Should the use of depleted uranium on the battlefield be outlawed?

Answer 1

Good question...

Like chlorine, fluorine, silica...as soon as we find uses for industrial by-products, we must exploit them. If waste that costs millions of dollars to manage can be reversed to a recycled product that sells for millions of dollars, as a capitalist nation, we must pull that trigger.

Now, as a social liberal, how do I reconcile this conflict of interests?

Answer 2

Most definitely. such weapons long outlast their intended victims. They are strategically indefensible and morally reprehensible, war crimes in the making. Highly radioactive or not, they don't have stopping power so much as piercing power, and aren't limited to their intended targets in range and velocity, capable of extensive co-lateral damage as well as misappropriation and use by terrorist groups. Down home we were always careful of how we aimed a rifle and the ammunition we used with regard to its range and intended target during hunting season. When more hunters were getting shot and domestic animals injured by stray bullets, we put our rifles away and began posting no hunting or trespassing signs. There's a time to say enough is enough, if not too much.

[I said stopping power, I meant stopping power. How many of those Russian tanks are we up against in Iraq? Where are we firing these munitions? What happens when they are stolen and turned on us? What happens after they go through their intended target, are they ablative? Do they evaporate?
Will they take out an auto filled with explosives or go through it and keep on going? Do they explode on impact? What happens to people on the other side of a wall? How do our guys get protected from friendly fire? (Something I'm sure never happens in the bigger is better world.)Consider the targets, consider what lies beyond, and consider where the round ends up. There is no strategic advantage and a good deal of expense and potential for unforeseen consequences. There's a slight problem with pyrophic munitions when the target lacks the armour they were intended to pierce even though they may do a lot of damage and leave one hell of a burnt hole as they leave, the next thing they hit at a slower velocity gets the brunt of the effect. Of course the trick is to hit the engine or wherever the munitions are in that vehicle, but what happens when you hit a windshield, door, or peel off a roof? The battlefield is the wrong place for precautions, and I'm the last one to say we live in a safe and sane world but your highway safety remarks are a ludicrous approach to ethics. Escalation always ups the ante and increases the body count, there are problems technology just won't solve. It's like saying we should increase our speed limit to 200 mph and make sure everyone downs a six pack when they gas up. Of course maybe that is the way to solve war and highway safety, just let all the problems go through a process of self-elimination. Wonder what colour ribbon they issue for uniform use for the Darwin Awards.]

Answer 3

I got a 30 day reprieve from my DSL provider, so I hope I can answer your question.
1.depleted uraniun is NOT an industrial byproduct, it is waste from a-bomb manufacture, or more precisely from an H-bomb trigger manufacture (it takes an a-bomb to ignite hydrogen, more precisely, a deuterium fusion)
2. uranium exhibits what is called stress sharpening, what it means is that when the projectile hits something like tank armor, instead of dulling and flowing it actually sharpens while it penetrates the target, vanadium (which is almost as heavy) does almost the opposite, it flows when it hits something hard...
3. uranium is pyrophopric, so once it penetrates the armor it causes an intense fire inside the enclosure it penetrated.
just like zirconium... but more nasty... a definite plus...
4. FT=MV force times time it is exerted = mass of the projectile times its velocity, as you can see nothing beats shear density of spent uranium... nothing... just physics
Yes, we should use it, (as it is exceedingly efficient) , but we must have very strict rules as to when and how it is used... we failed so far, please witness use of fleschette munitions against civilian targets by Israel.
the biggest problem which concerns me is the negative effect on our troops... something we are powerless to prevent...
*ajunker*, I see what you mean, man, BTW, any killing is immoral, *any* (I am an old soldier), any war is unnecessary and immoral... so, what are we going to do about that ? have any good answers for me ? Oh, man, I just found a way to prevent 80% ofl highway deaths in the US, we make and enforce new speed limit - 21 mph and make drinking age 65... ya thunk ???

BTW, you say they don't have the stopping power, ever witnessed the stopping power of subcaliber (sabot discarding) tank munitions ??? I guess you have not, I have...
It is said, and I have reaasons to suspect it is true, the armor on the new Russian main battle tank (the Black Eagle) can not be penetrated by DU munition, now what ? any suggestions ?

Answer 4

No. Depleted uranium is not some highly radioactive nuclear waste as so many people seem to believe. It is however an effective material for making projectiles.

Answer 5

depleted uranium vaporizes on contact making anything left impossible to clean up which means health issues, and i don't believe it should be totally outlawed but a very stict usage policy should be put in place

Answer 6

Use of any agent that takes longer than a month to disappear (leave the place somewhat livable) on the battlefield should be outlawed!

Answer 7

Why should it be?