You find A-10s in the strangest places

[Tailspin45]

There's an article on the Scientific American magazine's website covering depleted uranium ammo.

 

Unfortunately, it's very poorly written and creates more of the issue, in my opinion, than it apparently is trying to overcome.

 

The DU in an A-10 round has 60% of the fissile isotopes of natural unranium, for crying out loud. That's what depleted means!

 

One commenter complains about how microscopic particles are created when a round hits, oh I dunno know, say, a tank, and that they can be bad for your health.

 

Well I cerrtainly hope so. That's the idea, isn't it?

 

Worried about left overs? Get over it. Biological half life of the next-to-no-radiation is 15 days.

 

In any event, if you have the opportunity to pick up DU rounds you'll be amazed at how heavy the suckers are compared to a normal round.

 

Anyway, they're always better to see going away from you than coming toward you!

Edited June 26, 2011 by Tailspin45
added image

[Tailspin45]

A better place

 

Ooops, head up and locked. This is where it belongs. Thanks for moving it, whoever you are.

[EtherealN]

One commenter complains about how microscopic particles are created when a round hits, oh I dunno know, say, a tank, and that they can be bad for your health.

 

Well I cerrtainly hope so. That's the idea, isn't it?

 

Actually, no, having an aerosolized heavy metal is NOT the idea of the weapon. ;)

 

Worried about left overs? Get over it. Biological half life of the next-to-no-radiation is 15 days.

 

The particulation, so to speak, and the hazards with it has absolutely nothing to do with radiation. The point is that ingestion of heavy metals does not require a very big dose at all to offer toxicity. There is a legitimate concern there. However - the concern exists in equal measure for pretty much all non-HE rounds no matter if the penetrator relies on DU or regular Lead. Heavy metal = bad basically.

 

Anyways, that aspect has already seen something like five billion threads on it. Search function is good. ;)

[Frostiken]

Okay, we get it, no need to lay on the hyperbole...

 

- DU is less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore - but natural uranium ore isn't smashed to particulate dust on the surface of the earth. It pretty much stays safely deep underground or in processing plants and reactors, so the comparison is a complete non-issue.

 

- Criticism with DU is that it gets turned into this dust (and great quantities of it are used on single targets, this we know). While this may not be a problem with Iraqi tanks in the middle of a desert, what about on hardened targets in or near civilian populaces?

 

- DU doesn't decay because as it is U238 it has a half-life on the order of millions of years. Additionally, there is negligible hazard from gamma radiation - however the primary health hazard is from inhalation or ingestion, where both radiological contamination can affect soft unprotected tissues, and the metal itself can contaminate the bloodstream.

 

- Ipso facto, you destroy a tank with a couple hundred rounds of DU. The dust blows around, stays inside the wreck, buries itself into the soil. The contaminant seeps into groundwater or gets carried around by children or scavengers on the wreck, or gets into crops, and it could cause health issues.

 

HOWEVER

 

- There's really nothing to back up that this POTENTIAL for health issues is a serious threat. I have no doubt that DU contamination has caused health effects, but it is likely on a scale so small that no connection has ever been made.

 

- Potential DU contamination is nowhere close to the scope of, say, Agent Orange poisoning. Most of the nonsense surrounding the use of DU is because people hear 'uranium' and tie it to Hiroshima.

 

- DU hasn't been used in Afghanistan because that would be immensely stupid. There's nothing the Afghanis have that won't be blown to tiny little pieces by HEI - HEI is so effective against everything from vehicles to houses that even F-15Es use it to destroy personnel inside buildings.

 

- Karzai is a complete tool.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Frostiken

[Tailspin45]

...the concern exists in equal measure for pretty much all non-HE rounds no matter if the penetrator relies on DU or regular Lead...

 

My point exactly.

[hassata]

- Karzai is a complete tool.

 

:D

[RIPTIDE]

no matter if the penetrator relies on DU or regular Lead.

Not sure why you mention lead. DU's competitor is tungsten (which BTW is even more toxic in particulate form ;) )

[EtherealN]

Not sure why you mention lead. DU's competitor is tungsten (which BTW is even more toxic in particulate form ;) )

 

Because Lead is more "known" to people in general. Most people would just be "huh" at Tungsten and then the point wouldn't have been made. ;)

[Pyroflash]

We however, aren't most people ;)

[EtherealN]

Some are. :P

[PhiXX]

One commenter complains about how microscopic particles are created when a round hits, oh I dunno know, say, a tank, and that they can be bad for your health.

Apart from the long term health risk by ingestion, the DU dust created on impact is actually deadly because it ignites (it's pyrophoric), creating a nice vacuum inside the armored vehicle. Brains is not happy about vacuum :lol:

[nscode]

Psychology of war kills more than DU. DU causes cancer in the body, war causes cancer in society. Best way to eliminate fear from DU is not to have a war.

[Conure]

I hope we (they) grow out of war one day. Perhaps it is arrogance on my part but I'll never understand the logic that leads up to conflict. It seems to be only an utter fool is willing to spill blood over ideology; particularly of a religious nature.

 

Is is exasperating to see how stupid many people are. Both in day to day life and in world politics...These people that will so happily lead nations to war..What goes through their heads?

 

Still, people willingly choose to chain smoke near children, eat junk food until they weigh 18 stone and drink themselves into an early grave. Humanity is destined to obliterate itself...How sad.

[RIPTIDE]

War's a great way to spur on the economy and to thin out the population. Its like a big noob cull. Sort of like a counteraction to that great healthcare that seems to let people live than shouldn't live with their defective genes.

 

Anyone mad?

[Conure]

War's a great way to spur on the economy and to thin out the population. Its like a big noob cull. Sort of like a counteraction to that great healthcare that seems to let people live than shouldn't live with their defective genes.

 

Anyone mad?

 

I hope you're joking.

[Udat]

Some are. :P

I'm not different!

[104th_Cobra]

I hope you're joking.

 

He's not joking, only being succinct. But Riptide is being correct, there are people that think on War about commercial and financial opportunities and a solution to unemployment.

On the essence of War, is part of mankind. There will be never ending aggression between different social groups, whatever the cause of aggression. And War "is not the continuation of politics by other means", is something profound, since Prehistory tribes. All about vengeance and fear.

[Conure]

He's not joking, only being succinct. But Riptide is being correct, there are people that think on War about commercial and financial opportunities and a solution to unemployment.

On the essence of War, is part of mankind. There will be never ending aggression between different social groups, whatever the cause of aggression. And War "is not the continuation of politics by other means", is something profound, since Prehistory tribes. All about vengeance and fear.

 

Could not disagree more. I'll never get my head around those that value economic gain above life. Such a view is a dark route toward Nazism and its kin. And whilst we're on the subject of Nazism, where was the economic opportunity for the Jews in their death camps? Or for the innocent Iraqi civilians killed over..What are we fighting for again? Economic gain for one perhaps, not for all.

 

Moving on to your idea regarding the essence of war being part of mankind, that again is a fallacy. There is very little evidence to suggest that there is any intrinsic human nature. For example, our base "requirements" are food, sleep, shelter and reproduction all of which can be overruled by forces of will (albeit under duress) such as anorexia, celibacy etc etc. Fighting is often a result of a loss of control over a situation, which is why many (myself included a few years ago) would start fighting after a few drinks. It is that brilliant ability that we have to control our so called base instincts that have got us to where we are today.

 

I also outright reject the premise that humans need war to function; many early societies were based upon peaceful sharing of resources. Look to our most advanced civilizations, the numerous institutions that work in harmony through cooperation between people and nations.

 

Our court rooms prove that disputes can be solved using logic without the need for violence. If there was a homogeneous tendency toward war built into the genome then how do you explain away peaceful civilizations, charity workers and a plethora of other individuals that promote peaceful solutions to problems. It is not human nature that is the accused here, but idiots that are quick to call up the banner for war.

 

It is a shame that these idiots keep finding themselves in power...Human stupidity seems to be the enduring theme, not human need for war.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Conure

[RIPTIDE]

Could not disagree more. I'll never get my head around those that value economic gain above life. Such a view is a dark route toward Nazism and its kin. And whilst we're on the subject of Nazism, where was the economic opportunity for the Jews in their death camps? Or for the innocent Iraqi civilians killed over..What are we fighting for again? Economic gain for one perhaps, not for all.

I agree. Persecution based on ethnicity is absolutely illogical on several levels and generally goes towards self destruction. A policy based on hate saps resources and stagnates modernity (see the effects of slavery on the Roman Empire)

Moving on to your idea regarding the essence of war being part of mankind, that again is a fallacy. There is very little evidence to suggest that there is any intrinsic human nature. For example, our base "requirements" are food, sleep, shelter and reproduction all of which can be overruled by forces of will (albeit under duress) such as anorexia, celibacy etc etc. Fighting is often a result of a loss of control over a situation, which is why many (myself included a few years ago) would start fighting after a few drinks. It is that brilliant ability that we have to control our so called base instincts that have got us to where we are today.

I disagree. Very recently new tribes have been discovered in the Papuan Highlands. They are hunter gatherers. The are as they were 30,000 years ago. They are not effected by media, ipods, Immans, popes, or anything else. When one looks on them they can see... ahh utopia living. No mortgage no problems etc. When one then asked why they built their houses so high they said it was to protect the women and children from the neighbouring tribes who would come and steal them for cannibalism. Go figure. If this isn't our basest form, I don't know what is.

 

I also outright reject the premise that humans need war to function; many early societies were based upon peaceful sharing of resources. Look to our most advanced civilizations, the numerous institutions that work in harmony through cooperation between people and nations.

People sharing of resources in a sort of Marxist way leads to stagnation and is repugnant to he human form from an evolutionary point of view. Resources are scarce, and there should be competition for those resources.

Our court rooms prove that disputes can be solved using logic without the need for violence. If there was a homogeneous tendency toward war built into the genome then how do you explain away peaceful civilizations, charity workers and a plethora of other individuals that promote peaceful solutions to problems. It is not human nature that is the accused here, but idiots that are quick to call up the banner for war.

I am not aware of the existence EVER of any peaceful societies. I do agree that there are those of us who have a high level of empathy for our fellow man. This is also good for society and leads to societal cohesion.

It is a shame that these idiots keep finding themselves in power...Human stupidity seems to be the enduring theme, not human need for war.

Its been long written, even by Sun Tzu, that you should never destroy a people or country as this makes poor economic sense. People are a valuable resource. The best way is to control them effectively. You have now won the 'war' and your enemy might not even realise it.

 

I'm a big supporter of open and free trade. Its my deepest belief that when one binds yourself to eveyrone else so tightly and so interdependently, then one cannot start a war on the other. People talk about the NWO. Well that's what its all about. You can't nuke the other guy, because, well, he buys half your stuff and you buy half your stuff from him. The EU is the perfect example. Its real raison d'etre is to stop them killing each other. They just have too much to loose. So we must all join up with the Neo Franco-Prussian Reich in peace and harmony. Now I must stop or it'll turn into a political rant. :D

Edited June 26, 2011 by RIPTIDE

[104th_Cobra]

Conure, you are missing my and Riptide's point. We aren't defending the necessity of War neither if it's wrong or good.

War is a very bad way of solving problems but sometimes people don't chose other way, even if they can chose. Violence exists and people or societies have to prevail when some aggressor don't care about logic, equity and conversation.

[104th_Cobra]

" Neo Franco-Prussian Reich"

LMAO

:D

[Conure]

I agree. Persecution based on ethnicity is absolutely illogical on several levels and generally goes towards self destruction. A policy based on hate saps resources and stagnates modernity (see the effects of slavery on the Roman Empire)

 

I disagree. Very recently new tribes have been discovered in the Papuan Highlands. They are hunter gatherers. The are as they were 30,000 years ago. They are not effected by media, ipods, Immans, popes, or anything else. When one looks on them they can see... ahh utopia living. No mortgage no problems etc. When one then asked why they built their houses so high they said it was to protect the women and children from the neighbouring tribes who would come and steal them for cannibalism. Go figure. If this isn't our basest form, I don't know what is.

 

 

People sharing of resources in a sort of Marxist way leads to stagnation and is repugnant to he human form from an evolutionary point of view. Resources are scarce, and there should be competition for those resources.

 

I am not aware of the existence EVER of any peaceful societies. I do agree that there are those of us who have a high level of empathy for our fellow man. This is also good for society and leads to societal cohesion.

 

Its been long written, even by Sun Tzu, that you should never destroy a people or country as this makes poor economic sense. People are a valuable resource. The best way is to control them effectively. You have now won the 'war' and your enemy might not even realise it.

 

I'm a big supporter of open and free trade. Its my deepest belief that when one binds yourself to eveyrone else so tightly and so interdependently, then one cannot start a war on the other. People talk about the NWO. Well that's what its all about. You can't nuke the other guy, because, well, he buys half your stuff and you buy half your stuff from him. The EU is the perfect example. Its real raison d'etre is to stop them killing each other. They just have too much to loose. So we must all join up with the Neo Franco-Prussian Reich in peace and harmony. Now I must stop or it'll turn into a political rant. :D

 

Thanks for the response - I enjoyed reading it. I wrote a thesis on human development and war back in the university days, and to be sure it is by no means a one sided argument and there is no real consensus. I did read a somewhat persuasive argument which stipulated that our basest form is that of a new born baby. Babies very rarely show any forms of aggression but frequently affection. Further, all human babies require love and support (at the very least, feeding and a certain level of care) in order to survive their early years. As such compassion is integral to the survival of the organism.

 

Then again, that goes against my own belief that there is no human nature. Also, compassion between mother and child does not necessarily demonstrate any kind of compassionate base between distant kin.

 

Kinship and human relations are such a messy subject area, but it is my sincerest belief that the power to entirely cease war is in within our reach. I don't believe for a second that it is impossible as a result of some imagined biological determinism, so often used as a justification for war.

[hassata]

Alos children, even infants, display empathy. You can often see this in a supermarket, when one kid hears another crying.

[tflash]

You guys get quite philosophical when not flying. Back to the topic: I guess indeed today the GAU-8 is loaded mainly with the PGU-13/B HEI rounds rather than the DU API rounds.

[EtherealN]

but it is my sincerest belief that the power to entirely cease war is in within our reach.

 

Definitely: just get the yanks, russians, chinese etcetera to press all their little buttons and we'll very quickly have ceased all war. :)

 

Seriously, that's the only way I see war ending anytime soon. It's a shame, of course, but we won't be able to do a "world EU" where all economies are so tightly connected as to make war impossible within my lifetime, so there will be people with economic opportunities in war, others with ideological opportunities, and of course the ones with religious motivations.

 

I don't believe for a second that it is impossible as a result of some imagined biological determinism, so often used as a justification for war.

 

It's not about justification, it's about explanation.