The Pentagon said it wouldn’t use depleted uranium rounds against ISIS.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Robert, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Frankly, to me this is not a big deal. But with the ongoing onslaught of Trump, what I wonder is how good is this with Obama supporters? Was what Obama did wrong? Depleted uranium is alleged by a few people to be a radioactive hazard. It was depleted and to meet that standard has to be extremely low in radiation.

    So, have a whack at Obama. He lied.
    Obama said he would not use Depleted Uranium, then lied


    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bb0614...2bf24d6/ss_the-pentagon-said-it-wouldn’t.html
     
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think accusing them of lying is a bit of a stretch based on that report. It’s suggested that they initially did have no intention to use DU ammunition in the conflict but made an operational decision to change their mind later on. I think there is certainly scope to question the reasoning for that change in relation to this specific strike but not to unconditionally accuse anyone of wilful dishonesty.

    There’s also no direct reference to Obama there, only the Pentagon. I think you’d have to establish if he was involved in this level of decision making and if so, how, before associating his name with it so prominently.
     
  3. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why the hell would we ever need to use DU against ISIS. DU is an anti-armor munition. ISIs doesn't have the armor to justify it. What little armor they do have is sitting ducks for hellfires or mavericks.
     
  4. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean the Commander in Chief of the armed forces was not aware of DU rounds? You're right. The platoon leader made the call without consulting anyone.
     
  5. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What's wrong with depleted uranium rounds again??? I wasn't paying attention.

    But what good are they? Do they kill the enemy faster? Or, if they run away, can we track them down to their secret hideout from the radiation signature?
     
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well the wording of the article suggests both decisions were made by someone in the Pentagon. It's perfectly possible the executive policy never changed and it was an operational military decision to first declare that they wouldn't be used and to later reverse that decision.
     
  7. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What about using undepleted uranium wouldn't that kill 'em faster and deader?
     
  8. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depleted uranium is the densest substance known to man. When fired at high velocities, that density translates to incredibly high armor penetration.
     
  9. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well .....

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/193338/

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq

    - - - Updated - - -

    :roflol:
     
  10. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is radioactive, though at a low level, and it is highly toxic, with a half life measured in thousands of years. The dust from it if breathed it is particularly lethal - and if not the person has lethal cancer in his/her future.

    It is used as a munition due to extreme penetration capability. Otherwise it serves no purpose. Because is it very heavy for its size, it also has some limited usage as balancing weight in military aircraft and has been used in a few other highly specialized applications due to its high weight to size ratio.

    - - - Updated - - -

    This sentence "President Obama said _________" and whatever is in that blank has been a lie 95% of the time.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The term Depleted means that. Were it dangerous, it by definition is not depleted.

    It is superior to lead and this country has a lot of non dangerous depleted uranium.

    What puzzles me is why bombs, missiles, bullets are not spoken ill of, only a non harmful metal is harangued.

    Let me give you a for instance. In Libya, Obama sent our angry war planes to kill those he saw as enemy. Men disintegrate under the power of bombs. Yet we want to focus on depleted uranium?
     
  12. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    On Depleted Uranium. First check out how dangerious natural uranim is. The metal in the natural state is more dangerous than lead, but you need to learn what the human body does when it encounters normal uranium. It takes 15 days for the human to eliminate it. Your body naturallyl cleans yourself up.

    Now, Depleted uranium is 60 percent less radioactive.

    Dangerous uranium is highly enriched. It is very hard to produce.

    Countries spend millions trying to learn how to do it.

    most worried about uranium are actually equating it to enriched uranium.

    That is my opinion based on what there is to read on this topic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

    They normally give you a reveal. Look closely at the words I changed to red. Is that a slam dunk as Tenet told Bush?
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where they had armor fights, for the most part, it is not where you want humans to live. Desert I am saying. Our side is deadly accurate with our weapons. DU will easily kill tanks. I did not realize it is that dense to be called the densest. The cannon on our tanks fires rounds at an incredible rate of the projectile. Enemy tanks simply can't handle the power. Also, our tanks use depleted uranium as more protective armor.

    More importantly, normal uranium is not as rich as some assume it is. To be seriously dangerous, it has to be treated. This allows uranium that lost the dangerous part to be known as depleted.

    Well, more data on densest.

     
  14. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not sure if we are in agreement or disagreement but the key word is "unborn" and future generations of yet "unborn". Does that help put your puzzle together?

    WARNING: Terribly graphic video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B8DvRgUOAQ
     
  15. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I put next to no credence that it is the depleted uranium. First why are so few born that way? A genuine danger impacts a lot larger group. No matter what else happens, we know there are many deformed children born annually globally and you can't blame those on depleted uranium.

    DU is so low on radiation you get more during an X ray i believe.

    The public does not understand Radon gas, but a lot of US citizens are exposed by Radon and you don't notice deformed kids there too often, do you?
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A much closer look at depleted uranium.

    https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-deconversion/faq-depleted-ur-decon.html#3
     
  17. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  18. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, the biologic half life is 15 years - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

    "The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of concerns about potential long-term health effects.[5][6] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by exposure to uranium, a toxic metal.[7] It is only weakly radioactive because of its long radioactive half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238, 700 million years for uranium-235; or 1 part per million every 6446 and 1010 years, respectively). The biological half-life (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.[8] The aerosol or spallation frangible powder produced by impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites, leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[9]"

    (My emphasis - more detail @ the URL - DU contains very little - 0.3% or less of U-235 (the radioactive component), (Natural uranium contains about 0.72% of its fissile isotope U-235) - this last also from the same Wiki article.

    The main hazard from DU seems to be that it's a heavy metal, & toxic, especially to breathe.
     
  19. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yah. Well, DU is toxic - it's a heavy metal. It is not particularly radioactive, which seems to be what sets off the caution. That concern is mostly misplaced - there's not enough radiation there to be an issue. Inhalation of dust seems to be the worst side effect - & that can cause serious problems. If we could decontaminate the area & vehicles & buildings struck by DU rounds, that would go a long way to alleviating the concern.

    The article in the OP indicated that the strike zone wasn't in US control - which means that any decontamination will have to wait until we can get in there. & if we can't ever get in there, the Syrians &/or the Russians will be on their own. The Russians, @ least, should have a lot of experience with U decon - they had to do similar work after the Chernobyl reactor disaster, & they've had periodic blowouts & radioactive spills & near catastrophic failures of their U & other radioactive tailing piles & liquid byproducts & etc. Come to think of it, the Russians are exactly the people you want cleaning up the mess - they've had a lot of experience, & the field conditions in Syria are likely no worse than what they've (the CIS) had to deal with in the past.
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is where I have a problem with blaming our M1 tanks. The gunners can hit the nickel in your pocket at night and at 2 miles. The ammo has a thin piece of DU inside that hits the armor. It is so destructive the turret of maybe all tanks simply blows a hundred feet into the air.

    Does anybody honestly think tanks are very good weapons inside cities? They are excellent in open plains. Besides, how does one breathe that dust that is left over? Do they get down on the ground to suck in dirt?

    I only hear amateurs saying it harms a lot. Our government has long said nonsense to this.
     
  21. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  22. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you read the referenced article @ the OP, the story is talking about A-10 airstrikes. They fire a 30mm cannon with DU penetrating rounds (in this case), mixed with incendiaries. There's no mention of US tanks, as I recall.

    The dust from the DU round - upon impact - high speed & dense material - the DU round tends to auto ignite - & the incendiary rounds spaced in with the DU rounds help that. The resulting vapor of DU spreads up to 100 ft. around the impact, depending on wind & other variables. So there's a fair amount of environmental contamination possible.
     
  23. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  24. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The method of delivery does not matter. Our military fired a lot of DU and it is DU most blamed.

    Your report looks accurate from what I have learned. While it is contamination, due to radioactivity, on that it is extremely minor. Du is not as dangerous as some claim it is. The human eliminates the radioactivity within 15 days. That is not a long time and to say humans pass this to the unborn may indeed be true, it seems many women are with child yet so few end up with problems. I do not therefore see any connection to DU and the unborn.
     
  25. hoosier88

    hoosier88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Reading through the history of the A-10, it's the A-10 that fired most of the DU rounds in the Middle East wars. (Probably because tanks engage a single target @ a time - an A-10 typically strafes a column of vehicles @ a time.) Yah, DU has low radioactivity - lower than unprocessed (unenriched) U ore. DU is dangerous - chemically - to life, because it's a heavy metal, & thus toxic. Especially if aspirated or lodged in lungs.

    Humans don't eliminate the radioactivity within 15 days - that 15-day period is the biological half-life - humans excrete half the U in 15 days, & half of the remaining U in another 15 days, & so on. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life#Metals, & also post #18 above. Also, see the chart for biological half-life for various metals in Wikipedia, @ the same URL.
     

Share This Page