Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How is depleted uranium used by our military and

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:14 PM
Original message
How is depleted uranium used by our military and
what are its advantages?

Just curious. There must be some reason why we are using such dangerous materials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. It poisons the ground and all the people who come into contact with it
including our troops. I brought this out in a LTTE in 2003, quoting such unreliable rags as the Christian Science Monitor. The Arkansas Dem/Gazette, whiledoing a feature piece on our peace group, mentioned my LTTE and said these were 'unproven alligations', implying that we were lying about the dangers of this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. because it makes defense contractors rich?
just a hunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnnyRingo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. I believe it's a matter of density (heavier than lead etc)
Edited on Fri Dec-24-04 04:29 PM by JohnnyRingo
Originally used as a defence from "kamikaze" attacks on navy ships, it was fired by computer controlled guns at airborne threats.

Since it was so heavy, a wall of DU rounds could prevent further progress of the target, preventing the problem first encountered in WWII.

I imagine it can be used to similar effect on ground targets that are determined to gain proximity regardless of personal consequence.

Apparently, this "stopping power" was adapted to ground targets at quite an ecological and health cost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Passes through armor like it isn't even there... becomes aerosoled,
enters the lungs... is trememdously chemically toxic... has hurt our own servicemen and women. Iraqi birth defects have been attributed to it as well. It is considered a dirty bomb and a weapon of mass destruction by some.

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm?NewsID=2012
The Pentagon claims that American forces and Iraqis are not at risk from contact with depleted uranium, which is used in armor-piercing munitions and protective tank plating.

That's baloney to some scientists who insist the widespread use of depleted uranium during the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq poses a grave danger.

Despite attempts to reassure the public, the Pentagon remains on the defensive.

Depleted uranium, or DU, is a radioactive by-product from the industrial process used to enrich uranium. It is the leftover uranium-238 that results when scientists seek to transform naturally occurring uranium into uranium-235, which is used to produce nuclear energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klyon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. that's right, it is really hard stuff
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 04:05 PM by klyon
we got all this left over stuff and they want to put a little in many products such as building materials, automobiles, roads and other household things.

Get rid of it by spreading it around.

KL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. This is incorrect (anti-aircraft "wall")
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 04:09 PM by Zynx
The difference in a "wall of lead" would be minimal at best. It's extremely unlikely to hit an incoming aircraft or missile with more than a few projectiles, and it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to negate its forward momentum unless you are throwing things with a significant fraction of the KE of the incoming plane. This isn't going to happen with an anti-aircraft weapon. Even the GAU-8 can be fired from an aircraft (the A-10), and the KE push of that is insane.

Similarly, you cannot stop an oncoming vehicle with an impact unless the weapon you are using sent your own tank flying from the recoil.

What DU does is sail right through any armor made due to its density, then blow up the vehicle due to the fact it flakes off little pieces, and these little pieces have pyrotechnic properties.

So basically, solid metal that will go through any armor other than DU itself, and then detonate like it had an anti-tank warhead on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. JR may have been referring to the Phalanx System
which has been described as sending out a "wall of lead" to defeat missiles and oncoming aircraft. It uses, or did use DU.

A nifty little toy, if you are in to that sort of thing. It was portrayed in the movie "Sum of All Fears" where it is fired at oncoming missiles approaching an aircraft carrier.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I'm familiar with Phalanx
But it works just like any other gun in that it pours a bunch of bullets into the target to try to break it up/blow it up.

It certainly doesn't physically "stop" the projectile.

Incidentally, the CIWS would have been utterly ineffective against those Russian missiles in Sum of All Fears. The current generation of Russian/Chinese stuff is why the Navy has gone to RAM rockets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Tom Clancy, is that you?
:) :hi: :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paintedlady Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's used to incinerate tanks,
turn the enemy in to crispy critters, poison the area where it is used for all times, give our own soldiers cancer etc.
Read these two articles and be disgusted.

http://feedthefish.org/blog/materials/johnson.html

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/08/15_bollyn_depleted-uranium-blamed-cancer.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skeptic_All Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-24-04 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Though controversy surrounds the use of
depleted uranium projectiles, there is still much debate as to whether hard evidence exists which substantiates the claims presented by its opponents.

Depleted uranium ammunition, whether it be sabot armor penetrators, or the hardened tips of 20 mm and 30 mm automatic cannon rounds rely on the forces introduced through kinetic energy. The harder the object which is propelled towards a hardened target increases the likelihood of penetration. Materials such as tungsten alloys have been used in the past, but depleted uranium (depleted as in irradiating materials removed) has proven to be the hardest/densest material which can be manufactured into this type of ammunition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Yeah there's always "much debate"
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 05:57 PM by shadowknows69
over things that inevitibly prove to be harmful to us in 10 years when the stats are in and it's too late for the first round of "test subjects". There are full cemeteries of the people on the losing end of those debates
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's used as antitank bullets
Most of it winds up as either penetrators for tank-cannon rounds, or as bullets for Gatling guns. It is so very hard that it will penetrate any armor. Once it's in the vehicle, pieces of it break off and catch fire, further enhancing the effectiveness of the round.

Oh, and it leaves radiation on the battlefield for centuries. That's a good Biblical solution--spreading the wrath of Bush to the fourth generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. Essentially super-dense incendiary ammunition
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 04:00 PM by Zynx
DU has one of the highest densities of all known metals, due to an atomic weight that is the highest of any stable element. This density makes it an excellent armor penetrator.

DU also - unlike tungsten, which is just a solid, very hard slug - "flakes" as it penetrates armor, and these flakes are extremely prone to incendiary effects that ignite combustables inside tanks and kill the crew. Essentially, a DU penetrator rod will slam through tank armor like cheese and then blow up like it was an explosive, even though it is solid metal. Tungsten carbide and other less exotic hard materials do not do this.

However, the aeresol incendiary nature of the projectiles once they hit a tank is what makes DU a dangerous battlefield contaminent. Solid DU is just about as dangerous as any other chunk of heavy metal. Handle it with care and with gloves. Once it flakes and blows up a tank, it can be inhaled, and *that* is extremely dangerous due to the very high toxicity of this crap.

Interestingly, and fear mongering to the side, there is no significant radioactive threat to speak of from DU, due to the extremely long half-life of uranium, and thus the inherent low radioactivity, which is simply not enough to give someone radiation sickness. The danger is exclusively from the fact that it is a heavy metal, and like mercury does not leave the environment and builds up in higher life forms, which it also does not leave (because your body cannot process it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Someone here has the facts wrong
Some are saying depleted uranium means there is no more radiation in the projectile.

Others are saying depleted uranium leaves contamination for centuries.

Guess I'll go get the facts myself...however I suspect there is exaggeration on both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Contamination yes, radiation, no
There is still radiation left in it, but its far below the scale of something that would hurt a person. You need a whole other set of elements to make dangerous "dirty radiation" contamination. Cobalt, cesium, iodine, etc.

You can't get rid of heavy metals though, so the area will remain poisoned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Yes it is radioactive, but not any more so than natural uranium.
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 08:29 PM by Massacure
The radiation is so weak that your skin will block it.

It is toxic though and it would be just as stupid to inhale it as it would be to inhale lead, arsenic, or mercury.

Unfortunately DU burns well and turns into a fine dust when it makes contact with enemy armor. It's a bit hard not to breathe the fine dust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudbluestater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Vanity Fair Dec. 2004 Issue Article by David Rose
Edited on Sat Dec-25-04 04:21 PM by proudbluestater
Sorry, it is not on the Internet, but would be at your library.

snip--

"In the ongoing Iraq conflict, just as in the Gulf War and in the Balkans, American and British forces have fired tens of thousands of shells and cannon rounds made of a toxic and radioactive material called depleted uranium, or DU. Because DU is dense -- approximately 1.7 times as dense as lead -- and ignires upon impact, at a temperature of about 5400 degrees, it can penetrate armor more effectively than any other material.

It's also REMARKABLY CHEAP. The arms industry gets it DU for free from nuclear-fuel processors, which generate large quanitities of it as a by-product of enriching uranium for reactor fuel.

Three of the main weapons system still be used in Iraq -- the M1 Abrahms tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the A-10 Warthog attack jet -- use DU ammunition. A 120 mm tank round contains about nine pounds of solid DU. When a DU penetrator strikes its target, up to 70 percent of the shell's mass is flung up into the air in a shower of uranium-oxide fragments and dust, some in the form of aerosolized particles less than a millionth of a meter in diameter. When inhaled, such particles lodge in the lungs and bathe the surrounding tissue with alpha radiation, known to be highly dangerous internally, and smaller amounts of beta and gamma radiation."

Quite an extensive article, well worth the read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-25-04 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. It's used because it's heavy. They could use
a non-radioactive heavy metal, but DU is cheaper because nuclear power plants give it away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC