U.S. nuclear attacks cause cancer epidemic in Iraq

Post Reply New Topic

Let us be accurate. It is depleted U238 which is poisonous, but not greatly radioactive. It has a half life of over 4 billion years (which is why there is so much of it). If U238 is bombarded with neutrons it can produce Plutonium one isotope of which is dangerously radioactive and very very poisonous even when it is not fissioning. See http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/094.htm

The U.S. has not used any nuclear weapons in Iraq, nor has it fired off any in anger since the two A bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the year 1945.

Uranium is very dense and makes a very effective kinetic kill weapon. It is fired from cannons against tanks and it blows tanks to smithereens. Even reactive armor cannot withstand a burst of DU shells fired from Gattling guns (as is the case with A-10 launched DU shells). It simply wrecks heavily armored tanks.

ruveyn

U-238 dust is radioactive and harmful because the radioactivity is a nuclear phenomenon. It may not be explosive but it is still a nuclear threat. Any radioactivity is nuclear and that is unquestionable.

The toughest thing the American army has come up against are aging Soviet tanks (T-72). And columns of these can be picked off by a couple of the M1 Abrams modern variants with normal ammunition. There just isn't any justification to be using DU, tactical or otherwise.

I mentioned this earlier, given the age and state of repair that the Iraqi military's armor is in, DU seems like overkill, conventional HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) shells should be perfectly up to the task, which leads me to the ugliest question of all; are DU munition being used in this situation because they offer such a battlefield advantage, or does it have more to do with getting rid of a troublesome byproduct by leaving it in someone esle's backyard to deal with? Unless there's something I don't know about aging Soviet Tank armor, conventional tank shells should completely adequate for the purpose. The only place I can really see DU as providing a really huge advantage at the moment is the smaller 30mm shells fired from the 7 barreled GAU cannon mounted in the nose of the A10 Warthog attack aircraft, being able to destroy heavy armor from the air is a huge advantage, and I could see at least some rationale as to retaining that capability.

They would. And they'd be equally wrong to do so.



The real damage done will be from the global economic collapse that follows the destruction of central NY by a single low yield fission bomb. And while today's nuclear weapons are "cleaner", if you explode any nuke at ground level you're going to get a lot of crap thrown up.



Though most people don't realise just how many nuclear weapons have been detonated since then. There have been over two thousand tests. Also, current arsenals consist of (very roughly) twenty thousand nuclear weapons. Sobering. ^^

One thing that should certainly be noted about aging Soviet tank armour: most exports (like to Iraq) had considerably reduced levels of protection from the level used in "real" Soviet tanks, so an Iraqi T-72 was not as highly protected as an equivalent period Soviet T-72.

The GAU cannon isn't quite the all-powerful beast it's portrayed as (think: if a 30mm cannon can penetrate tank armour, why do MBTs carry greatly more powerful 120mm / 125mm cannons?); it's good against rear/top and (perhaps) side armour, which of course a plane can aim at much more easily than a tank can.

IIRC most tank kills in GW2 came from TOW firing Bradleys, but I could be wrong.

The A-10 can fire thousands of these DU slugs a minute. There is no reactive armor in the world that can stand up to this. And your observation that the top can be attacked is right on point.

ruveyn

that is why I qualified my statement with the phrase "fired in anger". The U.S. no longer does above ground nuclear weapons testing. The amount of leakage from underground tests is negligible and far below cosmic radiation.

ruveyn

As Ruveyn has pointed out, an aircraft requires a different weapon system than a tank, and since it can attack the weaker armor of the top of the tank a smaller shell can be used. DU's penetrating capabilities combined with the GAU's rate of fire of around 7,200 rpm is what makes it effective versus armor, where as a 120mm tank gun has to breach the heavier front or side armor, and so a larger bore diameter and heavier projectile are called for. Theoretically a tank could mount a smaller caliber weapon firing at a high rate, but I doubt it would be as efficient as the current generation of 120mm smooth bores and the electronic fire control and stabilization that goes with them. There's also the matter of recoil, the cannon in an A10 generates "thrust" equal to one of it's two jet engines while firing, and is why the main gun is almost exclusively fired during a dive, all but the heaviest ground vehicles would simply be blown over by firing such a weapon. There is an aircraft, the AC-130 Spectre gunship that mounts a 105mm howitzer firing from the rear deck, and I do believe that's the largest "gun" ever mounted in a plane, and is more than capable of destroying tanks by striking their weak top armor with a high explosive shell. They have to fly fairly low to be effective though, and are typically deployed at night to lessen their vulnerability to ground fire.