Thank you for reponding to my post.Forgive me. I assume anyone reading my posts has some understanding of cause and effect in this world we live. DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.

It could be today. If DU had been determined to be unusable then an alternative would have been found in short order. While DU is there an alternative will probable not be found.I am afraid you have the whole cause and effect turned around here.Well when you are asked a straightforward question.

Thank you for reponding to my post.Forgive me. I assume anyone reading my posts has some understanding of cause and effect in this world we live. DU is only an important component of the militaries arsenal because its existence takes away the impetus to find a better alternative.

Oh, sure, that makes sense.

DU isn't being used because it was the best choice under the circumstances, but because it removes the incentive to find a better alternative. And you have no idea what it would be, but you know there is a better alternative. Obviously, we would have it ... if it weren't for DU.



What was that about "cause and effect"? By the way, you don't happen to know Sparky, do you? You seem to have similar ideas about "logic."

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I have heard of DU being used in tank rounds, naval gun rounds, antiaircraft guns, helicopter cannon rounds, A-10 thunderbolt 30 mm cannon rounds. I have heard of its consideration for use in bunker busters as well.
Due to DU penetrating prowess and the growing acceptance of its polluting nature its use will undoubtedly continue to be expanded. What new uses for DU could there be?

Rifle and pistol rounds
Body armor
Hand grenades
Bombs
Missiles
Rockets
Land mines
Demolition charges

It seems to me DU is better than just about anything else in these applications and therefore essential for the US fighting mans safety. I would like to know everyone’s opinion on what level of use is appropriate.

Now consider that future battlefield opponents will probable adopt DU use at the same level. Is it worth sacrificing the international banning of this substance, that could have stopped it us, just to gain a temporary edge over an opponent we are already far superior to.

I did not say DU was used because it removes the incentive to find an alternative. I said the alternatives had not been found because DU had removed the incentive to find them. Perhaps it is clear to you now that I corrected you characterization of my position. It might help if you think about you post for a while before you hit submit.

There is some doubt of the effectiveness of the US strategic antimissile defense system. Lets make a hypothetical assumption that the system could be made effective with the use of nuclear tipped interception missiles.

Would this use of nuclear weapons be acceptable?

Now lets consider the same use for a tactical antimissile defense system. Would this be an acceptable use of nuclear weapons?

Nuclear bunker busters?

I believe Iraq was at least partially effective in stopping air attacks by lighting oil well heads on fire. Would this be an acceptable strategy for the US?

A few posts back you said:

And now you said (bolding added):

You might want to keep track of what you wrote in previous posts. It saves embarassment.

You are assuming there is a better alternative and basing your argument on that. You have provided no evidence that there is a better alternative and you have given no good reason why the military would be opposed to a better alternative. For that matter, you haven't even defined what you mean by "better." Until you present evidence for these "better alternatives" you have nothing to argue.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

You think that by removing the context of my statement and therefore changing it’s meaning invalidates it? You are hopeless.

I have a question. What exactly are the advantages/disadvantages of using DU rounds against tanks compared to other anti-tank weapons? Ie - missiles, RPG's etc. I ask because I have little knowledge on the subject, and am curious as to why we use DU rounds, after all, there are many different ways to blow up/disable a tank.

__________________
Only two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former.---Albert Einstein.

Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.---Oscar Wilde

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

apparantly they're self sharpening and they produce a cloud of dust which explodes inside the enemy tank. charming.

__________________
__O_/
...|
../ \

DU rounds are cheap and can be fired from a gun. they have good penetrating power because unlike Tungsten they are 'self sharpening' and have better penetration. (Germany have a new 'sintered' Tungsten round that they claim is also self sharpening but it costs more and is unproven)
Missiles are limited by the size of the warhead, the bigge rit is the bigger the missile and therefore the bigger the launch system. Russia have a gun launched system but it's warhead is quite small as it has to launch through the gun barrel. If a 'bin' system or external launch system is used there is always the problem of reloads, either you have to get out and do it or open a big hole in the vehicle to pass the rounds tgrough. Missile guidance systems can also be jammed by countermeasures. So called 'Wire guided' missile systems exist (Milan, Swingfire etc) but they are limited in range.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple

So initially you assert that there are "better ways to destroy tanks" than DU that are "cheaper as well as more effective". Then you are "certain that a better alternative exist". And now DU "takes away the impetus to find a better alternative". And you still don't feel that your argument is demolished? I think it's time you acknowledged that you were overreaching in your inital statement. How about it?

These points do not contradict each other. They do not represent a change in my position. I still believe in each one as well as all of them collectively. Perhaps if you iterated you opposing view we could have a clear exchange of ideas. At any rate it is a bit tedious for you to post the same thing repeatedly and behave as though it is a substitute for real dialogue.

Jhotz - You're very sure there are better alternatives. Yet you don't know of any.

Considering you seem to be working off rampant speculation and assumption, my time is wasted here. Ciao.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

It is laughable that you think you have not shifted your position. It indicates that any discussion will be on constantly shifting ground. Until you relent on this point there is no hope of having a sensible discussion with you.

The sintered tungsten post scared you off huh? Well I for one am glad it is over then.

An excellent example of your illogic. A moe expensive and unproven alternative can in your eyes be better and cheaper. My advice is, stop digging.

A while back somebody suggested that the munitions system will choose political hackery over efficiency and cost. I would counter-suggest that such a claim is pure bunk. The only time political hackery has anything to do with chosing one weapon over another is when the two have been demonstrated to be essentially the same (in terms of effectiveness and cost).

The pentagon designs some results they want and ships the result off to the various weapons people who design weapons to get those results. Owing to physics and chemistry, a weapon designed to do X will look and act very much like any other weapon designed to do X.

Also, contrary to a common opinion I've heard expressed (not necessarily here), the military hierarch would vastly prefer than none of our soldiers be killed, or even injured. Each casualty is lost expense with no further gain. An expended round is an expense, but it has a beneficial effect (for our side) - either keeping the bad guy down in his hole, or removing him from the arena . When you get right down to is, logistics (expense) are what decide any battle/war.

This brings me back to DU. If there were a better system available, the military would use it. In the course of it's penetrating the hull of a tank (for instance) a DU round generates a heck of a lot of heat - *that* is what kills the tank crew on