NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quick intro first: Uranium is one of the heaviest metals around. Because it's got so much mass, you can make penetrators out of it that can be very effective against armour.

Several countries therefore use depleted uranium (ie byproducts of the nuclear industry which then get treated so they're not as radioactive) to make armour-piercing bullets and penetrators.

The US and the UK are the main 'offenders', them being the only ones who have actually used the stuff in combat. However, there are plenty of other countries (including France, Greece, Israel (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061116&articleId=3884) and Egypt, according to wiki) who have it in their arsenals.

Now, of course doing that is controversial, not least because people think the world is going to end when they hear the word "Uranium".

The problem is though that even though the radioactivity is mostly negligible, Uranium is still a toxic metal. When a high-velocity penetrator hits a bit of armour, a whole lot of chemistry goes on, at the end of which is a cloud of essentially toxic super-fine dust particles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6247401.stm

There have been a billion reports on people getting illnesses, children being born with problems and even the soldiers who handle the ammunition reporting health problems. Many people say that "Gulf War Syndrome" is actually caused by DU Ammunition.

Obviously the relevant governments deny any link or at least don't take any responsibility.

The alternative to DU is Tungsten, which is used by many other NATO countries. While also not particularly good for your health, as I understand it there is not as much dust that is blown all over the place, and I haven't heard of any problems traced back to Tungsten being used.

Problem is that Tungsten is also more expensive than just using old nuclear left-overs, and doesn't ignite on impact the way DU does (I'd argue that the people inside the targetted vehicle are going to end up dead or incapacitated either way, but that's just me).

So, given these things...is DU Ammunition worth it? Afterall, places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are now littered with toxic, slightly radioactive materials. Cleaning up the stuff takes a long time and is expensive, and in the meantime people seem to exhibit all sorts of medical problems.

I think it's a good point lost in the fact that we've all been iradiated by the thousands of nuclear devices we've detonated over the last half a century. We were making bigger and bigger tests up until Russia done the 50MT.

And you're right, if you're inside a target vehicle, you will not survive. Normally you are vapourised.

I'd say we shouldn't use DU shells if at all possible its an unnecessary risk when the only real armour your going to face is maybe an immobilized T-55

So, given these things...is DU Ammunition worth it? Afterall, places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq are now littered with toxic, slightly radioactive materials. Cleaning up the stuff takes a long time and is expensive, and in the meantime people seem to exhibit all sorts of medical problems.

no of course not, it damages the population to much. what's the point in liberating them if you are going to poison them? and i also think it's kind of useless to use as defence, since it doesn't sound like a good plan to spray nuclear waste over your own country.

I hate to be the one to tell you this but that Uranium came from this very planet. In fact, the world is loaded with toxic substances, many of which occur naturally. And it's not like these rounds are standard issue to every soldier. And I don't think it'd be unreasonable to request a list of names of these billion people reported sick along with examination records from the doctors that checked them out and made this determination.

Before you tear into me for whatever your reason I'd just like some names and numbers. That's all I'm asking for.

DU (mostly U-238 isotope) is radioactive, although a lot less than enriched uranium (>5% U-235 isotope). Both because it is intrinsecally radioactive, and because it comes out of nuclear processes, so it is contaminated by shorter-lived byproducts of fission (unstable isotopes of Ba, Th, Hf, Po etc.). Plus, all heavy metals are very toxic. Remember what happened to Japanese who ate fishes that were full of Hg.
By hitting the target (at supersonic speed), a DU projectile sends off a lot of debris that pollute the nearby area. This poses a threat to any person who will be in the area in the next years, and also may pollute water.
By this reason, DU ammo should be abolished, like poison gases etc.

In the correct circumstances, yes.

I hate to be the one to tell you this but that Uranium came from this very planet. In fact, the world is loaded with toxic substances, many of which occur naturally.

Yes, but they are normally in ore underground and not in concentrated amounts in the environment. Humans do that.

I was thinking about depleted uranium when I heard about the AC-130 strike on Ras Kamboni. They were talking about how it has guns that can take out buildings and tanks. Meaning it has armour-piercing ammunition, meaning it uses depeleted uranium. Which in turn means it was quite likely that they were firing DU into a civilian area. And as Neu Leonstein says Uranium is chemically toxic in itself and is turned into a highly toxic dust, that be breathed into the lungs of others, upon impact.

Before you tear into me for whatever your reason I'd just like some names and numbers. That's all I'm asking for.
Oh, I'm not gonna tear.

The medical profession is not clear on the link just yet. There seems to be a lot of correlation, but that of course doesn't automatically imply causation.

Apart from the organisation in Italy referred to in the link, I can give you these few. As I said, they're not hard evidence, but I think we can accept that there is a correlation happening here. It's not safe to just have the dust settle somewhere. They're proving that by sending in clean-up teams to remove it in Bosnia.

http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/DUuse+hazard.pdf
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/EUweaponsres12f03.pdf
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71585-0.html (this one's got a name ;) )
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/en/Recommend_Med_Officers_final.pdf

I was thinking about depleted uranium when I heard about the AC-130 strike on Ras Kamboni. They were talking about how it has guns that can take out buildings and tanks. Meaning it has armour-piercing ammunition, meaning it uses depeleted uranium. Which in turn means it was quite likely that they were firing DU into a civilian area. And as Neu Leonstein says Uranium is chemically toxic in itself and is turned into a highly toxic dust, that be breathed into the lungs of others, upon impact.
Even a standard round propelled fast enough and weighing enough will penetrate armor. It is however impractical for infantry to carry such large, normally vehicle-mounted weapons.

I don't think its morally justfiable, no. The link isn't proven for certain yet, but I'd say that's just a matter of time.

Depleted uranium? Pfhhh. Osmium for the win!

Germany had a hard time getting enough Tungsten from the Swedes back in Dubly 2.

Do i think the use of DU is worth it?
I don't like the stuff but some military planner feels the need to use up all that excess trash, why do they care if the enemy gets ill?
They pretty much don't, but during the earleir Gulf War troops were coming back reporting illnesses of all sorts, some say it's DU some say Anti -Malaria or Anti-Biological weapons treatments some say it doesn't exist.

Tungsten vs Depleted Uranium, Tungsten after penetration very well may kill a tank crew but might not destroy the tank perhaps the thinking with DU is you'll gut the insides making it a wrecked shell.

But in the end it's just a cheap way of getting rid of useless materials.

I think it's great! how innovative humans are in slaughtering eachother is fascinating!

Well, war is war, whether you're talking about using standard bullets or depleted uranium shells, people die, places are destroyed, and it's really not pretty. I'd rather we not do it altogether, to be honest, though if you have to war, you use what works, I suppose.

Still, such uranium can actually be utilized by breeder reactors, so using it in warfare is a bit of a waste, in my mind.

I hate to be the one to tell you this but that Uranium came from this very planet. In fact, the world is loaded with toxic substances, many of which occur naturally.


Yes, but they are normally in ore underground and not in concentrated amounts in the environment. Humans do that.

Exactly. Mercury is found naturally, but it's not a good idea to stand over a pool of it and inhale the vapors, or spray it around a civilian area with a special hose, is it?

Ditto with APDU rounds. They're effective, but the benefits are trivial when the armed forces the US and UK are facing have military equipment that is completely obsolete by today's standards. Tungsten rounds would do the trick just as well.

U-238 is actually relatively safe to handle and store in small amounts - it's not the most radioactive substance known to man, but it is an alpha emitter - it poses no danger as long as you don't ingest or inhale it, which is the real risk...and that's exactly what happens when you're firing rounds at vehicles in a populated area.

Well, war is war, whether you're talking about using standard bullets or depleted uranium shells, people die, places are destroyed, and it's really not pretty. I'd rather we not do it altogether, to be honest, though if you have to war, you use what works, I suppose.

Still, such uranium can actually be utilized by breeder reactors, so using it in warfare is a bit of a waste, in my mind.This is the problem with the post-imperial era. No one actually conquers places anymore, so they have no incentive to get the territory they attack back on its economic feet again. Imperial powers would instead waste the lives of their soldiers instead of peppering the area with DU and the like. Birth defects are bad for business you know.

Anyway, that's my dose of bullshit used up for the day.

I'd be for banning DU...IF we can get international consensus from other countries.

Russia and China, particularly, have to be with us on this issue, for any real progress to be made. They don't use it yet (to my knowledge), but that doesn't mean they won't change their minds the day after the US and UK stop using it.

Exactly. Mercury is found naturally, but it's not a good idea to stand over a pool of it and inhale the vapors, or spray it around a civilian area with a special hose, is it?

Anthrax, Agent Orange, Napalm, DDT to name a few lovely things we've sprayed here and there.

Anthrax, Agent Orange, Napalm, DDT to name a few lovely things we've sprayed here and there.

And those were fantastic ideas, too. :p

Anthrax, Agent Orange, Napalm, DDT to name a few lovely things we've sprayed here and there.
When did the USA or the UK ever use anthrax? Eh, the benefits of DDT greatly outweighed the unpleasant side effects, it was a good thing overall.

When did the USA or the UK ever use anthrax?

The UK tested it in WW2, I believe, and the US maintained a weapon stockpile for several decades.

Eh, the benefits of DDT greatly outweighed the unpleasant side effects, it was a good thing overall.

Many third world nations still use it.

Personally, i'm rather glad that we don't.

When did the USA or the UK ever use anthrax? Eh, the benefits of DDT greatly outweighed the unpleasant side effects, it was a good thing overall.I believe it has always been more effective to poison the breeding grounds of mosquitos rather try and poison every single mosquito everywhere. Poisoning breeding grounds can be as simple as draining wetland areas, or putting a thin layer of oil on top of breeding grounds.

No breeding grounds for mosquitos, then no baby mosquitos, then no more mosquitos within a couple of mosquito generations.

Russia and China, particularly, have to be with us on this issue, for any real progress to be made.
Russian tanks have been armed with it since the Seventies. Not so sure about the Chinese, but I'd bet they have the stuff too (looks like it, anyways (http://www.china-defense.com/armor/type98-2/type98-2_1.html)). It's not really that hard to make.

The UK tested it in WW2, I believe, and the US maintained a weapon stockpile for several decades.



Many third world nations still use it.

Personally, i'm rather glad that we don't.
Well, it doesn't really count as spraying anthrax here and there if it was only tested by the UK and not actually used at all by the USA.

Well, first world countries don't really need to use DDT, what with their lack of malaria and whatnot. If you drain wetlands and chuck oil over ponds and lakes, surely that hurts the environment just as much as spraying DDT does? Of course, I can't really comment on the effectiveness of it at getting rid of mosquitoes, since I have no clue. IIRC, if you keep spraying DDT constantly until the mosquitoes are pretty much gone, to prevent them from building up too much resistance, then that already has extremely high effectiveness

Anyway, I'm not saying we should resume DDT spraying or anything, since there are other alternatives out there; just that looking at DDT on its own, it has saved many more lives than it may have damaged.

Hey, Depleted Uranium gets the job done.
Hey, so do nukes. Lets just use those. Fuck civilians.
:headbang:

Hey, so do nukes. Lets just use those. Fuck civilians.
:headbang:

now theres an "oldie but goldie"
seconded.

This is the problem with the post-imperial era. No one actually conquers places anymore, so they have no incentive to get the territory they attack back on its economic feet again. Imperial powers would instead waste the lives of their soldiers instead of peppering the area with DU and the like. Birth defects are bad for business you know.

Anyway, that's my dose of bullshit used up for the day.

You raise a good point though. In a way, post colonial millitary adventurism is far less restrained than old fashioned colonial smash and grab. Mostly because no one has to actually live there after they are done smashing it up.

And there was a refreshing honesty to imperialism. It's all a bit nebulous these days.

You raise a good point though. In a way, post colonial millitary adventurism is far less restrained than old fashioned colonial smash and grab. Mostly because no one has to actually live there after they are done smashing it up.

And there was a refreshing honesty to imperialism. It's all a bit nebulous these days.Imperialism wasn't always honest, but more honesty cropped up more frequently than it does now.

I can't find my source now, but I think it shows that the vast bulk of infrastructure in Africa dates from the colonial era. Same in the ex-USSR. Education and healthcare have all diminished since the its fall. Literacy rates in Central Asia are slowly dropping away from the Soviet levels of 99%.

I'd be for banning DU...IF we can get international consensus from other countries.

Russia and China, particularly, have to be with us on this issue, for any real progress to be made. They don't use it yet (to my knowledge), but that doesn't mean they won't change their minds the day after the US and UK stop using it.

Oh really. The Russians using it in Chechnya or the Chinese in ... uh ... Tibet or somewhere. Big woop. And they wouldn't bother anyway, against unarmoured targets.

The US maintains stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and I'm not too fussed about that. Having them in the armoury and actually using them are quite different things.

My point: the US could simply stop using DU ordinance, without making any kind of commitment to never use it again.

You raise a good point though. In a way, post colonial millitary adventurism is far less restrained than old fashioned colonial smash and grab. Mostly because no one has to actually live there after they are done smashing it up.

And there was a refreshing honesty to imperialism. It's all a bit nebulous these days.

I don't think imperialism was honest at all. We have the benefit of hindsight, but at the time there was enourmous amounts of BS about 'development' and 'bringing civilization and prosperity.'

"White man's burden" or "Freedom on the march" it's much the same bullshit.

I was thinking about depleted uranium when I heard about the AC-130 strike on Ras Kamboni. They were talking about how it has guns that can take out buildings and tanks. Meaning it has armour-piercing ammunition, meaning it uses depeleted uranium. Which in turn means it was quite likely that they were firing DU into a civilian area. And as Neu Leonstein says Uranium is chemically toxic in itself and is turned into a highly toxic dust, that be breathed into the lungs of others, upon impact.

No, Spectres don't generally use DU. Depleted Uranium is primarily used to make the penetrators for SABOT rounds, specialized anti-tank munitions. These are generally used only by Tanks and Anti-Tank Guns (using a SABOT on anything less is like using a .50 BMG round to punch holes in paper napkins). The AC-130 Spectre has a 105mm howitzer - it's explosive shells are quite capable of destroying any tank without DU enhancement.

Uranium is one of the heaviest metals around.

Just a quick intro: War is not nice. War means killing the enemy and keeping your own troops alive. War means the destruction of the enemy and his resources. It is obvious that rubber bullets and laughing gas will not do that job. Neither will water cannons, tug of war, or feeding the enemy food from McD's.

Bullets, bombs, rockets, land mines, etc are the weapons of war. If depleted Uranium works in destroying the enemy, use it.

No, Spectres don't generally use DU. Depleted Uranium is primarily used to make the penetrators for SABOT rounds, specialized anti-tank munitions. These are generally used only by Tanks and Anti-Tank Guns (using a SABOT on anything less is like using a .50 BMG round to punch holes in paper napkins). The AC-130 Spectre has a 105mm howitzer - it's explosive shells are quite capable of destroying any tank without DU enhancement.

Also the cannon of the A-10 fires DU rounds, I think.
A 105mm howitzer shell isn't going to do much damage to a modern tank (like Leo2A5, Ariete, Abrams, T-80, T-90, Leclerc...), but the idea of the Spectre isn't about firing at tanks. There are attack helicopters (like the Apache Longbow, the Ka-50/52, the Mangusta...) and tank-killer planes (like A-10, Su-25...) for that job. No to mention infantry AT missiles (TOW, Milan, Krizantema...).

I don't think imperialism was honest at all. We have the benefit of hindsight, but at the time there was enourmous amounts of BS about 'development' and 'bringing civilization and prosperity.'

"White man's burden" or "Freedom on the march" it's much the same bullshit.

If you read to much kipling, or listen to too many of gladstone's speaches, I suppose you could think that. But frankly, a lot of the time there was no pretence about what Imperial powers were doing. They were taking land from people they considered to backward to use it properly. Look at the history of colonial africa and the conquest of rhodesia, there was never an intention to take up a white man's burden. Or pretty much the history of the east india company.

I mean, I don't think the german people got grumpy enough to support WWI just because they didn't get their fair share of the 'white man's burden'.

Lead is poisonous, too.

Not more poisonous then OMG THERE IS A BULLET IN MY LUNG in the first place, though.

Bullets, bombs, rockets, land mines, etc are the weapons of war. If depleted Uranium works in destroying the enemy, use it.

You mean just like rounding up every single person and sending them to death camps works for rooting out insurgencies? I'm fairly certain there's a reason why it isn't done. [/sarcasm]

Lead is poisonous, too.

Not more poisonous then OMG THERE IS A BULLET IN MY LUNG in the first place, though.

Bullets don't hang around in dust form, getting into the ecosystem, and everyone who goes near. (Assuming I've read your point correctly)

Bullets don't hang around in dust form, getting into the ecosystem, and everyone who goes near. (Assuming I've read your point correctly)

Actually, the lead in bullets does leach out over time. That's why ranges in the US have to comply with state and Federal regulations on lead cleanup.

It's also why lead birdshot is banned in waterfowl hunting - because the lead gets into the environment. Bismuth and tungsten and steel shot are used in waterfowl hunting in the US because of the lead hazard.

Just a quick intro: War is not nice. War means killing the enemy and keeping your own troops alive. War means the destruction of the enemy and his resources. It is obvious that rubber bullets and laughing gas will not do that job. Neither will water cannons, tug of war, or feeding the enemy food from McD's.

Bullets, bombs, rockets, land mines, etc are the weapons of war. If depleted Uranium works in destroying the enemy, use it.

Consider for a second the aftermath of a war. The people in a war zone that have to live there after the battles are done and after the conflict has ended. Or, if you look at the Iraq conflict, the people still living in a war-zone that we are trying to save. Do we have the right to endanger their lives by leaving behind mines or toxic byproducts from our weapons? Don't you think it is a little counterproductive to kill the people you're trying to help?

Actually, the lead in bullets does leach out over time. That's why ranges in the US have to comply with state and Federal regulations on lead cleanup.

It's also why lead birdshot is banned in waterfowl hunting - because the lead gets into the environment. Bismuth and tungsten and steel shot are used in waterfowl hunting in the US because of the lead hazard.

Oh well, yeah, I expect it does, actually. Didn't think of that. I still feel DU is more of an issue. I can possibly see a ban on DU (well at least hope), but bullets aren't going anywhere soon.

Oh well, yeah, I expect it does, actually. Didn't think of that. I still feel DU is more of an issue. I can possibly see a ban on DU (well at least hope), but bullets aren't going anywhere soon.

There's already a ban on lead birdshot in the US.

There's already restrictions on ranges and a big regulatory effort to clean them up.

There are major restrictions on airborne lead (vapor) at indoor ranges - most indoor ranges now require fully jacketed bullets or non-lead bullets.

Lead is toxic. There is even lead in the primers of bullets (lead styphnate), which means that lead vapor goes into the air when you shoot. A major effort to change the priming compound is underway.

We fire a lot more lead in war than we do DU. Think about it.

Depleted uranium?

No problem. It does the job far more efficiently than the alternatives. And, it makes lighter vehicles far more deadlier than their size wouild make them out to be.

Also the cannon of the A-10 fires DU rounds, I think.
A 105mm howitzer shell isn't going to do much damage to a modern tank (like Leo2A5, Ariete, Abrams, T-80, T-90, Leclerc...), but the idea of the Spectre isn't about firing at tanks. There are attack helicopters (like the Apache Longbow, the Ka-50/52, the Mangusta...) and tank-killer planes (like A-10, Su-25...) for that job. No to mention infantry AT missiles (TOW, Milan, Krizantema...).

Yeah, I think you might be right about the A-10. Mind you, that flying cannon comes under the heading of "very unusual weapons" anyway!

A 105 generally won't hard-kill a modern tank, no. But it can often get a soft-kill by destroying treads and vision blocks.

depleted uranium makes great ballast for anything that doesn't have to be handled by living organisms or kept within their proximity. i knew of an O scale 0-6-0 that was weighted with the stuff, it would outpull just about anything anyone ever build in that scale. fortunately the amount involved didn't, as far as i know, kill anybody from exposure to it.

this by contrast with personel having to freequently handly large quantities of munitions ballasted with this stuff. basicly what they are being required to do is on the same order of suicidal as spending 24 hours a day for the rest of however long their lives last, in a sealed room full of tobacco smoke.

or painting cars without wearing a dust mask. the sort of things that may not be IMMEDIATELY fatal, but dam well stack up the odds against anyone enguaged in it.

of course the whole question of munitions beggs the deeper questions of the morality of warfare itself.

=^^=
.../\...

Just a quick intro: War is not nice. War means killing the enemy and keeping your own troops alive.(snip)

And herein lies the problem. Friendly troops are not warned to keep "buttoned up" while in areas where DU has been used. Exposing your own troops to a long term hazard won't take them out of the battle, so won't compromise your fighting force in the short term, but it's pretty effed up to just send them home and ignore the resulting problems, which might not show up until the next generation.

DU should never be used in shells under any circumstances. There is no compelling justification for using such indiscriminate weapons.

All the modern cases of use of DU shells were completely unnecessary. The American m1a1 and the British Challengers 1 & 2 do not need to use DU shells to take out T-55s. Can someone show me a tank used by a rogue state or any enemy of NATO/the US that would require the use of DU to be penetrated?

All the modern cases of use of DU shells were completely unnecessary. The American m1a1 and the British Challengers 1 & 2 do not need to use DU shells to take out T-55s. Can someone show me a tank used by a rogue state or any enemy of NATO/the US that would require the use of DU to be penetrated?

T-72 tanks used by the Iraqi Army.

And, down the road, you never know what the enemy will be driving.

That said, I think the future of US anti-tank weaponry will be the advanced tactical laser, or some such variant. It has no logistical "tail" to support other than the fuel the vehicle already carries - it burns through any armor - it doesn't cause collateral damage - and it arrives on target without any fancy "leads" in the same instant the trigger is pulled.

So, ok, no more DU. On to something better.

T-72 tanks used by the Iraqi Army.

And, down the road, you never know what the enemy will be driving.

That said, I think the future of US anti-tank weaponry will be the advanced tactical laser, or some such variant. It has no logistical "tail" to support other than the fuel the vehicle already carries - it burns through any armor - it doesn't cause collateral damage - and it arrives on target without any fancy "leads" in the same instant the trigger is pulled.

So, ok, no more DU. On to something better.

Like Iridium or Osmium. Denser is better. Plus, no radioactivity.

Like Iridium or Osmium. Denser is better. Plus, no radioactivity.

I'm convinced that if the US military switched over to lasers (as seems to be the direction for air to ground weaponry, as characterized by the Advanced Tactical Laser and the AC-X gunship), which have no collateral damage, no residue, etc., etc. that people usually complain about, they'll find something else to complain about.

Like how fucking effective they are.

I'm convinced that if the US military switched over to lasers (as seems to be the direction for air to ground weaponry, as characterized by the Advanced Tactical Laser and the AC-X gunship), which have no collateral damage, no residue, etc., etc. that people usually complain about, they'll find something else to complain about.

Like how fucking effective they are.

I don't know about lasers...as well as being power hogs (which can probably be got around) they're also rather delicate, not something you want to use in the field. For antiair and antimissile work you need lightspeed weapons, so they'll probably tolerate them for that. But for an MBT you need a weapon that will work reliably under very adverse conditions. Coilguns are more rugged - but you'd probably still want to use DU penetrators., so that's not a huge advantage.

Trotskylvania - Iridium and Osmium!!? You want the weapons loadout to cost a thousand times what the TANK does????

I'm convinced that if the US military switched over to lasers (as seems to be the direction for air to ground weaponry, as characterized by the Advanced Tactical Laser and the AC-X gunship), which have no collateral damage, no residue, etc., etc. that people usually complain about, they'll find something else to complain about.

Like how fucking effective they are.

What was the name of that guy waay back in NS who was all "DU? No problem. You could eat the stuff for breakfast"

That was you wasn't it?

As for it's use, I figure people would complain more on the manner it will be used than it's use. DU get's complaints for being used as munitions simply because it's residue affects everyone in the area even after combat operations. It's like seeding an area with land mines and not keeping maps for post battle/war clearance.

What was the name of that guy waay back in NS who was all "DU? No problem. You could eat the stuff for breakfast"

That was you wasn't it?

Nope. Read back in this thread - I even note that lead is a hazard, and I don't hear people complaining about all the lead we leave in a war zone.

Actually DU is used in armour of some tanks including Abrams M1A1 which also fires DU rounds.

Nope. Read back in this thread - I even note that lead is a hazard, and I don't hear people complaining about all the lead we leave in a war zone.

Lead doesn't ignite when impacting at high velocities like DU does, creating clouds of fine DU powder. And while lead is toxic, I don't remember it being an alpha emitter.

I found this from a US veteran's web site
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1837

In the 1991 Gulf War 350 tons of DU was fired and in the following years this amount was much more substantial. In the current wars the estimate amount of DU usage in Afghanistan was 1,000 tons in 2001 and in Iraq that amount was 2,400 tons in 2003. The DoD is showing no signs of stopping DU usage knowing that it is harmful to both our service members and the environment.

Lead doesn't ignite when impacting at high velocities like DU does, creating clouds of fine DU powder. And while lead is toxic, I don't remember it being an alpha emitter.

Lead does leach into the environment, and is a long term hazard.

Try growing crops in a field where lead is present. The crops will pull the lead right out of the ground, and people will ingest it.

See back in the thread as to the precautions that are incumbent upon any shooting range in the US, and the ban on use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting.

I'm convinced that if the US military switched over to lasers (as seems to be the direction for air to ground weaponry, as characterized by the Advanced Tactical Laser and the AC-X gunship), which have no collateral damage, no residue, etc., etc. that people usually complain about, they'll find something else to complain about.

Like how fucking effective they are.

Im having Ronald Reagan Star Wars laser anti defence missle school report flashbacks. I seem to remember all those years ago that the defences to lasers tended to be cheaper and far more effective then the weapons themselves. (Mirrored surfaces and other things to diffuse or deflect the beams etc.)

Im having Ronald Reagan Star Wars laser anti defence missle school report flashbacks. I seem to remember all those years ago that the defences to lasers tended to be cheaper and far more effective then the weapons themselves. (Mirrored surfaces etc.)

Mirrored surfaces don't work against IR lasers. And if the pulse length is short enough, the mirror won't work (the power density on impact is far too high and the dwell time very short).

Mirrored surfaces don't work against IR lasers. And if the pulse length is short enough, the mirror won't work (the power density on impact is far too high and the dwell time very short).

So your telling me that with a few billion in R&D someone somewhere on the planet wont find another kind of mirror that will do the same? Its been a game of oneupmanship since cavemen moved from the stick to the stone.

When someone claims to have a "perfect" weapon and we dont have them lining the parade grounds and a few hundred of them at every Army depot my BS meter starts ringing. And im not buying well the US government is just dumb arguement either(despite compelling evidence otherwise)

Im having Ronald Reagan Star Wars laser anti defence missle school report flashbacks. I seem to remember all those years ago that the defences to lasers tended to be cheaper and far more effective then the weapons themselves. (Mirrored surfaces etc.)

Actually, a lot of those "defenses" wouldn't work worth a damn - they were popularized in a (largely successful) attempt to deride an important and largely successful research program.

Mirrored surfaces, for instnce, are completely worthless. A missile or plane with mirrored surfaces will be totally anti-stealth - you'll see it coming far, far away, but unless those surfaces are OPTICALLY PERFECT mirrors, they won't reflect more than a tiny fraction of a Laser's energy, leaving far more than enough to destroy the target.

Anti-Laser Aerosols work - but how do you get a cloud of that between the plane and the beam emitter?

Lasers work, within their natural limitations. It's largely thanks to the Star Wars programs that we know what those limits are, and how to circumvent them.

So your telling me that with a few billion in R&D someone somewhere on the planet wont find another kind of mirror that will do the same? Its been a game of oneupmanship since cavemen moved from the stick to the stone.

Apparently, it's been two decades, and no one has found the counter to the modern laser (the one used in the Advanced Tactical Laser).

It will burn through any metal, at ranges up to 20km. The laser can engage ground targets in rapid succession at variable power levels. As a "for instance", it is capable of switching from one person to another every few tenths of a second, picking people out of a crowd.

A lot of the so-called "objections" to laser weapons have either been disproved or eliminated.

Just a quick intro: War is not nice. War means killing the enemy and keeping your own troops alive. War means the destruction of the enemy and his resources. It is obvious that rubber bullets and laughing gas will not do that job. Neither will water cannons, tug of war, or feeding the enemy food from McD's.
I’ll never understand how it’s so easy to dismiss the atrocities of way with platitudes like, “war is not nice.” Most of the people saying such things seem to be neither sociopathic nor mentally handicapped to the point of not understanding object permanence. I therefore must conclude that these people willfully ignore the basic human response to suffering.

A lot of the so-called "objections" to laser weapons have either been disproved or eliminated.

I see. So the US government has a supereffective superweapon and some of the most brilliant minds in the world whos entire job is to do nothing but study these issues just went ....nah... for no good reason? Im not buying it.

I see. So the US government has a supereffective superweapon and some of the most brilliant minds in the world whos entire job is to do nothing but study these issues just went ....nah... for no good reason? Im not buying it.

The US wouldn't be spending the money to acquire and put it into production if it was that easy to defeat.

Add to this the fact that the most likely targets will be third world insurgents who are running around in their normal flammable clothing and carrying AK rifles.

The plane that shoots them with the laser will be 20km away, frying their individual heads off their bodies.

The US wouldn't be spending the money to acquire and put it into production if it was that easy to defeat.

Add to this the fact that the most likely targets will be third world insurgents who are running around in their normal flammable clothing and carrying AK rifles.

The plane that shoots them with the laser will be 20km away, frying their individual heads off their bodies.

In order for a plane to target an individual insurgent from 20km away he still needs a spotter. If you have a spotter then a 50 cent sniper bullet will do the same trick and will probably be FAR easier to get a clear line of sight shot at. Still not impressed.

I see. So the US government has a supereffective superweapon and some of the most brilliant minds in the world whos entire job is to do nothing but study these issues just went ....nah... for no good reason? Im not buying it.

It's not a superweapon. Powering the thing's a stone bitch for anything too small to mount a nuclear reactor in, and it has real, provable problems in rain or a sandstorm. They also tend to be bulky, expensive and delicate.

BUT...they let us reach out and touch the bad guys at 20 KM instantly. And with computer control offer us a real chance at nailing an incoming warshot before impact - something we only had a small chance to do before, and that was with the capacities of a Cruiser. Definitely a technology worth pursuing.

In order for a plane to target an individual insurgent from 20km away he still needs a spotter. If you have a spotter then a 50 cent sniper bullet will do the same trick. Still not impressed.

Er - no, actually. Modern sensors can spot an individual insurgent at up to 50 KM from the air. Modern optics (derived from spy sat technologies) are very sensitive indeed.

Er - no, actually. Modern sensors can spot an individual insurgent at up to 50 KM from the air. Modern optics (derived from spy sat technologies) are very sensitive indeed.

Just so im clear, your telling me that a plane can shoot a straight beam from plane to a straight line of sight head poking from around a brick building and drop him just like a sniper could from 20km? Im having serious doubts but if you tell me they can...

Just so im clear, your telling me that a plane can shoot a straight beam from plane to a straight line of sight head poking from around a brick building and drop him just like a sniper could from 50km? Im having serious doubts but if you tell me they can...

No. It can deep-fry said insurgent and the local area around him at 20 Km. Modern optics can only identify him as an insurgent at 50 Km.

Really, something we COULD do with a missile right now - but for much less cost and he won't see it coming.

No. It can deep-fry said insurgent and the local area around him at 20 Km. Modern optics can only identify him as an insurgent at 50 Km.

Really, something we COULD do with a missile right now - but for much less cost and he won't see it coming.

Missles with the capability to go 20km are dirt cheap. Thats just a few steps above a hobby rocket lol

Missles with the capability to go 20km are dirt cheap. Thats just a few steps above a hobby rocket lol

True enough. But would the hobby rocket hit what it was aimed at? This will.

In all honesty, while the ground-attack aspects of this technology are quite spectacular, my personal belief is that the biggest effect is going to be ground-to-air. You can't hide from a Laser in the sky.

The government would never spend money on something if it didn't work? Did somebody actually say that?

Hell, in the military itself, lets talk about wastes of money, such as the Sgt. York Anti-Air system. The military has and always will sink millions into weapons systems only to abandon them.

I'm going to ignore the whole laser argument and the flaws they have and go back to depleted uranium.

Yeah, they create a cloud of toxic dust - how many other things in the military are toxic? High-powered cleaners, weapon systems, COMPASSES, munitions, the list goes on forever. You think breathing in all that gunsmoke is healthy? Yes indeed, it has lead residue in it, and you're breathing it in.

The military has used DU for years, and I'm fairly sure that if DU was as extremely dangerous as it was, every single M1 tanker would be showing up in hospitals for cancer.

I'm all for finding an alternative weapons system, but what we have now is quick, cheap, effective, and there is not enough evidence to prove that its as toxic as its being made out to be in this thread.

By the way, who the hell said missiles were cheap? What are you smoking? Even then, missiles will not be replacing conventional projectiles for a very long time.

Mirrored surfaces don't work against IR lasers. And if the pulse length is short enough, the mirror won't work (the power density on impact is far too high and the dwell time very short).

I'm thinking some kind of thermal grenade with an outer jacket of water. Water molecules in mist do wonders for diffracting focused optical weapons.

Or for aircraft and such, an outer thin skin of the usual alloy with a jacket of water/diffraction aerosol/etc just beneath in cell format. If a laser punctures the outer layer, the heat would cause the liquid/gas/etc to jet out, ruining beam coherency.

In fact, there's good money the Topol M has such a design.

By the way, who the hell said missiles were cheap? What are you smoking? Even then, missiles will not be replacing conventional projectiles for a very long time.

You couldnt look back ONE post to see who said that and in exactly what context? You fail at the internetz.