DU - Health Risk?

Actually they did. The negotiation feelers sent through the Russians and Swiss were nothing more than a delaying tactic and an attempt to forestall the inevitable.
It was something like Saddam being pulled from his hole in the ground and saying "I am Saddam Hussein and I'm prepared to negotiate".
Too late Bud, time's up.
You were given the opportunity to leave or surrender and responded with defiance. The Japanese responded with kamikazis.
Their official response to the Pottsdam Declaration was refusal and as we now know many military people were willing to stage a coup and sequester the Emperor rather than surrender.
The bomb didn't win the war. The fighting on the islands and in waters of the Pacific had already done that. It did cause Japan to surrender and that ended the killing.

The Emperor considered it important enough to mention in his address to the Japanese people:

One can read all kind of hindsight second guessing by revisionist "historians" claiming it wasn't necessary and the Japanese would have surrendered anyway within days. If one is inclined to always believe the worst about the US, as some certainly are, and choose to believe that hypothetical "what might have been" scenario then nothing would convince that person to think differently.
IMO thought it is complete BS and nobody can say what would have happened with certainty however knowing what we knew about the Japanese up to that point in the war and knowing now as we do what occurred in the Imperial Headquarters during that time, it was the right decision.
Several things are certain, the bomb was used, the Japanese did surrender and the killing stopped. Those aren't hypothetical scenarios but facts.
End of story.

 

Story is not end there,it can be prolonged with part II "US use nuclear weapon on war against terrorism" ,if US officials sayed that as option,i got no reason to not bolive them.What is possible consequences?
1.Start nuclear race again.
2.Wider use of Nukes.
3.Nuclear blast on US soil,probably on "soft targets"

What ewer u think that is not possible,if nuclear arsenal in world start to grow again,chance for something like that increese.

I thinked one more purpose nuclear use: Anty ship!

Imagine nuke who aimed ship on low altitude.Eawen if gun destroy nuke,imagine what blast will do with US fleet ships

 

sinissa:
As I see it, the Nuclear Arms Race never ended.
The Superpowers that have them have been good stewards, and shown a willingness to dismantle much of their inventories.
I'm more concerned about the "wannabe" nuclear powers and Islamic terrorists that would love to have a few to USE against the west.

Tim

 

Actualy,it started to go in good direction.My hope was that all nuclear weapons will be dismounted,but that will probably newer heapen.

One thing tim,i concern.One is intercontinental nukes,made to push away any possible nuke attack.

but alot diferetn is purpose maded nuclear weapons.

Diference is,if 1 be used,that will be apocalipsa probably,so it is hard to bolive that anybody is mad enought.But if purpose maded nukes start to use and mass produce,it is more likely that somebody will use it.It can triger chain reactions.Why use Nuclear weapons,when,clearly US with Russia got TOP techology in world,and supremacy in any war factor.

 

Of course it is an option. Everything is an option. Invading East Germany during the Berlin Blockade was an option. The question is will they ever actually do it? Saying 'we will never use nukes during the war on terror' is frankly limiting yourself without good reason.

Already done - The USSR developed nuclear torpedos for use against US Aircraft Carriers.

 

even the french president have said that use of nuclear weapons was an option in the war on terror, he said that France were willing to use them if they were attack them self with any type of WMD from terrorists

 

sinissa:
I grew-up under the Cold-War threat of an all-consuming Armageddon nuclear-exchange with the Russian "Bear." I think we ALL breathed a great sigh of relief when the Berlin Wall came down... and the Cold War ended.
While I don't believe you can "stuff that rabbit back into the hat" in regards to nuclear technology and weapons-building, I can only hope and pray that rational minds prevail.
In that we are in total agreement.

Tim

 

Folks, all I can say in this is IT IS WAR! By it's nature soldiers place their soft flesh in the way of fast moving hard materials. DU, AP, MOUSE (sorry, that slipped out) IF the cost of my body staying in one piece is a better round and harder armor, than I will pay it. It is something soldiers have to do, to choose the lady or the tiger. Ask the guys at Bastogne. They could have sat around and whined about more ammo, thicker clothes, more supplies, etc. But they didn't. They rucked up and did the job they needed to do. Okay, got that off my chest, return to the scientific debate.

 

What if somebody else use nuclear,chemichal,radioactive,etc weapon in ur home town in US?
With weapon like that,rule is that more civilians then troops die,and that is point here.

 

Sinnisa, I have had VERY close contact with the armor, rounds and the after effects of DU. I owe my life to the heavy armor that it provided, and in some small part, to the penetration of the Sabot rounds with their DU tips. If a war started tomorrow in the US and our forces needed to use these rounds and armor, I would have no problem with it. I think the effects of DU are a far,far cry from an NBC attack. Residual radiation from the rounds or broken armor pales in comparison to "hard" weapons.

 

If that is your point then it is a spurious one. There is no evidence that DU in the form that it is used in the anti-armor weapons deployed by the US kills any civilians whatsoever. Where is the evidence that a single civilian has died from the toxic or radioactive effects of DU?
There is none.
Your "points" are attempts to cloud the issue rather than claify it.

 

You misrepresent the issue. It isn't "US use nuclear weapon on war against terrorism" as you state since there has been no use and that is pure speculation on your part.
What it actually is this: "US refuses to rule out use of nuclear weapons in war on terrorism. Just as the French government refused to rule it out.
A wise man doesn't limit his options and embolden his enemy by ruling out the use of any weapon at his disposal. Even if he wouldn't actually use that weapon.
That is both common sense and an elementary rule of diplomacy.

 

I spokeo about nuclear weapons,not DU.But newerless,US poison foreign soil with DU,and dont tell me that DU is harmless material,it insult me....

 

Feel insulted by the facts if you like but facts they are and facts they shall remain. There is no evidence of significant risk associated with exposure to DU in the manner that you describe. You have posted no source that provides evidence that shows a significant risk to the environment or to people incidentally exposed to such minimal radiation from DU.

 

I did posted in previus posts,u can scroll back a bit.Any serius research say that they dont hawe evidences that DU has high helth risk,and allso they dont hawe evidence that DU is not dangerous.
So conclusion is that DU is ponentialy hazardus for helth for now,till furhter research dont proove diferent.And half life of DU is 4.5B years,so any significant usage just acumulate it in soil.

And here i dont speak about proove helth risk from DU,and his oxides.

 

Science doesn't work that way. They don't have evidence that DU in these concentrations is hazardous (despite the presence of data) thus until new evidence is found there is no evidence that DU in these concentrations is hazardous. It is very difficult to prove a negative i.e. that DU is not hazardous. Lack of evidence showing that it is hazardous can lead one to reasonably conclude that it is not hazardous, until such time as evidence is put forward.
Now if you choose to go through life assuming that everything you encounter is hazardous until conclusively proven that it is not
hazardous (scarcely possible) that is your business. Just don't expect many others to join you in this folly.

 

To answer you question Sinissa, it depends on the situation as to NBC weapons being deployed on US soil. If you give me a particular situation or scenario, I may be able to answer you better.

 

Talk about going around in circles, clouding the issue, and ignoring facts laid down by other members! Nobody has said DU is harmless. Yet, if you scroll back to one of MikeGolfs early posts, you will read that there are other harmful materials. As for deliberately dumping and poisoning foreign soil with DU, I can just imagine how that came about!

Official of American industry: "Mr. President, we have hundreds of tons of depleted uranium on our hands... and God knows we need to do something with it."

President: "I have an idea! We'll use them in our tank rounds! Nobody would ever guess what we were up to! Teehee!"

Official of American industry: "That's awesome! Why, I never thought about that myself. My ideas were complicated and expensive ones like storing it in a warehouse."

President: "Now all we need to do is to start a huge war against someone and make sure our tanks see a lot of action. Pretty soon all this uranium will be off our hands!"

Official of American industry: "And as a side effect, Serbian children are going to die en masse of cancer! Muahahahaha!"

President: "WE WILL RULE THE WORLD!"

 

Whell,US did that,they bombed chemichal industry in my city,(what is forbiden to do it) what released tons of cancerogen material in air,water and ground.

Someody bring up table about how much DU was dupmed by rounds in world.....nubers r impressive,i must say,scroll back and see.And anotther thing,tank rounds r not bigg polutioners by DU,30mm cannon from A-10 usualy dump alot more...

 

Forbidden by what authority?