US troop exposure. Not that it hasnt happened. My experience though proves otherwise. Just my story hope that helps....

well we certainly didnt get rich by being better educated or harder workers.

lol :P

Thanks (althought the neutrality of the source might be disputed...;))
But this doesn't at all cover what happens both to the enemy soldiers and to the civilians who have to deal with the stuff out of all the safety equipment the US military uses.

:confused:

The article goes quite into depth about those issues:

Health Issues

The major health concerns about DU relate to its chemical properties as a heavy metal rather than to its radioactivity, which is very low. As with all chemicals, the hazard depends mainly upon the amount taken into the body. Medical science recognizes that uranium at high doses can cause kidney damage. However, those levels are far above levels soldiers would have encountered in the Gulf or the Balkans.

Because depleted uranium emits primarily alpha radiation, it is not considered a serious external radiation hazard. The depleted uranium in armor and rounds is covered, further reducing the radiation dose. When breathed or eaten, small amounts of depleted uranium are carried in the blood to body tissues and organs; much the same as the more radioactive natural uranium. Despite this, no radiological health effects are expected because the radioactivity of uranium and depleted uranium are so low.

Most soldiers and civilians will not be exposed to dangerous levels of depleted uranium. However, in certain circumstances the exposures may be high and there would be a risk of heavy metal poisoning that could lead to long-term kidney damage for a few soldiers, as well as the increased risk of lung cancer. A small number of soldiers and civilians might suffer kidney damage from depleted uranium if substantial amounts are breathed in, or swallowed in contaminated soil and water. The kidneys of a few soldiers may be damaged if they inhale large quantities of DU after their vehicle is struck by a penetrator or while working for long periods in contaminated vehicles. Large numbers of corroding DU penetrators buried in the soil may also pose a long-term threat if uranium leaches into water supplies. Long-term sampling, particularly of water and milk, is required to detect any increase in uranium levels around areas where DU has been used on the battlefield.

Anecdotal reports of deaths and illnesses among US veterans of the Gulf War who worked for long periods in heavily contaminated vehicles prompted a number of investigations. The voluntary Veterans Affairs DU Medical Follow-up Program began in 1993-1994 with the medical evaluations of 33 friendly-fire DU-exposed veterans, many with embedded DU fragments. An additional 29 of the friendly-fire victims were added to the follow-up program in 1999. In 1998, the scope of the program was expanded to include Gulf War veterans who may have been exposed to DU through close contact with DU munitions, inhalation of smoke containing DU particulate during a fire at the Doha depot, or by entering or salvaging vehicles or bunkers that were hit with DU projectiles. The published results of these medical evaluations indicate that the presence of retained DU fragments is the only scenario predictive of a high urine uranium level, and those with embedded DU fragments continue to have elevated urine uranium levels ten years after the incident. It is unlikely that an individual without embedded DU fragments would have an elevated urine uranium level, and consequently any uranium-related health effects.

In late 2000 and early 2001, various news reports, mostly European, reported allegations of an increase in leukemia cases related to exposure to DU while serving in the Balkans. Subsequent independent investigations by the World Health Organization, European Commission, European Parliament, United Nations Environment Programme, United Kingdom Royal Society, and the Health Council of the Netherlands have all have discounted any association between depleted uranium and leukemia or other medical problems among Balkans veterans.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm

Furthermore, the article is accompanied by an extensive list of links to DoD, WHO, RAND and other web sites, including those critical of it's use.

Just my story hope that helps....
It does. You could probably tell us more about how the US Army regulations are for handling DU ammunition.

And if I had stayed in Germany, I would've wanted to do my time in the Bundeswehr in a tank...but I'm probably too tall, I hear those things are mighty small inside.

:confused:
Okay okay, fair enough.
I personally didn't think that it went into those matters deep enough, simply saying that it may be possible that civilians may be exposed to dangerous concentrations doesn't quite cover it IMHO.

There are dangers with depleted uranium ammunition, but I thought the point of weapons was to be dangerous, at least to your enemies. I favour using depleted uranium, but I'd prefer that our military looks into ways of making it safer for our forces to use it. There are no absolutes; that's why I voted other.

The point of weapons is to win wars. And to do so ethically. It's no longer ok to firebomb hundreds of thousands of civilians. Similarly it's impolite to spread harmful radioactivity all over a nation's populace.

Hmm... My understanding is that there are similar concerns about the toxicity of lead bullets to the environment of war-zones, along with talk of replacing them with steel bullets.

To me, it just seems to be a matter of common sense. All heavy metals can be lethal if taken into the bloodstream; therefore, creating a whole bunch of dust from heavy metal shells (enough to start explosions, apparently) just seems to be a bad idea.

Are there any other, lighter metals with DU's self-sharpening characteristic? What would be the result if the military wrapped its DU shells in another, non-toxic metal? They'd still degrade, of course, but in trace amounts, as opposed to small clouds of heavy-metal dust.

It's not the idea of DU per se that bothers me. (After all, I believe that DU processed from natural uranium would behave much as described on the box). What concerns me is that it is reprocessed from nuclear waste, and while it is possible - depending on the type of waste - that in many cases a "batch" will behave exactly like "natural" DU, I am concerned that quality control in manufacture coupled with the nature of nuclear waste, will result in batches with significant impurities which will fundimentally alter the chemical behavior of said batch. Thus leading to all kinds of environmental problems.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the advantage of it as a weapon. I just wonder how good the quality control is, especially in light of where it is obtained.

Just curious: has anyone ever wondered if it's such a good idea to leave a byproduct of nuclear weapons lying around where terrorists can scoop it up? All that DU spread out over Iraq would make for a convenient dirty bomb.

also because Du is 'pyrophoric' which means that when it is turned into fine particles in contact with air, as frequently happens when it is smashed into the side of a tank, it will explode instead of merely passing through like a tungsten kinetic penetrator.
Actually, I believe that tungsten is also pyrophoric, and behaves similarly to DU when used as a kinetic penetrator round. I can't swear to that, though. However, tungsten doesn't have that peculiar 'self-sharpening' property that DU has.

Hmm... My understanding is that there are similar concerns about the toxicity of lead bullets to the environment of war-zones, along with talk of replacing them with steel bullets.

To me, it just seems to be a matter of common sense. All heavy metals can be lethal if taken into the bloodstream; therefore, creating a whole bunch of dust from heavy metal shells (enough to start explosions, apparently) just seems to be a bad idea.

Are there any other, lighter metals with DU's self-sharpening characteristic? What would be the result if the military wrapped its DU shells in another, non-toxic metal? They'd still degrade, of course, but in trace amounts, as opposed to small clouds of heavy-metal dust.

Yep, but steel is an unlikely candidate. Google up "Green Bullet". (I'd post a few links, but then I'd be late for work. ;))

Just curious: has anyone ever wondered if it's such a good idea to leave a byproduct of nuclear weapons lying around where terrorists can scoop it up? All that DU spread out over Iraq would make for a convenient dirty bomb.

It really wouldn't though, it's not the right byproduct for a dirty bomb.

It really wouldn't though, it's not the right byproduct for a dirty bomb.
Psychologically it would!

It does. You could probably tell us more about how the US Army regulations are for handling DU ammunition.

And if I had stayed in Germany, I would've wanted to do my time in the Bundeswehr in a tank...but I'm probably too tall, I hear those things are mighty small inside.

DU is no different in the army's eyes as regular munitions. There is no special handling for unfired DU rounds. Also note to everyone. I did not see a DU round until we were massing on the Saudi/Iraqi border. They are not used in training. Only issued during combat or potential combat conditions. I nor my crew were worried about these because of the low amounts of radiation in these rounds. Also remember that some of the armor on a tank is DU armor. So if a round from a T-72 were to have hit us. We would have sustained exposure to DU. That risk was far greater than the rounds we were using. Even with a direct hit we were told that the radiation release was minimal. However if the hit was in a particular vulnerable area of the tank. Radiation poisoning was the least of our problems.

Although I do want to note that protective clothing was required when inspecting hit T-72's for obvious reasons. Although that didnt stop people from posing.

After one particular night of engangement we had to decontaminate our tank with a special wash. Due to the exposure of fires from the burning T-72's. Fallout particles as you could imagine. Another thing that helped protect is to stay in your vehicle. M1A1's have a nice (NBC) filtration system to protect from outside hazards.

Actually, I believe that tungsten is also pyrophoric, and behaves similarly to DU when used as a kinetic penetrator round. I can't swear to that, though. However, tungsten doesn't have that peculiar 'self-sharpening' property that DU has.
I was under the impression that tungsten was only pyrophoric to a much lesser degree. Anyway the biggest argument against using tungsten in place of DU is that, unlike Du as far as I'm aware it has been linked to the sort of health effects, tumours, cancers etc. that Du is suggested to cause.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/press/011505.html

Psychologically it would!


Really, no. Collecting and processing enough residue from even a significant number of spent DU round to be useful in a radiological dispersal device ("dirty bomb") would be extrordinarirly highly impractical - the DU is already of a low grade emitter, it's spread over a large area, it's largely mixed with dirt, dust, and so on; and there are much easier sources (hospitals are a decent source).

Well I just wanted to cell him out on the defense of such a glorious weapon. Whaat did I say against any individual? There wasn't a single foul word or put down was there? Sure something may have been implied but I wouldn't call it a strike although it was preemptive.

Gee, I haven't even said anything about DU ammunition.

It isn't "glorious". Just extremely effective.

Don't worry - technology under development in the US will be replacing it soon enough.

There are two vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons in the testing stage now - the Advanced Tactical Laser (which uses photons as projectiles) and a six-barreled electromagnetic rail gun (which uses aluminum projectiles at 15 km/sec).

Both are designed to operate more cheaply, and with much less logistical support (the laser requires nothing but fuel - no ammunition).

And no by-products that are bad for public relations. In fact, the laser has non-lethal uses as well - it is already capable of hitting dozens of targets in a few seconds - at a power level and accuracy capable of destroying tires or tracked suspensions on vehicles or removing antennae from buildings or vehicles. Of course, it can also slice through a tank 9 miles away, or vaporize individual people without harming the people around them.

So stop worrying! Depleted uranium is so 1980s!

Depleted Uranium is barely radioactive. It's no more of a radiation hazard than the mantles in a gas-powered lantern. http://www.arpansa.gov.au/is_lantern.htm

As for toxicity, well, for centuries guns have fired lead ammunition and I think the risk of being poisoned by them has been dwarfed by the risk of having one's internal organs and major blood vessels punctured by them.

See? Here is what will replace DU. Hope you like it.

The Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL) ACTD is an innovative concept for airborne ultra-precision strike missions that uses a high-energy laser weapon mounted in a tactical aircraft to engage stationary or moving ground targets. On-board visible and infrared surveillance and acquisition sensors provide the weapon operator scene images of increasing resolution for finding, identifying, and engaging targets. The entire weapon system is envisioned as a package of several self-contained modules that can be installed or removed from the aircraft in a few hours.

The ATL uses a closed-cycle, chemical oxygen-iodine laser (COIL) with an appropriate beam control. The closed-cycle system captures waste by-products, making it suitable for tactical employment. The ATL will be installed in a C-130 aircraft to demonstrate its ability to engage tactical targets from a moving platform at ranges of approximately 10 kilometers. This SOCOM demonstration program is important and should be completed in the 2007-2009 timeframe.

The Advanced Tactical Laser can place a 10-centimeter-wide beam with the heating power of a blowtorch on distant targets for up to 100 shots. The Advanced Tactical Laser can produce a four-inch-diameter beam of energy that can slice through metal from a distance of 9 miles.

The Advanced Tactical Laser can provide powerful capabilities for both lethal and non-lethal ultra-precision engagement of threats with little or no collateral damage. This is often critical in urban environments and congested chokepoints that are vulnerable to terrorist activities or insurgent operations. Operated from a ground, sea or airborne platform, ATL offers the ability to place a precisely calibrated energy pulse on a target from either close in or from a standoff distance of several miles. While the ATL provides a laser weapon that can be used for lethal warfare when warranted, the ATL can also affect less-than-lethal engagements that can help control high-risk situations for both military and humanitarian purposes. Its rapid energy delivery coupled with its high-resolution, non-cooperative observation and surveillance capabilities provide unique defensive operational capabilities in densely populated areas. ATL can exploit the target vulnerabilities to cause the target to be destroyed for military purposes OR to cause limited damage to the extent that its functionality and/or mobility is impaired for humanitarian purposes such as saving the lives of captives or hostages. The ATL can achieve this result in a covert, non-destructive, and non-intrusive mode that negates unnecessary loss of life.

The ATL is required to be a sealed exhaust chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) that eliminates the soldier's exposure to chemical effluents and to fit on an MV-22 aircraft. Boeing has demonstrated a compact sealed Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser that meets these requirements. Boeing has patents for the critical design features of the Sealed Exhaust type of COIL technology, which is the advancement that allows this type of laser to meet the Government's requirements and merit ACTD approval. USASMDC believes that the COIL developed by Boeing is the only existing technology that meets these requirements and that only Boeing has the expertise to perform the ATL ACTD Program Definition phase in concert with synergistic and inseparable testing utilizing its sealed exhaust COIL.

The outermost cruise missile engagements occur at 20 km, where laser dwell times of five seconds are required for each kill. At shorter ranges, the dwell times are reduced. One target is destroyed for each dwell period, and a few seconds are allocated for re-targeting between shots.

The ATL is not subject to direct attack by small arms or shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. In fact, it can be far enough away that its action is almost covert. The laser beam makes no sound and is not visible. The effect of the beam may not be easily associated with a presence of an aircraft several miles away!

The missile was approaching fast and gathering speed on a column of flame. Inside a trailer, miles away, it appeared on the radar screen of a soldier on-watch. From its radar signature, he realized it was a Katyusha, a ten-foot long missile launched from a truck and capable of delivering a powerful explosive charge or chemical weapon. Acting quickly, he commanded a device resembling a large spotlight mounted on the roof of the trailer to whir into motion. After panning for a few moments, the device locked onto the distant rocket arching overhead. It shot an invisible high-energy laser beam into the side of the Katyusha, following the target even as it continued to fly at several times the speed of sound. Seconds later, the missile exploded into a ball of flame, disintegrating into shards which rained harmlessly onto the desert below.

Is this a scene taken from a science fiction story? Not at all. Instead, it's a description of an actual test which took place over three years ago of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), developed by the U.S. Army in a joint project with the Government of Israel. Laser weapons are not just the stuff of Buck Rogers any more, and the THEL program is just a small component of a multi-billion dollar effort by the U.S. military to introduce laser weapons to the battlefield. Within ten years, the U.S. military plans to mount powerful laser weapons on tanks, Humvees, fighter jets, and other aircraft. Research is even underway to develop a Humvee-mounted non-lethal microwave energy weapon capable of incapacitating people by causing severe pain. If these efforts are successful, energy weapons will revolutionize warfare in the 21st century.

Is this a scene taken from a science fiction story? Not at all. Instead, it's a description of an actual test which took place over three years ago of the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), developed by the U.S. Army in a joint project with the Government of Israel. Laser weapons are not just the stuff of Buck Rogers any more, and the THEL program is just a small component of a multi-billion dollar effort by the U.S. military to introduce laser weapons to the battlefield. Within ten years, the U.S. military plans to mount powerful laser weapons on tanks, Humvees, fighter jets, and other aircraft. Research is even underway to develop a Humvee-mounted non-lethal microwave energy weapon capable of incapacitating people by causing severe pain. If these efforts are successful, energy weapons will revolutionize warfare in the 21st century.

What are the effects on the human eye? I've seen an industrial laser before, and it's impossible to be in the vicinity of it without protective goggles, lest you be blinded.

And...I really don't like the sound of that microwave weapon. Could be dangerous for any kids you might want to have in the future. :p

What are the effects on the human eye? I've seen an industrial laser before, and it's impossible to be in the vicinity of it without protective goggles, lest you be blinded.

And...I really don't like the sound of that microwave weapon. Could be dangerous for any kids you might want to have in the future. :p
Microwave is RF radiation, not ionizing radiation and will not damage DNA. If you're exposed to enough of it I suppose it might cook you, but it won't sterilize you.

What are the effects on the human eye? I've seen an industrial laser before, and it's impossible to be in the vicinity of it without protective goggles, lest you be blinded.

And...I really don't like the sound of that microwave weapon. Could be dangerous for any kids you might want to have in the future. :p

Depends on the wavelength. Apparently, the ATL is in the near-infrared, and doesn't cause blindness.

It does, however, cause people to disintegrate, or tanks to suddenly grow holes (or blow up). All in near silence (you won't see the beam or hear it fire - although you might hear someone disintegrate).

Yes we should continue to use DU. However, tungsten is an alternative and from what I have read, its penetration numbers are the same. Cost I am not sure about. I also believe we should continue using 50 caliber weapons, cluster bombs, shotguns, incendiaries, etc. It would hamper our own self-defense to ban these and the whole UN rules of warfare are BS. They're naive to think that everyone will follow them. Superpowers fighting each other may. Will Iran, the DPRK, etc. follow them? That's doubtful. Do terrorists follow them? No. Would Russia follow them? No. So this is exactly the understand why the US doesn't follow them to the letter and the T. No law is legitimate if only a few follow it and not all.

Sierra, thanx for the info on the advanced weaponry.

People will always be worried about some aspect of everything...

Blindness?
Who cares about that, when you have been holed by the laser beam?

Genetic effects?
Who is gonna worry about that, after they've been thoroughly cooked by the microwaves?

War=killing people and breaking things!

Love these new energy weapons!:D :D :D

I think that if the Advanced Tactical Laser lives up to its testing, it will, as the article suggests, imply a silent weapon that kills without being seen, from a distance so great you don't realize you're being attacked. And vehicles will be holed or explode, and people will be vaporized out of their socks.

I can see the panic that would ensue once people on the ground realized they were being attacked. And it would leave no craters, and no depleted uranium. And no rifling marks. And no empty shell cases. And no bomb shrapnel with US labels on it.

In fact, under certain conditions, it might be possible to deny attacking at all.

I wonder how silent and invisible will it really be. From what I hear Lasers heat the particles in the air, creating and explosion like sound as the air in its path expands and then contracts again.

Also in battlefield conditions with all the movement, air will probably be very dirty, so it will a lot easier to see the path of the laser and thus, its origin.

I can already see countermeasures being added to all forces to block the advantages of lasers.