More Controversy for You: Depleted Uranium

Should be stored @ Yucca Mountain and people should start to get fucking educated about nuclear power and not cry about it so much.

the a10 warthog is a US aircraft


it has this cannon on the front


the cannon is actually this big
[img]http://www.456fis.org/MIS-4/GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1[1].jpg[/img]

it fires depleted uranium ammunition at 3900 rounds per minute

Bad ass.

So Good √ BHhahah

as well as this-

A-10's are bad ass.

If you remove the cannon for maintenance the first step involves putting a jack stand on the tail of the plane because the plane will fall backwards without the weight of the cannon.

If flying in level flight a 4 second pull of the trigger will cause the plane to stall at 80% throttle from the force of the cannon. Good thing you only have about 16 seconds of ammo limited to 2 second bursts.

The cannon is offset and fires in the 9 O'clock position so the force is directed directly down the center of the plane so there is no bucking when the cannon is fired.

The gun exhaust was causing the engines to flame out because there is no oxygen in it so when the gun is fired ignition are activated in the engine to keep the fuel lit.

Anyway the A-10 is bad ass, depleted uranium is some nasty shit and cause a whole mess of health problems if exposed or consumed. However you will probably be in several hundred pieces so getting cancer 5 years later is a minimal concern. I don't know why people key on little things like this, war is state sanctioned murder, people are going to die by the thousands and any and all measures will be used to secure victory. You can't pick and choose what technologies fit your moral code when your enemy is going to do anything possible to kill you.

Don't the Abrams tanks have depleted uranium armor?

A-10 r the reason am getting in air forks

No, the Abrams fires depleted uranium shells. It uses a composite armor.

Actually they do. Wiki: M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well, the added protection from the depleted uranium armor is believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA.

Well fuck. The Abrams changes again since the last time I read up on them for fun.

epic fail on my part
continue with discussion

Seriously not to be a prick but DYK? The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies COMBINED.

Things have been changing a bit.. for those who want to get educated on the subject:

good article, although I disagree that there is such thing as "Overkill" in war. After reading that though I don't think we should be using it.

Yeahhh wow nice one haha.

Really? I know you might think you know what you are talking about, but you do not. I am not trying to be a dick but common man.

'Common man'? If you're going to call me out on being inaccurate at least prove that you know more than I do.

you make a great point. just like the "pics or it didn't happen" type of thing. back up what you say.

really? so you think we should be able to use poison gas and shit in war? you dont think the line needs to be drawn somewhere?

Depleted uranium? Pretty safe actually, sit it in a cooling pool for a few years and its ready to go again. Fuel rods get reused, you know? And buster reactors effectively consume all of the reactants, making them much more efficient. Plus you don't need to refine as much uranium. Sure, the half life is ridiculously long, but it doesn't make its way out of the reactor system unless its emitting so little radiation that it becomes useless as a power source. In effect, this means that the amount of gamma photons emitted from the element will not be able to heat water. Harmful to the human body? Probably not that much. Salt is a great insulator for radiation, which is why the US buries their uranium in depleted salt mines. Do some research on the topic and take a physics class.... Depleted uranium is no threat to human kind.

To actually get radiation sickness from depleted uranium bullets you would almost have to eat an entire bowl of 5.56 depleted uranium ammunition for like one full tour of duty.

I somewhat agree with Tasche if it's all out war, but that appears to be a thing of the past since every major country is tied up in each others economies. However, take for instance the Iraq War, we could have leveled everything, but we consider ourselves of higher moral standing than insurgents who would use innocent people as body buffers. Accountability is something that cannot be overlooked in this modern age, civilian casualties are generally unacceptable and must be avoided whenever possible, and if not possible, then minimized. If however survival is necessary (again unlikely) these considerations are put on the back burner, and whatever means to destroy your enemy are implemented.

i guess that's what happens when you take the pacific.

Back on topic: It appears that everyone who possesses depleted uranium (DU) wants to keep it since it provides a military advantage, while those who do not have the nuclear capability to produce such waste claim it to be overtly hazardous. Honestly for military applications in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems unnecessary to use DU as an ammunition, since the enemy does not have heavy armor. It however seems fine to keep DU as a source of armor plating as in that application it remains fairly inert and does not medically affect the civilian population.

You sir, are ignorant.

Hmm.... can we just define what we're referring to when we say depleted uranium? Because I'm doing a bit of research, and finding various definitions. I'm assuming based on your post that you mean the byproduct of uranium enrichment and/or refinement for power and weapon purposes, in which case my post is on a completely different topic and I'm a big noob. I was thinking of depleted uranium as the leftovers from reactions in a power plant, which it seems is completely off topic in this thread. However, my post still holds true for that context! Sorry for getting off topic.

Exactly, thank you. Any idiot on the internet can go around saying, "I'm smarter than you, you're wrong" and provide no support whatsoever. I fail to see how any of the points I made were overly absurd (unless admitted to be so, like the space idea). But you know what? I'm not opposed to being told I'm misinformed as long as it is EXPLAINED so that I can learn from it. Not doing so is pretty much just a slap to the face, so remember that next time you're "not trying to be a dick".

In a situation where each power is evenly matched any and all means of destruction will be used. The only limiting factor is fear of similar retaliation.

In our current conflicts we are not fighting for the annihilation or complete surrender of a cohesive organized country. I would equate the wars we are in now to more of a police action. We can not be seen using excessive force because we want to maintain and improve our relationship with the government and civilians.

However, I have no doubt, that when faced with our own destruction we would use every available weapon regardless of its horror or long term effects.

According to the article posted above as well as several other "internet" sources I looked at, DU weaponry causes significant long term heal problems not only to the enemy but the soldiers using it. For this reason I think it should be banned. However there might come a time when its effectiveness outweighs its risks and will be used again.

To answer the kid above: Who first off acknowledged that not only was the post he was quoting off topic, but then he posted a response. Then he took a serious tone about the main problem with Yucca mountain being that hundreds or thousands of years from now English will be a forgotten language and future people will not be able to read the warning signs. Really? So we should not pursue a nuclear waste storage facility that is thousands of feet under millions of tons of shale, reinforced with countless hundred ton doors, patrolled by the military, because one day in the distant future some people will "stumble" across it and expose themselves to the canisters of radiation because they can't read the signs... Come on man.

(I guess it is possible, but there are 2 possibilities, 1) Future civilizations are much more advanced and have no problem dealing with nuclear fuel. 2) Future civilizations are less advanced and can't deal with it, if that is the case why the fuck were they digging thousands of feet into the earth? Maybe it will be like king tuts tomb for future archeologist and then when they all die from the radiation people will believe in magic haha.)

And launching our garbage into space is what ever 5th grader comes up with. This is until they take the time to learn that it cost several thousand dollars per pound to launch something into space, then we have the almost certain risk that some day that nuclear fuel will fall back to earth. There is friction in space and all orbits are decaying. Then he says that if there is a launch failure spent nuclear fuel will fall to earth and the planet is fucked. Which is not really true, it could spread nuclear fuel all over an area but would not end life on the planet, if that is what he was talking about.

What annoyed me about his post is that he is spreading this ignorant fear of Yucca mountain and nuclear power facilities based on bad information. I guess at this point the discussion is pretty much moot, Obama cut funding to the facility so it is basically dead.

The only thing that the US Navy really has anyone beat in is shock troops aka the SEALS. Other Navy's do have people like them but the SEALS rank up with Recon Marines and SAS in terms of training, how quick thinking they are, and how they are outfitted (though some of them STILL carry the M60)

Idk I still think our tech is pretty far ahead, in the next couple of weeks we may get a contract for conformal windows (dense mineral optic) for ship based laser systems on ships. I was just discussing today with a visitor at work about the machines used to construct optics of this size. Lawrence livermore has lathes that over a 2 meter span only have several nanometer tolerances, gov't defense spending is essentially unlimited it seems. The window is similar to this baby:

how redundant, my b

my dad works with darpa sometimes and he cant say much, but one thing he has said is that in a lot of cases, money isnt even an issue when theyre doing the R&D on this kind of shit... absurd amounts of money completely at their disposal

It's a shame the posts that are slightly off-topic offend you. Browsing Newschoolers must be a painful experience for you... why are you even here? Had the thread been titled "Depleted Uranium Munitions" your point might be valid.

You said in your original post:

I know that this tread is not about this, but I am going to talk about it anyway...

That English becoming a forgotten language is "a" reason for not storing nuclear waste in the earth.

You then said that you think the final solution is launching it into space.

This is what I was replying to, now that you have explained yourself you make more sense. I can't read your mind.

And how about your read a book! haha, that is one of my favorite internet cut downs.

It's a pretty safe bet that a highly advanced society, such as one 4 billion years in the future, would have the ability to understand our language. But, before the year 4,000,000,002,010 comes around, the language won't be lost and the price of sending waste into space will go way down. It won't be a problem.

They say the sun will turn into a red giant in 4-5 billion years, we will have more problems than dealing with nuclear waste.

That too, but I'm talking even shorter term, like by the year 3,000 this won't even be a problem. We'll probably have an "elevator" to space by that time, radically reducing the cost of putting anything in space.

You are smart for a bro

RE: Tasche-- Fair. I can meet you halfway. 'Perfect solution' was far too strongly worded. I understand you can't read my mind you have to understand I'm not going to take lightly to an insult to my intelligence.

Re-read my post, I explained a little bit more.

And to phillegal, just call me...MichiBRO Kaku.

Love the Kaku, he has inspired our generation to learn more about technology. Check out Kurzweil after you have read Kaku's books.

The SAS is very very good.... but they are much like the Recon Marines and Delta Force. Sure, they can do stuff in the water if they need to but they are a land force first. The SEALS are one of the very few water based Special Forces in the world. And they have some of the hardest physical training too. Something like a 70% washout rate in the first two days of Hell Week.

my brother is in force recon- 2 years of training before he even did anything - in italy right now but he is going back to Afghanistan along the pakistani border next month

Yeah. I have a couple buddies in the military and they all worked their ass off and got into Special Forces in different branches (one guy made 101st Airborne but is trying to go to Ranger school)