Toxic war

[4channel]

Should DU in battle be outlawed?

I know that people try to justify it as it is heavy and can penetrate tank amour. I personally believe that it should be banned. What lingers can go on harming folks for what seems to be an almost indefinite time.

                           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Invisible War - Depleted Uranium and the politics of radiation

A film by Martin Meissonnier produced by Roger Trilling

Martin Meissonnier channel

3.3K subscribers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psfK8ijrzyc

                                                             ------------------------------------------------------------


International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Coalition_to_Ban_Uranium_Weapons

                                                             ------------------------------------------------------------

Why deadly depleted uranium is the tank buster's weapon of choice

David Hambling

Thu 18 May 2000 23.45 AEST

The use of depleted uranium weapons is again causing concern. The people of Kosovo have been alarmed to discover that the conflict there has left radioactive contamination, just as it did in Kuwait nine years ago.

Why do the United States and Britain continue to use a waste product of the nuclear industry in their weapons? Some commentators allege that it is a conspiracy between the military and the nuclear industry to dispose of dangerous waste in hostile countries. The real reasons are more complex.

Metallic uranium occurs naturally in tiny quantities. In its native state it is a mixture of highly radioactive uranium-235 and less active U-238. U-235 is used in reactors and atomic weapons; once it is extracted, the rest is depleted uranium (DU). It is a poisonous heavy metal like lead or mercury, but only slightly radioactive.

To read more please click on the below link

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo

                                                             ------------------------------------------------------------

Talk - Dr. Doug Rokke - Depleted Uranium (DU)

talkingsticktv

22.5K subscribers

Talk by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project speaking about depleted uranium November 16, 2002 at University Baptist Church in Seattle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8


                                                             ------------------------------------------------------------

Ban Depleted Uranium

1,442 views

Dec 4, 2012

Afri

1.38K subscribers

4 min documentary filmed and directed by Dearbhla Glynn, and made with the support of Afri and the Irish Quaker Faith in Action group, outlines some issues posed by use of the Depleted Uranium Weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYoqlrvd5Mg

---

                                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

[ambercat16]

---

---

Please tell, what are your thoughts on this issue of DU use in war?

---

My thoughts?  In my opinion, there is NO weapon that I consider acceptable, whether nuclear based or not. I find it almost impossible to comprehend that there are people working to 'improve' the killing, maiming and destructive power of weapons  - but that is something mankind has been doing for millennia and sadly I don't think my opinion will change anything.

[domino-710]

As Philip said - they should have stopped at the rifle.

[ambercat16]

Throwing rocks was when I would have stopped.  

Although I guess even then people would have stockpiled rocks to gain an advantage🤔😩

[repentatleisure1952]

---

@4channel wrote:                                      

 There are many other articles about this issue. The BBC is one.

They mentioned tank tank buster shells... not tank shells... there is a difference.

---

[4channel]

---

---

---

Please tell, what are your thoughts on this issue of DU use in war?

---

@ambercat16 wrote: 

My thoughts?  In my opinion, there is NO weapon that I consider acceptable, whether nuclear based or not. I find it almost impossible to comprehend that there are people working to 'improve' the killing, maiming and destructive power of weapons  - but that is something mankind has been doing for millennia and sadly I don't think my opinion will change anything.

---

                                                      -----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it is impossible to comprehend the state of mind of those who dream up new ways of killing, maiming and creating wars.  These people  have sick twisted minds for sure!  Sadly our side and "their side" are just as bad as each other.

Many people have no idea that DU has been used in recent times.  One chap that I knew and spoke to about it had no issue with it as he believed it expedited  the mission in Gulf War I. I mentioned to him about the increase in birth defects with Iraqi children and he basically said that the ends justified the means. It saddened me deeply that he could not see the wrong in this, the human cost. To me it is an evil practice.

[4channel]

---

@ambercat16 wrote:

Throwing rocks was when I would have stopped.  

Although I guess even then people would have stockpiled rocks to gain an advantage🤔😩

---

                                                              -----------------------------------------

Take away the lust for empire expansion, control over oil and gas pricing, lust for minerals and energy, lock up those who influence politicians in both the West and East, we'll see a better world.

                                                              -----------------------------------------

---

Collateral Damage

By Ron Kauffman

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nJbTqQ9fE

---

                                                              -----------------------------------------

Ron Kauffman's song sums it up too.

[countessalmirena]

I don't  really hold out hope in human beings to solve the issue of war.

Archaeological evidence shows us the terrifying reality of war from the earliest times of human existence. It also shows us something of the sickening cost of war in human terms.

Historical writings show us how vicious and unrelenting is the quest for dominance, power, territory, resources, expansion.

I am a fan of shows such as Star Trek, but one thing about the series has always rubbed me the wrong way: the idea that human beings intellectually advance to a state of "enlightenment" in which war and factions and so on have been left behind. There's no evidence that education makes us (that is, the human race) grow beyond such things. On the contrary: we end up with an educated tyrant/terrorist/warmonger, rather than one who wrinkles his brow uncomprehendingly at thick tomes and intellectually challenging concepts.

(For that matter, the ST concept is self-evidently ludicrous when so much of the plot devices/drivers involve conflict.)

There will always be those who are against the concept of war, and those who are for it, and a whole gradient of beliefs that lie between the two absolutes. For that matter, I must suppose that the absolutes themselves are not really absolutes, but the extreme point of either degree. I myself cannot really claim to be completely anti-war, in that if someone were to attack me, I wouldn't stand there and let the attacker beat me to a pulp. (If I could run away, I would; if I couldn't, I'd do what I could to defend myself. Even more so, I'd fight to protect the people I love. This impulse - to defend oneself and to defend loved ones - runs very deeply in the human soul. As I said... gradient of belief, gradient of acceptance.)

If we accept that basic premise, then all it takes is for an enemy to pick up a bigger stick or make a pointy metal offensive weapon... and the need would instantly arise to create a defence against the bigger stick/pointy metal offensive weapon. If the enemy thus equipped continues to launch attacks, is it reasonable to expect the attacked person/side not to make their own bigger sticks/pointy metal offensive weapons, even if they're intended just as a deterrent?

The darker side of human nature comes into play, and at some point the sticks become unimaginably horrible weapons.

Have you ever read Wilfred Owen's poem Dulce et Decorum Est? If ever a poem said how horrible war is, if ever a poem spelled out just how foul chemical weapons are, if ever there was anything said about the dreadful sordidness of war, that poem says it. I couldn't sleep for weeks after first reading it. To this day, it makes me choke and feel the misery of what it depicts.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

In spite of this, in spite of it, in spite of that horror which smothers decency and peace, which of us can condemn someone for fighting in defence of himself, in defence of his loved ones, against the invading murdering enemy? There is a difference between a soldier fighting with patriotic zeal in acts of aggression, and a soldier fighting with patriotic zeal in acts of defence. Patriotism itself is not a glory, but a beautiful patriotism based upon respect and a wish to live peacefully in harmony with all and a duty to defend the innocent is not the same "old Lie".

I think that war can only stop when aggressors cease to wage it. Terrible things have been done in wars, and it hurts all mankind. I hate the cynical principle of war that holds lives cheaply.

[springyzone]

Countess said:

I don't  really hold out hope in human beings to solve the issue of war.

Exactly. Neither do I.

I actually suspect some aspects of human character-aggression, lust for power or control or mastery over a task etc have been pivotal to our development as a species. Like evereything else in life, they can be taken way too far. I also believe some people in every community are deeply flawed. Sadistic, violent etc

Most communities have their own way to deal with these people-execution, prison and so on, but wars sometimes give these people free rein. We are in real trouble when some of them are leaders and that can happen as they may have drive.

When it comes to weapons used in fighting, I can understand why 4channel would like to see DU outlawed.

Personally, I would too. But once something has been developed, it's really hard to hold it back. The potential for something to be used, either legally or illegally, is always there.

Then there are terrorists and if they were to get their hands on some types of weapons, we'd be in real trouble.

We've lived almost 80 years without atomic bombs being used again in war but I strongly suspect that is because they already had been used. Had they simply been developed but not deployed, then I am pretty sure one would have been used in a later conflict. The military would have been keen to see exactly how they worked. In fact even well after the war, some countries did a lot of testing without too much regard for fallout.

Humans will never reach some stage of enlightenment & universal love etc. We'd be zombies. We just have to learn how best to deal with what we have in our current imperfect state. Negotiating some limits on weapons is a good start but not a guarantee they will never be used.

[4channel]

Below is an interesting documentary.

                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------

---

Invisible War - Depleted Uranium and the politics of radiation

55,990 views

Martin Meissonnier channel

A film by Martin Meissonnier produced by Roger Trilling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psfK8ijrzyc

---

                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------

What I find most disgusting is these people in high places attempting to justify the vile use of this substance. Pure immorality, evil!