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 26, 2024, 12:18:17 AM
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 2348 times)
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


« on: May 29, 2005, 02:36:13 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. 
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 0.021 seconds with 14 queries.