Will depleted uranium bullets be ever used.

[FO Seaman]

DU in other countries is what I am more concerned with. Our standard for our munitions are one thing, but other countries generally do not go by US standards for acceptable levels of radiation.

Roger that.

 

[specialasiankid]

urnaium shells r probably worse for the people who use them, than the people who get hit by them. it would b extra money and the shells we use now r just as effective, whichout radioactive poison

 

[masterblaster]

du rounds

the 30 mm round used in the GAU 8 gun in the A-10 uses DU. the 120 Mm long rod penetrater on the M-1A1 tank is du. the CIWS used by the navy uses DU. It is cheap and useless for anything else. It is more effective as a anti tnk penetrater than Wolfram. If the greens dissapeared, everyone would use it.

 

[FO Seaman]

Re: du rounds

the 30 mm round used in the GAU 8 gun in the A-10 uses DU. the 120 Mm long rod penetrater on the M-1A1 tank is du. the CIWS used by the navy uses DU. It is cheap and useless for anything else. It is more effective as a anti tnk penetrater than Wolfram. If the greens dissapeared, everyone would use it.

Not only do the M1 and A-10 use DU, the M2's 25mm fires DU. And the M1A1HC has DU mesh armor on its hull and turret.

 

[LeEnfield]

Now if you get hit by an ordinary bullet you will know all about if you are lucky and it is unlikely that you will be paying much more attention to the action going on around you. So why make a $10.00 bullet to do this when a 10 cent bullet will much the same thing. Now the odd Soldier to have few of these bullets which would be armour piercing is one thing but just blasting away with sort of ammunition is not only over kill but a waste as well.

 

[Obvious]

Hence the name: depleted uranium, the bullet is not radioactive and does not danger the user's health. It would only be radioactive if it was made out of nuclear waste: or what we would call a dirty bullet. If it actually was harmful, then we would have known the risks and never would have used it in the first place.

 

[LeEnfield]

The people that design these things never use them in action, don't spend weeks with them in their pockets. It is like cigarettes some people are affected by them and others aren't.

 

[FO Seaman]

The people that design these things never use them in action, don't spend weeks with them in their pockets. It is like cigarettes some people are affected by them and others aren't.

Your wrong, alot of the designers spend large amounts of time with the DU, but you are correct about the analogy.

 

[Spartacus]

The people that design these things never use them in action, don't spend weeks with them in their pockets. It is like cigarettes some people are affected by them and others aren't.

Your wrong, alot of the designers spend large amounts of time with the DU, but you are correct about the analogy.

Yes, but on the field?

 

[FO Seaman]

The people that design these things never use them in action, don't spend weeks with them in their pockets. It is like cigarettes some people are affected by them and others aren't.

Your wrong, alot of the designers spend large amounts of time with the DU, but you are correct about the analogy.

Yes, but on the field?

No but in the office. They use different types of unranium and radioactive material.

Who's more at risk, the X-ray technician or the patient?

 

[Spartacus]

The people that design these things never use them in action, don't spend weeks with them in their pockets. It is like cigarettes some people are affected by them and others aren't.

Your wrong, alot of the designers spend large amounts of time with the DU, but you are correct about the analogy.

Yes, but on the field?

No but in the office. They use different types of unranium and radioactive material.

Who's more at risk, the X-ray technician or the patient?

Yeah, standing in a room under lab conditions is different than actually taking that ammo with you into the field.

Whos more at risk, nuclear physicist or technician?

 

[FO Seaman]

The people that design these things never use them in action, don't spend weeks with them in their pockets. It is like cigarettes some people are affected by them and others aren't.

Your wrong, alot of the designers spend large amounts of time with the DU, but you are correct about the analogy.

Yes, but on the field?

No but in the office. They use different types of unranium and radioactive material.

Who's more at risk, the X-ray technician or the patient?

Yeah, standing in a room under lab conditions is different than actually taking that ammo with you into the field.

Whos more at risk, nuclear physicist or technician?

Nobecause the round is incased in it's shell, while in the lab it's unprotected. The M1A2 SEP uses DU as armor and it hasn't effected any tank crewman.

 

[LeEnfield]

Yes I quite agree but did they not say the same thing about agent orange

 

[FO Seaman]

Yes I quite agree but did they not say the same thing about agent orange

No. The company that made Agent Orange knew of it's dangers as early as 1957, but neglected to notify the military.