• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US says 5k lb bunker busters aren't enough - in market for 30 ton variant

Status
Not open for further replies.
darscot said:
So if a company dumped a bunch of depleted uranium in the US it wouldn't be a big deal? Or it would be a law suit in the 100's of millions?

um, you know they have to train, right?

What type of training?


s1824.jpg


ARMY TRAAAINING, SIR!
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Great. Just what the world needs...more weapons. War = Peace. Damn you Orwell and your self-fulfilling prophecy. :x Now where's my giant rolleyes? PEACE.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
darscot said:
My point was The uranium gets dispersed all over what ever it hits. Then you get a bunch of kids trying salvage things like copper wire out of the tank or vehicle. Two years latter they get cancer and die. Soldiers are safe as the uranium is still in it's protective case.

Like I said I'm not an expert. I was under the impression that the uranium is molten by the time it hits the target. Molten, depleted you guys make it sould like it so much better for you when its depleted.
*sigh* unless the shells are stored in some magical lead box untill the instant ther are fired they are likely under the same ammount of exposure danger as the wire collecting children in your fable. And even then your scenario totally removes soldiers from the battle field were they would be just as exposed as the kids would be even if the shells were somehow safe before being fired.

Like I already said, I am totally against the use of these shells, I think the use of them is unnecessary and that they are potentially dangerous for all parties (soldiers, and civilians alike). I am not trying to make them sound "better for you" but I will call out inacurate information when I see it.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It's just an idea on paper, but the U.S. Air Force is asking defense contractors how they might develop a 30,000-pound, precision-guided bomb that could destroy targets deep underground, in caves or in hardened bunkers.

big thumbs up.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Note I said "relatively". As far as killing devices go, they tend to only affect their target and immediate impact zone with few lasting effects... beyond rubble and ash that is.

....and yes, if you blanket a city with thousands of them, you're going to get that result.
 
HAOHMARU said:
On a side note, the fire bombing in Japan killed way more people than both nukes combined. I have a hard time seeing how all of that was justified. I know at some point in the war we were at least informing the cities a few days in advance that they were about to be bombed, but initially that wasn't the case.

Steve McNamara admits that he and his commanding officer in World War II admit that if we had actually somehow lost the war, they would have been tried as war criminals.

The justification of it is that the government would have never surrendered or what not unless they did this and that they probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides from not invading.

Personally, I really don't like the idea of it at all, its not like the bombs were made for the industrial areas or central command. I don't know. I didn't make the decision 60 years ago, and its not like I can do much about it now except see the thinking behind it and make a moral judgement from my standpoint.
 

HAOHMARU

Member
Wow, that is interesting. I believe it too...and they probably would have hanged from the yard arms if we did loose.

While some of that stuff may have been necessary...yea, I agree with you I just don't like the idea of it. Tough times and tough decisions back then...I guess we are lucky we didn't have to make them.
 

ChrisReid

Member
darscot said:
They dropped a few Daisy cutter on troops in Afganistan. They said it was meant to demoralize them. And those are a chemical weapon but again they are PC.

If you're gonna get that technical about it, all explosives are "chemical weapons."
 

darscot

Member
I was wrong about how the Daisy Cutter actually worked.

But I still feel it's a way too much to be considered acceptable. Let alone how much people brag about the thing.
 

Phoenix

Member
darscot said:
Or shooting radioactive weapons and leaving blown up radioactive vehicles all over the damn place for every poor kid to try and salvage his next meal from.

A kid is salvaging his next mean from the burnt out husk of a T-60 tank? When a tank burns itself out - anything edible tends to get incinerated in the process. Unless of course they are eating bullet casings or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom