Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Once Hustler is used as source material against my arguement I'm done with a thread.
Perhaps it could be a variant of Goodwin’s Law, Flints Corollary.
The scientific evidence is that DU is harmless, mind you scientific, controlled studies, not wild speculation thats so popular amoung the uniformed, I am not even sure why this would be an issue amoung thinking people. Scientificly its at the same level as people who are afraid of floride in the water supply.
|
Somehow I think that if someone offered you a new toothpaste with depleted uranium dust in it that you would refuse it.
Like it or not, Larry Flynt is a champion of our civil liberties and Hustler magazine has been a more responsible news source than most U.S. papers over the past ten years.
I'm perfectly comfortable with the scientific evidence that the radiation from solid contained pieces of depleted uranium is not a danger. It's useful and not dangerous as ballast in a 747 in the same way that the mercury in a thermometer is. There is substancial and credible scientific evidence and a mountain of qualitative and anecdotal evidence that when powderized and aerated, as in wartime use, depleted uranium is highly toxic and dangerous.
We also know that it's incredibly effective against armored targets, it cuts through any metal and will explode a tank from the inside. It's yet another weapon that is very powerful and useful in a large-scale conventional war, but not particularly useful in the type of combat we face in Iraq.
My take is that we should keep the DU weapons as a deterrant, but use them only if necessary, much like our chemical, biological, and nuclear weapon stockpiles.
When we have a battalion of Chinese or Russian tanks rolling through Oregon, then it's time to break out the DU rounds. Using DU to destroy the few tanks S. Hussein was able to keep running is unecessary and creates more problems than it avoids.