Should depleted uranium be considered a weapon of mass destruction? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2024, 05:26:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should depleted uranium be considered a weapon of mass destruction? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should depleted uranium be considered a weapon of mass destruction?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
#3
not sure
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: Should depleted uranium be considered a weapon of mass destruction?  (Read 2335 times)
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

« on: May 29, 2005, 02:54:32 AM »

Please.

In any case, they are a military necessity. You'll need some real proof of a problem for a case to get rid of them, and by extension require the reconstruction of our armor corps.

Why are they a military necessity?  The US only attacks weak countries, much like the Brits mowing down the hottentots with gattling guns, so it shouldn't need very advanced military gear. 

Two things:

1. War with, say, China, is still quite possible in the future.
2. Even so-called 'weak' countries have armored tanks and vehicles. Pre-1991, the Iraqis had them. Depleted-uranium is one reason why post-Gulf War they did not...

And to answer that, depleted-uranium is only a WMD in a very loose sense of the term that would also consider dyanamite a WMD (a mass that destroys; almost all explosive weapons are thus WMDs). Why? It's just a chunk of heavy metal, even if it's got a little radiation.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 14 queries.