January 02, 2004
"What We Will Do In 2004”
What will we in this most powerful of all nations do in the next year? I will continue to study history in an attempt to understand our conversion from a Republic into an Empire. I will continue to speak out in the debate of whether or not our nation will continue to approach the world as if it were naturally subordinated to the desires of our leaders. Colin Powell asserts that the Bush Administration will continue to utilize our national power and our nation’s resources to dominate the world through the force of arms and the power of our economic engine. The Secretary of State uses some high flying hyperbole in making the Bush Administration’s statement regarding this New Year. He obviously believes that what they are attempting to do in the world is something different that what a lot of us see happening due to their policies that have hastened our rush to Empire. He pulls at our emotions and tweaks our ideals but he serves an Imperial drive that will destroy our Republic. It will destroy us as surely as it destroyed Rome and the recent Soviet Empire that we judged as evil if we continue on our present course.
Being too close to the action can obviously change your perspective dramatically. He sees an Afghanistan where the Taliban have been defeated and the remnants of Al Queda are on the run. I see an Afghanistan trying to find a common basis for governance and doing so at the expense of the vulnerable women and children in its own society. I see a nation so divided and disrupted by nearly two hundred years of internal reactions to colonial governments in our nation and Europe that it is too poor to feed its own children. I see an Afghanistan driven by tribalism and oppressed by the Warlords that are the true power structure there. I see no signs that the degradation imposed on that nation by the oppression of empires like the British, the Soviet and now the American will lift any time in the foreseeable future. I see a nation with a spirit so diminished by that process that it accepts the sacrifice of its women and children to war as an everyday event of little importance. I see a nation there which produces much of the world’s opium and uses it to arm itself against further degradation at the hands of men like Mr. Powell. His appeal to us to accept the Bush “vision” for the world falls falsely on my ears on this cold midwinter’s day.
Mr. Powell as the Secretary of State has presided over the further militarization of our Department of State. This is a Governmental agency which once was the envy of the world for the well educated and competent historical perspective it brought to the effort to find peaceful solutions to the problems of the world. It has become the den of “Cold Warriors” that fear the ability of the outside world to exert its force on our nation through economic and military reactions to our repressive internal government. It sees, through Mr. Powell’s eyes, a world that is better served by our imperial use of military force to impose our will on Iraq and other nations than it would be by the uses and forces of diplomacy. This is a perversion of its vital mission in our constant struggle to balance the forces our own power can easily loose on the world. Our hope for peaceful solutions to the problems in the world outside our borders, our Department of State, has been subordinated to the Pentagon during this Administration’s watch.
The militarization of our nation’s diplomacy is only part of the impact that the militarization of our nation over the duration of the cold war has accomplished. The Bush vision for the world, if such a thing can actually be said to exist, is rife with contradictions between its policies for our nation and the world. It pursues an activist role in the world based on preemptive use of our military force which costs a lot of money. At the same time it is pursuing a tactical approach to shrinking our government at home called Starve the Beast” by its proponents. If “Starve the Beast works it will only diminish our international power in the end. We cannot sustain our military presence everywhere in the world without a healthy national economy and a massive federal budget. If the Beast starts to really shrink won’t that impact our imperial power in the world?
Watching Colin Powell dance on the world stage for George Bush reminds me of a Song written by Randy Newman about a boy and his dancing bear. The real effect of the policies of this Administration on the world has thus far been to unite some of the world against our Imperial posturing for the first time in at least half a century. Amazingly that group included some of our former supporting cast in the “Cold War”. If what passed for diplomacy in the last year of this Administration’s hold on power in the world is the success that Colin Powell presents it as then the world is a stranger place than any that has come before. I fear that Mr. Powell has misconstrued the success of our military force at war as a sign that peace is on the way. This has never been true before, why should I believe it today? God bless and keep you safe in this time of militarization of our diplomatic Corps, it will be a job that only He is up to accomplishing.
Henri, that is an interesting assertion to put the end of the cold war with Russia in the same sentence with Rome. When I though it about, it began to make sense. For the fall of Russia’s competitive military might came from extending its economic resources far too broadly throughout their military buildup. The collapse came from within as a result of the recognition that the system had blatantly failed the Russian people and there was no hiding it anymore.
If the U.S. pursues the kind of military buildup and incursions throughout the world as we have seen with deployments in Iraq and the Phillipines while maintaining previous foreign presence we may indeed be seeding the growth of our own demise.
The potential for an abrupt disillusionment in our government is very real in 2012, 2016, or 2020 resulting from the 10, 12, or 14 Trillion Dollar National Debt which keeps taxes high as the interest on that debt soars, while government service to its own people withers and our imperialist military presence throughout the world saps our tax dollars and discretionary spending to almost nothing.
Posted by: David Remer at January 2, 2004 02:04 PMDo you believe we are trying to create an empire? I don’t.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at January 2, 2004 02:12 PMSebastian, an empire of military domination with the assistance of a few allies designed to provide world wide security for the U.S. would seem to be a foregone conclusion based on our President’s words and actions.
Low yield bunker busting Nukes research, reviving the “star Wars” technology that doesn’t even exist in the hopes of putting space based nukes over the heads of government throughout the world, using trade as a weapon against our own allies who hold differing views on the necessity for killing thouasands and thousands of people in Iraq, using war as a method of disposing of our waste problem of depleted uranium by incorporating them into our bombs and bullets: If it looks like imperialism, acts like imperialism and sounds like imperialism, it probably is.
Posted by: David Remer at January 2, 2004 02:36 PMBut what good is diplomacy without military muscle to back it up? Pure-talk diplomacy works well with civilized people and governments (the western world is used to its success within their own sphere), but not with rogue dictatorships.
I know it sounds crass, but some people do only understand the language of force spoken by the people willing to use it for a worthy purpose.
Take for example, our good friend Gaddafi.
That’s how diplomacy should really work. Talk — but let the other party know that we have something to back it up.
It wasn’t just a co-incidence that Gaddafi approached America’s best ally, UK, and that the sequence of events starting with his initial advances towards to the UK (in March) to his finaly capitulation (last month) were bracketed perfectly by the initial thrust in Iraq and Saddam’s capture.
If non-militarized diplomacy was any good, Gaddafi would have gone to the French.
Posted by: Vivek at January 2, 2004 03:58 PMDavid first
I appreciate your comments as always. I recommend the book “The Sorrows of Empire” by Chalmers Johnson. It is his conceptual line that draws the link between the fall of Rome and the fall of the Soviet Empire. He harbors no illusions about Russia, China, Iraq or our own Imperial drive. He has been a student of foreign affairs since the Korean War and writes and thinks clearly about the world as a place in which games of dominance and the abuses of power are often played out.
It is militarism from which we have the most to fear of all the forces that drive our nation toward empire. From George Washington through Ike Eisenhower our greatest leaders have been warning us about the folly of a huge military establishment combined with an armaments industry that could warp our national focus. We now spend one third of all the funds spent in the world annually on weapons and their uses. That number has never diminished since the “Cold War” came to an end. If dominance is not our intent then why should we spend so much more than any other nation or combination of several nations in the world?
Sebastian,
I would recommend the web sites on which the neocons post their agenda for our nation’s future if you want proof of their intent to creat an empire out of our power in the world. I would also recommend Chalmers Johnson’s last two books, “Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire for a party-neutral analysis of how both Democratic and Republican Administrations have served the agenda of creating an empire based on our unilateral use of force in the world. It is no more likely that Al Gore would have abandoned this course than it is that George Bush will if we reelcect him. It is the use of our nation’s military power by the institutions that we have created to project our economic power around the world, our multinational corporations, that most disturbs me. An Empire cannot serve the people as well as a Republic as history well shows.
Henri
Vivik,
The idea that diplomacy can work without any power to enforce it is as unlikely as the idea that law can exist without the power to enforce it. The difference in our positions is not quite as stark as that. Of course dominance by fear works up to a point, but it is an exhausting strategy when one nation tries to use it to dominate the whole world. That is in fact the point of my piece, most Empires die of exhaustion in the end.
Henri
Bush’s problem is that he wants to write America large across the world. What he doesn’t figure on, is that most people are kind of attached to their cultures, their values. In the end, when we use force to impose those values, we end up only converting the weak-willed, while the stronger strike back at us, whichever way they’re conscience allows.
The value of diplomacy is that we can often be just as hard-edged, only not appear like the bad guys. We cannot achieve victory over the terrorists out there except by cutting off their means of support. Ultimately it will be more tiring for us if we use the the battleaxe of military forces when the scalpel of diplomacy and covert actions can work invisibly behind the scenes.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 2, 2004 11:49 PM>>an empire of military domination with the assistance of a few allies designed to provide world wide security for the U.S. would seem to be a foregone conclusion based on our President’s words and actions…..If it looks like imperialism, acts like imperialism and sounds like imperialism, it probably is.
David, how do you manage to get things BACKWARDS so often? Bush is doing his best to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, after overturning one of the most evil dictators in decades. An Empire can hardly allow democracy to flourish. That’s an oxymoron.
Get a clue, geez.
>>Low yield bunker busting Nukes research
If it takes a low-yield nuke to take out a biological or nuclear weapons site, say in North Korea, isn’t that better than going to war to achieve the same goal? Or should we just allow out enemies to develop these weapons and hope al Qaeda never aquires them?
But of course, you never answer tough questions.
>>,reviving the “star Wars” technology that doesn’t even exist in the hopes of putting space based nukes over the heads of government throughout the world
Star Wars technology will work. Some perhaps will have to be developed. And are you claiming that the US is a threat to the free world?
>>using trade as a weapon against our own allies who hold differing views on the necessity for killing thouasands and thousands of people in Iraq
That’s false. Bush’s trade mistakes were made for political reasons, not as revenge.
And our “allies” were perfectly content to allow far more Iraqis die EVERY YEAR, so they could make a buck. I repeat, more innocent Iraqis were killed annually by Saddam, than died in the war.
And the Left wonders why they’re considered to be anti-American, geez.
David, depleted Uranium is Uranium 238, and it’s not a waste, but a byproduct of refining Uranium to weapons or fuel grade. The reason it’s used comes from it’s high density. It serves as the armor of the M-1 Abrams tank, as well as being the metal of the Armor piercing rounds.
The current idea for SDI is not the X-Ray laser idea, but instead, kinetic impact weapons. But the science is still not up to whack anyways, and only under controlled (sometimes even remote-controlled!) circumstances does it work. Not the best prospect for your worst case scenario.
Bunker Buster Nukes. Give me a break. Precisely who has a bunker hardened enough to merit such a weapon? That bunker would have to be buried in a mountain or be twenty levels deep for that to be a necessary weapon. This is just Defense contractor welfare.
Chemical sites can be taken out by incendiary weapons, which will burn the chemicals to their constituents. Nuclear sites should probably be taken by strike force rather than a nuclear or conventional hit. The last thing we need is runaway nuclear reactions or a meltdown that makes Chernobyl look like a soda-spill.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 3, 2004 11:27 PMStephen, I did not know this about the depleted uranium. I have read that it does radiate. Are you telling me that our soldiers are work long hours in radiating metal tanks. Or are the tanks lead lined to protect them on the inside? And what of all the cumulative radiation from spent and recycled rounds and bomb shrapnel, etc.?
As for low-yield nukes, the radiation given off upon explosion still goes up and will follow the wind drift, settling out on homes, crops, water sources. So maybe low yield means folks don’t die of radiation poisoning with in a few days, but, surely those downwind of the cloud will incur significantly increased mortality and shorter lives resulting from leukemia and other sorts of cancers and maladies from low but peristent dosages of radiation. Talk about collateral damage. It won’t be Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but, their use will certainly turn peoples of the world against the U.S. for using them to rout out 1 to 20 or so enemies while creating long-term collateral injuries and diseases to perhaps hundreds if not many more.
The logic of these weapons at a time when we are trying to reduce WMD in the world appears to me the height of hypocrisy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 4, 2004 01:11 AMDavid, I think what gets people scared right off the bat, and not unjustifiably, is the fact that this stuff is Uranium.
What must be taken into account is that while radioactive, U-238 is far less radioactive than it’s other isotope. There’s a reason the U-238 is separated out. When a U-235 atom breaks apart, it sends out two neutrons. U-238 only lets out one. U-238 doesn’t chain-react the way it’s lighter isotope does. It’s decay is much more long term, much more low burn. That means far less ionizing radiation, far less neutrons pouring out.
The reason you don’t need a lead-lined tank is because U-238 radiates mainly Alpha radiation, which can be stopped with nothing more than a sheet of paper. As I understand it, the Abrams tank sandwiches the Uranium between two layers of steel.
Now, the real danger comes when you get the Uranium burning. If the armor is pierced, or your tank gets hit by a depleted Uranium shell, the Uranium itself will burn off and you’ll inhale it. Uranium can be quite toxic when ingested, and Alpha radiating sources can be hazardous when ingested or inhaled.
That said, the effects in practice have not been observed to be too substantial. Men have gotten DU shrapnel taken out of them with no great radiation injuries. The reports on it’s toxic and radioactive effects are complicated by the fairly carcinogenic environment of the battle fields in the Gulf war and Kosovo.
Between the oil fires, the Chemical Weapons antidotes, and the other toxic chemicals on the battlefield, the effects of DU on the battlefield have to be weighed against a number of other substantial health threats. In Kosovo you can add the high Background radiation and unprocessed Uranium content in the soil.
Generally, while it’s a slightly greater health hazard than traditional steel, DU doesn’t seem to be the radioactive nightmare some activists would portray it as.
Now, as far as low yield Nukes go, I’m in agreement with you, David. The potential for collateral casualties due to nuclear irradiation outweigh any tactical benefits they might produce.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2004 11:14 AMStephen,
As usual your comments are cogent and clear. The issue of the “depleted Uranium weapons is in point of fact related to the ignition of the uranium warhead on expulsion from the weapon firing it and its vaproization at impact on a target. The conversion to gaseous and powdered uranium compounds is part of the problem because in a windy nation like Iraq the residue is airborne for many years after a battle.
The damage to our troops can be substantial as can the long term damage to the civilian population left after the war is over. In the first Gulf war there were a total of 696,788 troops that served. Out of that total there were only 760 casualties directly attributed to the period in which combat took place. Since that time 168.011 troops from that group have been classifed by the VA as disabled veterans mostly due to exposure to unknown elements. An additional 8306 deaths have been attributed to a variety of causes during their service in that war.
Doug Rokke who conducted the US military’s own cleanup after the war is a former colonel and a Professor of Environmental Science at Jacksonville University. “He was fired after his criticism of NATO commanders for not adequately protecting their troops in areas where DU was used.” source for this was Chalmers Johnson’s book ” the Sorrows Of Empire”. There were at least 320 tons of DU left on the battlefield after the 1991 war, mostly in powdered or small particle forms that would be easily inhaled.
Furthermore it is virtually impossible to determine the cause of gulf war illness since the baseline data on the troops sent there is so inadequate. The same problem exists for this war so we will never know the causes of Iraqi War Illness when it shows up. By the way the use of Depleted Uranium munitions are classified as illegal weapons of Mass Destruction based on an UN resolution passed in 1996.
I wonder if the increased number of childhood cancers that have appeared in Iraq and Kosovo in areas where we used DU munitions are likely to be caused by any other source? The use of Uranium as a nonnuclear weapon seems to me to be related to the ongoing campaign to desensitize our population to the use of nukes. Otherwise why use any radioactive material at all on any future battlefield. Antitank weapons and armor piercing weapons exist that could take the place of DU in our arsenal. Or perhaps it is merely another case of our military not giving a damn about the opinions held by the civilian population of our nation. In any case the option of making the choice of whether or not to use these weapons has never been addressed by Congress. This is another abrogation of their responsibilities to act as the brakes on the Administrative Branch and the Military Industrial Complex.
Henri
I do not see vision in anyone who believes we should be in a constant state of constantly changing fears (coded by color of course.) I am tired of even thinking that way.
If we did not railroad other people they would not have such great desires to kill us.
Posted by: aaron mathew wall at January 4, 2004 08:59 PMHenri, the main reason DU is used in armor is the fact that it’s five times tougher than steel. It’s also twice as dense, so as projectile, it slams into it’s target with more force, and penetrates farther. All these combine with the facts I put there before.
I don’t agree with the assessment that their purpose is to desensitize the population to nuclear weapons for the reason that very few people in the public at large even know that this metal is used in such a way. Also, since U-238 is much less radioactive than it’s counterpart with one fifth the Beta radiation, and more than a hundred times less energy per decay. at a decay rate that is over six times slower, the case for it being a gateway chemical to radioactive weapons is weak too.
I went and looked up the resolutions in question. This is what showed up after all the diplomatic throat-clearing:
“[The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities] Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium; “
I wish for you to note the use of the word “urges”. That term does not present a legally binding restraint on the use of such weapons. Note other weapons like Cluster Bombs and Napalm are included on that list.
Subsequent language only repeats the non-binding phrasing.
The Health risks are there, but what people would tell you is that war is a pretty big health risk itself to some extent. release of chemicals from a destroyed plant or electrical substation might play a role in Cancer rate rises. Or it could be the disturbance of the soil, which, as I’ve said is Uranium rich in the Kosovo region. Burning Raw oil or improperly disposing of chemical weapons can have similar effects in Iraq. Other sources of carcinogenic influence must be weighed against the effects of the DU.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2004 11:18 PM“The only bunkers we’d need to take out are those buried so deeply that 1) they would be invulnerable to any conventional weapons we have or would be able to develop, and 2) would be buried so deep that the amount of radiation escaping would be minimal. It perhaps wouldn’t be too much more dangerous than an underground nuclear test.”
1)I’d like to know who has those kinds of bunkers, and whether they pose a current threat.
2)A Bunker Buster weapon would basically punch a hole going into whatever target it’s supposed to. When it gets set off, it’s going to vent out of that hole. If it doesn’t go deep enough, it’s going to leave an irradiated crater with a spread of radioactive debris around it. If this is in a mountainside, we have potential ground water contamination.
In a city, with a miniature nuke going off underground, we have utility damage, damage from the subsidence of the blast area, and the radioactive debris venting out the exit hole over an urban area. Think of it as a combination earthquake/dirty bomb scenario.
“We’re comparing low-level radiation, accidentally released or a very slightly dangerous nuclear explosion, vs. the intentional detonation of a nuclear weapon or release of nerve gas or smallpox in a US city.”
When I hear the phrases “slightly dangerous” and “nuclear explosion” together in one sentence, it raises my eyebrows. There is nothing slightly dangerous about a nuclear explosion. The Radiation, plus the pure raw power of one of those weapons makes their management an issue of great care.
I don’t see the connection between having a weapon intended to collapse hardened under-mountain installations (like Cherokee Mountain), and preventing WMD terrorism. Only a nation would have the resources to build a bunker worth busting that way, and such nations are already covered by the threat of an overwhelming strategic nuclear arsenal. It makes no tactical sense to develop such a weapon for a counter-terrorism effort.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2004 11:42 PMStephen,
Thank you for the correction regarding the UN resolution which clearly does not make Depleted Uranium projectiles illegal, just recommends strongly against their use.
I have far less difficulty with armor composed of DU than I do with projectiles. Armor sheathed in steel is less likely to break down into particles small enough to cause problems. Of course we will have diamond armor available soon enough given progress made in making artificial diamond substrates.
While I do agree that other carcinogens must exist after battles are fought, in the case of Kosovo if the soil is Uranium rich were baseline tests adequate to determine that done before the war? I find it unlikely as most soil surveys do not include a test that would find Uranium in surface soils.
It would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility that DU is contaminated with other radioactive materials particularly U 235 since the separation technologies used to remove one isotope from another are far from achieving 100 percent efficiencies. The term depleted does not equate with purified. In addition to dismiss the release of neutrons by U 238 as too small to worry about is not really sound physics. Neutrons scatter Alpha and Beta Particles in environments where they are released. Their secondary production of harmful radiation once they are released by radioactive particles lodged in the human body is clearly well documented.
Our militaristic propaganda machine is in full play in regard to DU weapons systems. This makes me very skeptical about information regarding DU’s use that comes from our government. Of course everyone has an axe to grind, but people who expose both major party’s connections to militarism tend to get more credibility with me. I obviously need to watch that and go to the source materials more often.
The difficulty of establishing the truth about the Gulf War Syndrome is largely due to our failure to do adequate baseline data collection about our own troops prior to combat. This was reasonable before Vietnam but has certainly not been reasonable since then. The health disaster that was caused there was probably created by our extreme use of agent orange which was seriously contaminated with dioxin. Since that point in time our military has still refused to gather information adequate to extablish baseline facts that could help define the causes of diseases caused by exposure to harsh or radioactive chemicals on the battlefield.
“The Health risks are there, but what people would tell you is that war is a pretty big health risk itself to some extent.” Not to deny I am often guilty of insensitivity but that comment is not worthy of you. Precisely because war is a huge health risk our troops need our protection from an insensitive military enterprise system that places the value of a human life lost in combat at $100,000. This was the total combat insurance policy that was available to our combat troops when my daughter served a few years ago. While that is better than the $20,000 that was available when I served in the mid sixties it still comes a long ways from replacing the value of a lifetime of income for a family that loses a parent or provider. The other veteran benefits are under siege from the folks in the Bush Administration as we write.
The civilian populations attacked by our military, by us, are all vulnerable and composed of men women and children few of whom want war. War is a tool of governments who use it to impose the leadership’s will on both their own people and the titular “enemy” of the day. Lives lost are always counted in the thousands and will be counted in the hundreds of thousands and even millions if war is our answer to every threat to our empire of oil.
Protecting our Multinational Corporation’s sources of oil is the basis for an international military establishment with hundreds of bases which are used to project our power in a lot of nations around the world. We are once again working with dictators in the former Soviet “Republics” around the Caspian sea. The final great untapped source for Natural Gas and Oil on earth is there. So are our troops and military bases. Human rights do not exist in those nations any more than they did in Iraq before we deposed Saddam. When will we next have to remove one of them because they sense our vulnerability to disruptions in our oil supply? Ten year or twenty? We have plenty to do in the meantime with over sixty nations on our enemies list and the neocon’s in power.
Henri
>>an empire of military domination with the assistance of a few allies designed to provide world wide security for the U.S. would seem to be a foregone conclusion based on our President’s words and actions…..If it looks like imperialism, acts like imperialism and sounds like imperialism, it probably is.
David, how do you manage to get things BACKWARDS so often? Bush is doing his best to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, after overturning one of the most evil dictators in decades. An Empire can hardly allow democracy to flourish. That’s an oxymoron.
Now wait a minute, Richard, wasn’t all this mess about WMD? Or was it Saddam’s links with Al Qaeda? I’m at a loss here. Anybody knows what the official story is at this time?
As for democracy, What kind of democracy are we used to seeing the US promote? Pinochet-style? Shah-style? Guatemala-style? We’re just seeing one more episode of “Pax Americana: Installing Puppets in Power” (Chapter 133: Ahmed Chalabi; by the way chapter 43 was Saddam Hussein! 78 was Eduardo Noriega)
You bought the “Freedom and Democracy” story? Now that’s remarkable indeed. Am I wrong, or you also bought the previous ones?
To everyone cynic enough, it’s plain what’s going on here: O-I-L. Just three letters. Nice and simple.
German, Madrid, Spain.
Posted by: German at January 5, 2004 08:52 AMA quick note: I find it interesting that liberals, who have always been seen as the dreamers, are the ones who are asking pertinent questions, actively seeking out their answers, and (for the most part) not accepting vague answers for fact.
While conservatives, for whom everything has been historically black and white, are buying the whole “freedom and democracy in Iraq” baloney, among other things, without even questioning their leaders’ agenda or intentions.
Also: “An Empire can hardly allow democracy to flourish. That’s an oxymoron.”
Do you really believe flourishing democracy fits into Bushs global vision?? He will use that word as long as the facade holds up, and by that time it wont matter any damn way. Vote him out!
Posted by: James Fitzgerald at January 5, 2004 12:53 PMThe Sabot Round is basically a Depleted Uranium Dart, with a set of “sabot” or “shoes” around it to let it fit into the breach. It gets fired at Mach 4 into the target. This is one site’s description of what this round can do:
“When the round enters the tank, it’s preceded by a spray of white-hot metal fragments that will kill everyone in the tank and set off anything flammable or explosive. It also trails a shock wave, so the tank goes from one atmosphere to several to vacuum as the round exits the tank. Occupants can be turned inside out or suched through the exit hole by the pressure changes. Anyone who thinks Newtonian physics has been rendered obsolete by relativity and quantum mechanics should take note.”
So, in some sense, unless your vehicle is armored with DU itself, the likelihood is that the effects of the round hitting your tank will probably kill you long before the radiation.
Additionally, you have to understand that DU is far, far less radioactive than the refined U-235 put into bombs.
There’s a reason it’s so difficult to make nuclear bombs: The natural concentration of U-235 in Uranium is .73 percent. U-238 makes up 99.27 percent. In Depleted Uranium, the concentration goes up to 99.75%, with U-235 dropping to .25 percent. The whole deal with the Calutron magnets found back in the 90’s and the controversy over the Aluminum tubes rests on the purification process of gradually spinning out the heavier isotope in favor of it’s lighter cousin. On this point, the Bush administration should have taken a beating, because the facilities to produce even a small amount of Uranium 235 would have to be massive, and quite noticeable. It IS sound physics to dismiss the amount as rather small, because it is, in fact.
Here’s the isotope info:
http://www.product-search.co.uk/labasia.net/features/may2003/thermo.shtml
As far as Diamond Armor goes, let’s wait and see. I’ve kept up with materials technology long enough to know that it doesn’t always move at the advertised pace.
As for Scientific tests in warzone, I wish and hope they can be done, but when we’re talking about war, we’re talking about a situation in which it is difficult to sort out causes and effects hermetically.
As far as the propaganda goes, The UN largely agrees with the US Armed Forces results, or at least the picture of the results as given by the UN. I checked both their sites. DU settle out after the initial dispersal pretty quickly. Your concern about dispersal over time may be well founded, though.
You have to consider one thing though: Uranium is a more common element that tin, or silver and mercury combined. It is common in all soils, and especially common in mountains or lands rich in granite. Then you have to consider that depleted Uranium is actually 40% less radioactive than the natural version.
Then you have to consider that alternative ammunitions may be just as hazardous to one’s health. Lead is just as toxic as Uranium, and so is the best non-radioactive alternative, Tungsten. This is what I mean by war being a pretty big health risk itself.
When you break it down there are a million things that can increase cancer rates coming out of a war. If the buildings are old, it could be anything from lead in the pipes to asbestos insulation, to burnt plastics, or in the case of the Gulf War, the fumes from the smoke of the oil fires. DU is only one among many toxic chemicals that could cause problems, and by focusing on it exclusively, you underestimate other potential threats.
Your cause is at it’s strongest when it relies on the science, instead of the rhetorical stirring of fear, because hard evidence is more difficult to spin than turns of phrase. We are better off starting from what we are right about, instead of trying to steamroll opponents regardless of th quality of our theories.
I agree on the benefits side of things. If we are going to have a volunteer army, we might as well have a well-paid one. And a well protected one. Bush has no business sending people out there without armor in their vehicles and strike plates in their body armor.
I agree the Neocons are doing a number on both our reputation. But I don’t think oil is their only concern. I think it may be a side concern, but I think their main concern is a kind of imperial makeover of the Geopolitical realm. Unfortunately, they are very keen on seeing only the signs they wish to see to justify their policies, and that is a shame.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 5, 2004 08:44 PMHi folks, remember that people all around the world got enough about the “american way of life” built with the blood of the poorest. People got enough about bloody puppet regimes of USA, like Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, Iran(ex), South Vietnam, South Korea, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, S. Salvador, Guatemala, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the african ones and so on. Got enough about american presidents, all ones, about environment destruction, depleted uranium, US WMD, exploitation, christian fondamentalism and money religion fondamentalism as well. Got enough.
People of the world are not stupid, they are only scared, but they won’t be scared forever.
No empire is forever. Not the roman, not Gengis Khan’s one, not Carlo Magno’s one, not the nazis’s one. Not the US one.
The only terrorism in the world is the terrorism of the United States of America.
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
Try to understand and try to do something good for the world and yourself: stay home.
And if you absolutely need to kill someone, kill yourself with your *** guns.
a human being
