Re: War is good for the environment????? -- Welcome to the Phaster Graffiti Wall

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:51:58 07/08/06 Sat
Author: ben
Author Host/IP: netblock-72-25-103-119.dslextreme.com / 72.25.103.119
Subject: Re: War is good for the environment?????
In reply to: Robert Rouse 's message, "War is good for the environment?????" on 14:22:26 07/08/06 Sat

>And I suppose all the depleted uranium left behind in
>Kosovo and Iraq will do sterling good for the
>environment? Stupid!

Yup I'd agree people are indeed too "stupid" to see the big picture, so I'll clue ya into some stuff I know...

Depleted Uranium (DU) is used not because it is radio active, but rather because it is a very dense metal. In designing a weapon system to kill soviet tanks in a cost effective manner, ya look to basic physics and engineering. Stick a rod of DU in a 30mm or 105 mm shell accelerate it to a high velocity and shoot lots of them at a tank and bingo ya have a kinetic energy munition that passes thur armor like a hot knife thru butter, as they say...

http://www.citizen-soldier.org/CS09-uranium.html

Some side history, when the A10 was developed, the air force brass didn't think it was sexy enuf, but after the first gulf war the A10 with the 30 mm gun proved quite effective.

Unused DU munition by itself isn't that dangerous from a radioactive stand point, that is because ammo is kept in cans which stops alpha particles, etc., hell even a cardboard box would stop alpha particles... anyway the problem of DU munition comes when it breaks up into microscopic particles after hitting armor and its very possible ya would have alpha emitters breathed in and stuck in people's lungs, then ya have a problem.

Now lets consider, how many people are in combat in IRAQ or Afghanistan. People actually fighting, lets estimate in half million to a million range (the US has 150 thousand in IRAQ, and there are unknown armed combatants and sympathizers in IRAQ and Afghanistan). Most of the people there are killed by IED's, RPG's or AK's (ya got to love the old soviet union, they didn't know how to feed their people or run an economy, but they sure exported lots of small arms).

FYI DU munition is used on higher value targets, therefore most armed combatants won't encounter microscopic particles. Yeah I know numbers like 300 tons of depleted uranium shells sound scary, but if ya do the math a high end estimate would be only thousand killed because of direct interaction with DU munition. There is a problem much closer to home that kills orders of magnitude more people than DU munition, did ya know about the 400,000 people in america alone die prematurely each year because of smoking (and the estimate is in the millions annually world wide).

http://counter-ads.net/counter-smoking.html

Even people who are not direct armed combatants in theaters where DU ammo is used, are more likely to die because they do not have enuf food or proper medical care (again this number is orders of magnitude larger than people who die from direct and indirect effects of DU ammo).

I'll be the first to admit war is not very pleasant, and it causes very high human suffering! But when doing analysis ya have to be able to look objectively at a problem.... sure depleted uranium left behind in Kosovo and Iraq is a problem for the local people and environment, but in the grand scheme of things wars in those regions which cause economic uncertainty on a global scale actually do save the global environment because it lowers consumption (which is measurable, try looking up US trade figures before 9/11 and then after 9/11, consumer confidence, etc.).

It's been said, "the truth will set ya free" actually what needs to be done is for people to let go of preconceived notions when thinking about the interaction of war on the local scale and think about the environment on a global scale...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: War is good for the environment????? -- Elliot, 07:36:33 12/08/06 Fri (NoHost/140.146.90.214)

Re: War is good for the environment????? -- ben, 12:01:48 12/10/06 Sun (netblock-72-25-103-119.dslextreme.com/72.25.103.119)