It's not only our soldiers. Several million citizens of several nations have been exposed. Iraq has a Massive increase in deformities and cancer since the first bombing. Much more was used the second time around.
Ed :cool: :(
Printable View
It's not only our soldiers. Several million citizens of several nations have been exposed. Iraq has a Massive increase in deformities and cancer since the first bombing. Much more was used the second time around.
Ed :cool: :(
Thanks for the reply. Yep. There is a replacement made of Tungston. 3 problems with it. It is hundreds of times more expensive than DU shells. It is about 90 something percent as effective. Where would the US government dump the Millions of Tons of it that are sitting in America?
Ed :(
Oh that's right. I do remember using AP rounds with tungsten penetrators! I know they are not even close to the effectiveness of DU though. Tungsten can still mushroom and fail to penetrate thicker armour, while DU self-sharpens itself. But I am sure there are alternatives that can be found. We don't need a weapon that harms our troops as well. I am all for keeping DU in our main battle tanks for armour though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Ward MD
if I remember right. actually, very little 'penetrating' on DU rounds. They ignite from the pressure and burn through (like a cutting torch) rather than push or penetrate through. Between 30 and 70 percent of the DU, depending on thickness and toughness of what is hit, aerosolizes. 2000 tons used in Iraq. that would make about 1000 tons of aerosol. food, water, air, plants, animals. nothing escapes. Aerosols typically travel around 50 to 100 miles before settling, if ever. millions of tons stored in America. it's a waste product of reactors. Agree, keep the damn things In tanks. Not shot out of them. The war was based on lies. The war is Unconstitutional (war seems to be reserved for a direct attack against this nation, still checking info on that). Get the tanks back over here and keep the damn DU in them
Ed