Full Version: The way we make war
Why is it necessary, or is it necessary, to use depleted uranium in our bombs when we know that the non-belligerent populace of a country will suffer as a result?
Unabomber provided the following link in another thread. It shows the deformities caused by the use of depleted uranium in bombs. I strongly caution you not to look at it if you are easily disturbed by such pictures.
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
Unabomber provided the following link in another thread. It shows the deformities caused by the use of depleted uranium in bombs. I strongly caution you not to look at it if you are easily disturbed by such pictures.
http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/contaminazioneitaly.htm
Our forces use DU because it is a very hard metal, inexpensive, and can pierce through most other types of armor. It is necessary for both protection (encased on a tank, for instance) and certain types of bullet rounds (such as A10 bullet casings). The only type of bomb I know of which might use this metal is the bunker-busters. Those would, by definition, be imbedded far into the ground where they would do no harm upon explosion.
It is quite innocuous in its solid state, only potentially harmful if inhaled as dust, or perhaps ingested. Because the (very very low dose) radiation would be retained within the body for a person's life, that could certainly be cause for concern. With all of the environmental hazards over in Iraq (to include direct dumping of TRULY radioactive materials at nuclear reactor sites), there isn’t much of a basis to blame DU for increased Iraq birth defects…except as a propaganda tool. More telling than anything is the lack of increased birth defects in other countries in which it was used. Kuwait, for example. I have yet to hear of ‘Kosovo conflict’ syndrome endured by peacekeepers. We know that the Iraqis possessed chemical weapons agents during the first gulf war, the the environment is probably toxic. Something tells me they probably don’t live up to our EPA level standards either.
To put DU radiation in perspective, consider that riding in a jet plane is almost 3 times more radioactive than riding in a DU encased tank. There are radioactive materials occuring naturally everywhere.The average person living in the United Kingdom receives 2.6 mSv per year, but some up to 100mSv. The amount of radioactivity of a material depends on its half-life. The longer the half life, the less radiation. Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Something that takes 8 billion years to exhaust itself is not spewing radiation very quickly.
Most of the above information, along with an explanation of the mSv unit, can be found at the following sites. I recommend them because they give a truly unbiased assessment of the risks, unlike most you might find on the net:
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/du.shtml
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/radiation.shtml
It is quite innocuous in its solid state, only potentially harmful if inhaled as dust, or perhaps ingested. Because the (very very low dose) radiation would be retained within the body for a person's life, that could certainly be cause for concern. With all of the environmental hazards over in Iraq (to include direct dumping of TRULY radioactive materials at nuclear reactor sites), there isn’t much of a basis to blame DU for increased Iraq birth defects…except as a propaganda tool. More telling than anything is the lack of increased birth defects in other countries in which it was used. Kuwait, for example. I have yet to hear of ‘Kosovo conflict’ syndrome endured by peacekeepers. We know that the Iraqis possessed chemical weapons agents during the first gulf war, the the environment is probably toxic. Something tells me they probably don’t live up to our EPA level standards either.
To put DU radiation in perspective, consider that riding in a jet plane is almost 3 times more radioactive than riding in a DU encased tank. There are radioactive materials occuring naturally everywhere.The average person living in the United Kingdom receives 2.6 mSv per year, but some up to 100mSv. The amount of radioactivity of a material depends on its half-life. The longer the half life, the less radiation. Depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years. Something that takes 8 billion years to exhaust itself is not spewing radiation very quickly.
Most of the above information, along with an explanation of the mSv unit, can be found at the following sites. I recommend them because they give a truly unbiased assessment of the risks, unlike most you might find on the net:
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/du.shtml
http://www.civilservant.org.uk/radiation.shtml
Its curious to see some one arguing for the harmlessness of a weapon.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 19 2003, 08:33 PM)
I have yet to hear of ‘Kosovo conflict’ syndrome endured by peacekeepers.
it's actually called "balkans syndrome". several european countries peacekeepers have been getting sick as of late (Balkans Syndrome: Cases in Europe country by country -BALKANS SYNDROME: NEW CAUSE DISCOVERED BY UNITED NATIONS - Caution urged over 'Balkans syndrome')
we used less DU in the balkans then Iraq, which is partially why the balkans haven't been hit as hard. other part is the DU gets into the dirt, and in the desert gets whipped up in the sandstorms, which Iraqis have no choice but breathing sometimes. in the balkans they don't have to deal with sandstorms carrying DU particles. it should be noted that the congenital birth defect rates and cancer rates in Iraq were unheard of prior to the war.
QUOTE
UN cancer statistics for 1989-1994 in southern areas like Missan and
Thi-Qar show up to seven-fold increases in cancer over the five-year
period. In Thi-Qar, cases rose from 72 in 1989 to 489 in 1994.
Thi-Qar show up to seven-fold increases in cancer over the five-year
period. In Thi-Qar, cases rose from 72 in 1989 to 489 in 1994.
( http://csf.colorado.edu/envtecsoc/2001/msg00018.html ) (notice it was southern Iraq we attacked at the end of the last war.
coincidence, maybe, but not bloody likely) if it WERE the nuclear materials dumped that were responsible, why did GW1 vets (most of whom never set foot in Iraq) have children with birth defects similar to iraqi children? (the bloated looking ones with stubby limbs) ( DU birth deformities (VERY VERY GRAPHIC) its the third or fourth to last picture. caption reads "Severe deformity of arms. This child was born to a US Gulf veteran" and articles detailing birth defects in GW1 vets: Birth defect seen in Gulf War vets kids(cached, original unreachable)
Gulf War Vets Demand DU Inquiry - QUOTE
The Los Angeles Times reported in November that as many as ten times the expected number of birth defects and infant deaths among children of Gulf vets is perhaps caused by contamination in the Gulf. Uranium was among the possible culprits named by toxicologists who testified to Congress that contaminated men can pass toxic chemicals and genetic mutations directly to their children through sperm. ". . .as many as 65% of the children born to Gulf War soldiers are afflicted," according to some groups, the L.A. Times said. One environmental pediatrician, comparing Gulf War babies with others, found a 30% rate of birth defects among the vets' children - "probably tenfold of what is in the normal population." (third paragraph from bottom) Low Intensity Nuclear War?
QUOTE
The only type of bomb I know of which might use this metal is the bunker-busters. Those would, by definition, be imbedded far into the ground where they would do no harm upon explosion.
except all the low level ionizing radioactive dust that is thrown into the air! sheesh 
QUOTE
It is quite innocuous in its solid state, only potentially harmful if inhaled as dust, or perhaps ingested.
QUOTE
To put DU radiation in perspective, consider that riding in a jet plane is almost 3 times more radioactive than riding in a DU encased tank
do you see the irony of this? you state it is innocuous in the solid state (and it is) then say you get more of a dose in a plane then a DU encased tank (you think maybe the armor is SOLID DU?
) when a anti-tank shell hits something the DU burns (it actually gets sharper upon impact from this burning) putting off radio active smoke, and getting into the dirt. in the tank you aren't exposed to it quite like when you're flying at 32000 feet.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Sep 20 2003, 04:32 AM)
it's actually called "balkans syndrome".
I must admit, I've never heard of 'Balkans' syndrome'. I do think it's notable that it doesn't seem to cause the birth defects that Gulf War syndrome seemed to. Why is that, I wonder? I wouldn't be surprised at an increased cancer risk if the stuff was inhaled in massive quantities and stayed in the body, but I don't believe a single one of those birth defects demonstrated on those links had anything to do with DU, and very few cancer cases.QUOTE
if it WERE the nuclear materials dumped that were responsible, why did GW1 vets (most of whom never set foot in Iraq) have children with birth defects similar to iraqi children? (the bloated looking ones with stubby limbs)
It is very likely that the Iraqis used mustard gas during the first Gulf war. Mustard gas is a known carcinagin which promotes birth defects. It would require something more than a willing suspension of disbelief to expect that DU and not mustard gas caused this.
mustard gas caused birth defects and cancer
QUOTE
A rise in cancer rates has been reported in Iraq since the Gulf War. Scott, R. & Holdstock, D., “World Health Organization (WHO) Should Undertake Full Inquiry Into Gulf War Illness,” British Medical Journal, 318:1422 (May 22, 1999). See also: “Iraq Cancer, Birth Defect Hike May Be Related to Gulf War Syndrome,” Houston Chronicle, p. 26A (March 19, 1998).
There were no other widespread carcinogenic exposures in the Gulf War environment that would explain the increased cancer rates among Gulf War veterans. Other exposures have been eliminated as the cause:
1.) The oil well fire smoke. A U.S. Interagency Air Assessment team of scientists studied the potential health effects of the oil well fires. The U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency collected nearly 4,000 ambient air and soil samples between May and December, 1991. The total predicted excess carcinogenic risks did not exceed 3 excess cancers per 1,000,000 attributed to this exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency considers this level of risk to be de minimis, or indistinguishable from background. Final Report: Kuwait Oil Fire Risk Assessment Project, 5 May - 3 December, 1991, Report No. 39-26-L192-91, February, 1994.
2.) Depleted Uranium D.U. has been eliminated as a cause, other than possibly in a few soldiers who have d.u. fragments in them from friendly-fire explosions, or crawled into newly blown-up Iraqi vehicles and inhaled a significant amount of d.u. dust. See Harley, N., Foulkes, E., et al., A Review of the Scientific Literature As It Pertains to Gulf War Illness, Volume 7: Depleted Uranium, Rand Corporation (1999).
...It is also noteworthy, that since Saddam used mustard gas and nerve gas on the inhabitants of Halabjah, Iraq in 1988, the surviving population has suffered from high rates of cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders and other illnesses. International Herald Tribune. (March 12, 1998).There were no other widespread carcinogenic exposures in the Gulf War environment that would explain the increased cancer rates among Gulf War veterans. Other exposures have been eliminated as the cause:
1.) The oil well fire smoke. A U.S. Interagency Air Assessment team of scientists studied the potential health effects of the oil well fires. The U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency collected nearly 4,000 ambient air and soil samples between May and December, 1991. The total predicted excess carcinogenic risks did not exceed 3 excess cancers per 1,000,000 attributed to this exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency considers this level of risk to be de minimis, or indistinguishable from background. Final Report: Kuwait Oil Fire Risk Assessment Project, 5 May - 3 December, 1991, Report No. 39-26-L192-91, February, 1994.
2.) Depleted Uranium D.U. has been eliminated as a cause, other than possibly in a few soldiers who have d.u. fragments in them from friendly-fire explosions, or crawled into newly blown-up Iraqi vehicles and inhaled a significant amount of d.u. dust. See Harley, N., Foulkes, E., et al., A Review of the Scientific Literature As It Pertains to Gulf War Illness, Volume 7: Depleted Uranium, Rand Corporation (1999).
Now, you say that some GW1 vets who never stepped into Iraq had children with egregious births defects? That would be news to me. It would also indicated that some cause other than DU (or mustard gas, for that matter) was to blame. How would they have been exposed to either? Of course, there was DU in Kuwait too, but the Kuwaitis seem uneffected by birth defects as well.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The only type of bomb I know of which might use this metal is the bunker-busters. Those would, by definition, be imbedded far into the ground where they would do no harm upon explosion.
except all the low level ionizing radioactive dust that is thrown into the air! sheesh There wouldn't be much 'radioactive' dust (if any) thrown into the air for a bomb that detonated that far underground.
QUOTE
do you see the irony of this? you state it is innocuous in the solid state (and it is) then say you get more of a dose in a plane then a DU encased tank (you think maybe the armor is SOLID DU? ) when a anti-tank shell hits something the DU burns (it actually gets sharper upon impact from this burning) putting off radio active smoke, and getting into the dirt. in the tank you aren't exposed to it quite like when you're flying at 32000 feet.
) when a anti-tank shell hits something the DU burns (it actually gets sharper upon impact from this burning) putting off radio active smoke, and getting into the dirt. in the tank you aren't exposed to it quite like when you're flying at 32000 feet.The point is, a jet airplane doesn't have DU. It is just inherently radioactive. Pilots are not unnaturally predisposed to cancer or their children birth defects, even though they receive several times the level of radiation in DU every time they fly. There are radioactive elements everywhere in the environment (to include the sun).
A post on another thread inspired me to post again on this topic. I maintain that there is not a single, solitary shred of evidence that DU caused the types of birth defects seen in Iraq. There have been extensive studies and experiments to prove this. Here's just one:health effects of DU
There have been studies on pregnant animals, imbedded with massive amounts of DU, well beyond those any (especially civilian) person could be exposed to through inhalation. There are GIs with embedded fragments in their bodies who have subsequently had completely normal children. There are individuals who actually worked in uranium mines for decades and were exposed to massive amounts of radiation (much more powerful than the 'depleted' variety) before the health standards and regulatory requirements we have today, and their children had no abnormally high predisposition to birth defects.
In the meantime, we have an area of the world which has been bombarded with mustard gas and who-knows-what-else. Those chemicals are known, definitively, to cause birth defects and cancer. Halabja, an area of Iraq which sustained a direct chemical attack, has since experienced enormous amounts of sterility and fetal abnormality. Some propaganda sources take pictures of two headed babies and blame DU, because it's American. That doesn't bother me, but what does is that people actually believe it. Goebbels certainly knew what he was talking about when he advised to tell a big lie often enough people will believe it....I am up to my eyeballs in frustration with this.
There have been studies on pregnant animals, imbedded with massive amounts of DU, well beyond those any (especially civilian) person could be exposed to through inhalation. There are GIs with embedded fragments in their bodies who have subsequently had completely normal children. There are individuals who actually worked in uranium mines for decades and were exposed to massive amounts of radiation (much more powerful than the 'depleted' variety) before the health standards and regulatory requirements we have today, and their children had no abnormally high predisposition to birth defects.
QUOTE
Studies are currently under way by McDiarmid and colleagues at the Baltimore VA Medical Center as part of the DU Follow-Up Program to further evaluate the 33 Gulf War veterans. About half of these 33 individuals have embedded DU fragments. Findings to date have failed to demonstrate clinically relevant abnormalities (beyond those associated with the specific injury). However, most of the veterans with embedded fragments, as previously discussed, continue to have elevations in urinary uranium excretion. VA researchers have also found DU in the semen of some of the veterans with embedded fragments. To date, approximately 17 children have been born to female partners of these 33 men. All of these offspring are without evidence of birth defects (McDiarmid, 1998b). Investigators are completing a follow-up of these individuals, comparing additional laboratory parameters (e.g., sperm morphology and activity, semen characteristics, and serum hormone levels) relative to a control group who did not have uranium exposure (McDiarmid and Keogh, 1998). To date, these investigators have observed normal sperm morphology and counts. Furthermore, examination for chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchange were within the reference limits. Therefore, increased chromosomal aberrations that were reported among uranium miners (Brandom, 1978) have not been found to date among Persian Gulf veterans with embedded DU. There are too few offspring among the 33 veterans with possible embedded DU to draw any conclusions similar to those observed with respect to sex ratio differences in uranium miners' offspring (M[Yuml]ller, 1967).
In the meantime, we have an area of the world which has been bombarded with mustard gas and who-knows-what-else. Those chemicals are known, definitively, to cause birth defects and cancer. Halabja, an area of Iraq which sustained a direct chemical attack, has since experienced enormous amounts of sterility and fetal abnormality. Some propaganda sources take pictures of two headed babies and blame DU, because it's American. That doesn't bother me, but what does is that people actually believe it. Goebbels certainly knew what he was talking about when he advised to tell a big lie often enough people will believe it....I am up to my eyeballs in frustration with this.
Also, there is this:
Missing nuke barrels
Missing nuke barrels
QUOTE
Before U.S. troops began guarding the entrance to the facility, reporters saw villagers removing storage barrels and dumping out contents matching the description of uranium oxide. They filled the barrels with drinking water, and some have since reported health problems.
Mrs P
A lack of evidence, is not proof.
And, I might add, Gulf War Syndrome, has no identified cause. So, there is nothing to prove that DU did not cause GWS, and like wise, nothing to prove that it did.
The question is though, why use DU?
The GAU 8 cannon used by the A10 aircraft, fires at such an amazingly high RPM, that it really makes no difference what the rounds are tipped with, and like wise, the Abrams tanks is so far ahead of any tank it is likely to meet, that its need for DU is over kill.
The USA chooses to use this technology, even though it does not need to, and given that an increase in deformed babies was noted after the Gulf war, then surely its better to use conventional rounds rather than take the rsik of imposing sickness and health on one's own troops as well as innocent babies.
And I may as well also add that in Vietnam, the USA used Agent Orange to defloiate the tree's and this resulted in deformed babies. Its been a while since I heard anything regarding this matter, but I do remember US officals in the early nineties still denying any link between the Vietnamese babies and Agent Orange.
GA
Whats the connection?
A lack of evidence, is not proof.
And, I might add, Gulf War Syndrome, has no identified cause. So, there is nothing to prove that DU did not cause GWS, and like wise, nothing to prove that it did.
The question is though, why use DU?
The GAU 8 cannon used by the A10 aircraft, fires at such an amazingly high RPM, that it really makes no difference what the rounds are tipped with, and like wise, the Abrams tanks is so far ahead of any tank it is likely to meet, that its need for DU is over kill.
The USA chooses to use this technology, even though it does not need to, and given that an increase in deformed babies was noted after the Gulf war, then surely its better to use conventional rounds rather than take the rsik of imposing sickness and health on one's own troops as well as innocent babies.
And I may as well also add that in Vietnam, the USA used Agent Orange to defloiate the tree's and this resulted in deformed babies. Its been a while since I heard anything regarding this matter, but I do remember US officals in the early nineties still denying any link between the Vietnamese babies and Agent Orange.
GA
Whats the connection?
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 29 2003, 10:55 AM)
GA
Whats the connection?
Whats the connection?
If you don't know, then what are you doing out of school?? People in Iraq using barrels that used to hold radioactive waste for holding water and food is what has caused a surge in health incidents, proving the theory that DU is not the cause in that area.
QUOTE
The GAU 8 cannon used by the A10 aircraft, fires at such an amazingly high RPM, that it really makes no difference what the rounds are tipped with, and like wise, the Abrams tanks is so far ahead of any tank it is likely to meet, that its need for DU is over kill.
Any supporting evidence for these statements? For example, RPM for the GAU 8 has very little to do with penetrating capability, which is what the DU provides. Ditto for the Abrams--who's to say what its capabilities would be using inferior weaponry. Even given its advanced weapons, its primary advantage over modern counterparts is speed and accuracy at range. Not using DU would reduce its kill radius, thereby helping to equalize it with its opponents. That is seldom a successful military strategy.
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 29 2003, 09:55 AM)
Mrs P
A lack of evidence, is not proof.
And, I might add, Gulf War Syndrome, has no identified cause. So, there is nothing to prove that DU did not cause GWS, and like wise, nothing to prove that it did.
The question is though, why use DU?
A lack of evidence, is not proof.
And, I might add, Gulf War Syndrome, has no identified cause. So, there is nothing to prove that DU did not cause GWS, and like wise, nothing to prove that it did.
The question is though, why use DU?
There is a lot of evidence to indicate that some veterans in the Gulf war encountered chemical weapons. I posted a link above regarding that. Here's another:numerous causes...that site offers documented evidence pertaining to which troops were the most effected, the level manifestation of illness, and even some reported weather conditions in the areas of most potential exposure. One platoon had an incident of 77 percent illness. This coincided with other evidence that suggests they may have received a chemical attack.
The FACT is, many with DU fragments in their bodies haven't had children with birth defects, and most don't have any egregious health problems. Pregnant animals have been injected with massive amounts of DU and not encountered much beyond lower litter rates. I wouldn't spread DU on my toast and eat it (unless I was well compensated), but that doesn't mean it is any more dangerous than lead paint.
Why use it? Because it is protective, has penetrative ability, and is a lot cheaper than titanium.
Edited to add: I think it's noteworthy that The United Kingdom, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Thailand, Israel, and France are developing or already possess weapon systems that contain DU in their inventories. I have seen the opposite asserted on conspiracy sites.
GA
Now now, there's no need to be rude about it.
I asked because you are refering to something current where as the DU/ child defect arguement mostly stems from the previous Gulf War.
Hobbes
There is such a thing as over kill...
American military might far surpassed that of the Iraqi army, and I doubt the DU made any difference.
Mrs P
I accept most of your points, but I would point out that there have been no reports of chemical weapons being used in the Balkans.
QUOTE
If you don't know, then what are you doing out of school?? People in Iraq using barrels that used to hold radioactive waste for holding water and food is what has caused a surge in health incidents, proving the theory that DU is not the cause in that area.
Now now, there's no need to be rude about it.
I asked because you are refering to something current where as the DU/ child defect arguement mostly stems from the previous Gulf War.
Hobbes
QUOTE
Any supporting evidence for these statements? For example, RPM for the GAU 8 has very little to do with penetrating capability, which is what the DU provides. Ditto for the Abrams--who's to say what its capabilities would be using inferior weaponry. Even given its advanced weapons, its primary advantage over modern counterparts is speed and accuracy at range. Not using DU would reduce its kill radius, thereby helping to equalize it with its opponents. That is seldom a successful military strategy.
There is such a thing as over kill...
American military might far surpassed that of the Iraqi army, and I doubt the DU made any difference.
Mrs P
I accept most of your points, but I would point out that there have been no reports of chemical weapons being used in the Balkans.
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 29 2003, 06:25 PM)
Mrs P
I accept most of your points, but I would point out that there have been no reports of chemical weapons being used in the Balkans.
True, and there don't seem to be the enormous amount of catastrophic birth defects in the Balkans. The problem is, there are numerous different effects from various causes. Whenever chemical plants, oil refineries, and fertilizer factories are bombed, those elements pollute the air and groundwater. I think that is a much greater concern than DU. I don't believe DU is healthy, but it's more like lead paint. If ingested or inhaled in great quantities, it can cause problems over time, but not those sorts of catastrophic birth defects.
Here's an example of what went on during the Balkan war. Overall, it isn't surprising that the population and soldiers are experiencing health problems as well...with or without DU
:QUOTE
In Pancevo, the most ecologically devastated area, simultaneous leaks from a nitrogen processing plant, an oil refinery and a petrochemical plant forced thousands to evacuate. A local newspaper reported a toxic cloud of smoke reaching hundreds of feet into the air after NATO bombed the town. That same afternoon, the Serbian Environment Minister reported the amount of carcinogenic matter over Pancevo at 7,200 times the permitted level, according to the newspaper.
To make matters worse, factory workers dumped tons more carcinogenic chemicals into the Danube River to avoid an explosion. Like all of the ecological disasters of the Balkans war, the environmental ruin of Pancevo won't remain contained. The contaminants dumped into the Danube will flow down river to Romania, Bulgaria and the Black Sea.
The growing ecological disaster has environmentalists around the world up in arms. The contamination of the Danube, a source of drinking water for 10 million people in Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Urkraine, could pose far-reaching complications. Its waters are used for irrigating crops for thousands of people who live along the river, and the 1,736-mile-long river supports some of Europe's last surviving and richest wetlands.
To make matters worse, factory workers dumped tons more carcinogenic chemicals into the Danube River to avoid an explosion. Like all of the ecological disasters of the Balkans war, the environmental ruin of Pancevo won't remain contained. The contaminants dumped into the Danube will flow down river to Romania, Bulgaria and the Black Sea.
The growing ecological disaster has environmentalists around the world up in arms. The contamination of the Danube, a source of drinking water for 10 million people in Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Urkraine, could pose far-reaching complications. Its waters are used for irrigating crops for thousands of people who live along the river, and the 1,736-mile-long river supports some of Europe's last surviving and richest wetlands.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 29 2003, 08:22 PM)
Overall, it isn't surprising that the population and soldiers are experiencing health problems as well...with or without DU
True. Like in Liberia, U.S. troops got malaria, Iraq: flu (at first they thought it was SARS), and in Afghanistan i believe it was flu and dysentery. Also, there have been many other illinesses in previous wars.
So DU is not the only factor of illinesses in wars
Mrs P
Eloquent and straight to the point. In the light of such information I am forced to accept your logic.
I still don't accept that DU is needed, and I don't like the idea of a weapon which could have potentially fatal after effects... but as you say, without evidence its impossible to lay the blame on one single cause for the ailments of Iraqi babies.
Eloquent and straight to the point. In the light of such information I am forced to accept your logic.
I still don't accept that DU is needed, and I don't like the idea of a weapon which could have potentially fatal after effects... but as you say, without evidence its impossible to lay the blame on one single cause for the ailments of Iraqi babies.
Even though I started this thread, I sat out for quite a while to see what the rationale was. I plead guilty to jumping to conclusions after having seen those pictures. It is an outrage to see innocents affected in such a way.
In a controlled experiment, the variables are introduced in such a way that there is no confusion as to cause and effect. Life as anything but a controlled experiment.
I did see the news reports of people using radioactively contaminated buckets for carrying water. (Hope somebody didn't just film this but actually warned these people of the danger of using the buckets!)
In addition, the whole point of war is to kill or maim the other guy. Unfortunately, this extends to the youngest and most vulnerable in the enemy's camps.
It seemed a whole lot more civilized when warfare was carried out with spears, swords, and bows and arrows. At least it was a direct and immediate threat. (But I digress; that warfare is relegated to Stone or Bronze Age primitives and fantasy roleplayers.)
In a controlled experiment, the variables are introduced in such a way that there is no confusion as to cause and effect. Life as anything but a controlled experiment.
I did see the news reports of people using radioactively contaminated buckets for carrying water. (Hope somebody didn't just film this but actually warned these people of the danger of using the buckets!)
In addition, the whole point of war is to kill or maim the other guy. Unfortunately, this extends to the youngest and most vulnerable in the enemy's camps.
It seemed a whole lot more civilized when warfare was carried out with spears, swords, and bows and arrows. At least it was a direct and immediate threat. (But I digress; that warfare is relegated to Stone or Bronze Age primitives and fantasy roleplayers.)
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.