Depleted Uranium...

[Hector]

If us "young people" cant conceive a world without war then how as a child could you think that a world without war was the best idea?

"Young people" does not equal "child". Hence our cynicism accepts at a fairly youthful age something (the inevitability of war) that in our earlier years we did not.

You call it idealistic, i just call it naive.

Since it's a favourite word of yours, were you aware that 'naive' can mean guileless, the absence of treachery and cunning? It's from French and Latin meaning 'natural' and 'to be born'. What exactly have the sophisticated minds of the planet come up with in terms of reducing the need for war? Or is it such a prerequisite for our existence that the question no longer needs to be asked?

I can't really understand how you could be irritated by my slightly pacifistic perspective. You don't need me to qualify your opinions.

 

[Joko]

You know what they say, large vocabulary, small DICtionary.

"Young people" does not equal "child"? ... does "child" = "young person"?

Theres one for you to ponder.

naive CAN mean ... blah blah blah some social science arts bs

nuff said really, you have no valid arguements to counter mine so you recite the dictionary to me? How cute.

And im not irritated by your opinions, im irritated by your superiority complex and your uncanny ability to spout irrelevant bollocks, but wording it in such a way that instead of thinking you are a fool, 99% of the population would think you are vaguely intelligent. Hide behind your words, but your views are fundamentally flawed, and you know it, otherwise you would be arguing for them instead of nit-picking my word choice.

Good day, sir!

 

[Hector]

nuff said really, you have no valid arguements to counter mine so you recite the dictionary to me? How cute.

No, Joko. I was trying to show how things can have a flipside. You accused me of naivety and I countered with the proposal that there were elements to naivety that were not wholly negative. It's like the whole debate, and every debate, and until you can at least try and appreciate another perspective you're head is going to remain firmly stuck up your arse and we'll be subject to your knee jerk reactions everytime you think your 'rep' is being impugned, and you'll just continue to appear an arrogant little prick, which I'm sure you're not at all.

Sorry, I'd rather not get into mud-slinging but if the mods aren't going to attempt to gag your pointless vitriol then I'm going to just have to call it as I see it.

Hide behind your words, but your views are fundamentally flawed, and you know it, otherwise you would be arguing for them instead of nit-picking my word choice.

I am arguiing them, and have been. Unfortunately the only debate you're prepared to engage in is throwing statisitcs out and/or slagging people off for YOUR INTERPRETATION of their motives. You're not prepared to discuss things in a philosophical manner at all-which is fine- and means that really our paths shouldn't cross at all. I imagine it does because of your bizarre obsession with your reputation and generally how you appear to others.

I can't help how you interpret my words. Try and look at the content rather than the style and if that doesn't work for you, move on.

Oh, and by the way, just look at yourself and how you pick on anything you can to get negative about rather than answer ANY of my questions.

 

[Mughi]

Keep on topic.

 

[Martz]

Thread slightly Spring cleaned.. please keep on topic. Joko banned frmo P&S by Mughi and I for not being able to control his temper. Shame.

 

[Ajax]

Using DU for weapons is just sick sick sick imo.

Why do we as a race have to find more disjusting ways to kill, stop and think what would happen if instead weapons be developed the whole worlds army budget for a year went into something good like finding a cure for cancer.

We as a race don't need war and its about time we grew up and saw this, Thur you earlyer had a dig at ck for saying he would rather leave than fight, did you ever consider the flip side ? If everyone started to think along those lines then there would be no attacking in the first place to run away from.

I know your all gonna tell me to wakeup and smell the rose's but i'll leave you with wise words said by a wise man..

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

 

[Andy]

Re:

I think a mace in the face or being hacked by a billhook is a more disgusting way of killing someone with a weapon, DU kills instantly usually (on the battlefield to which he was referring).

Edit: spelling

 

[Nina]

DU bullets are beeing used since it penetrates armor

 

[sobo]

If it would always kill instantly there would be no people living after a war to make children with damaged DNA.
Weve discussed the inevitability of war. So the task probably is (besides the utopia of no war) to make war sustainable (for the civilists at least). So Id have no prob with DU ammo, if it killed a hit soldier with a chance of 100.00% as the consequences for birth would be zero as there would be no DU-"infected" mothers or fathers.
My regret for the dead soliders would be minimal as they themselves accept the risk of being killed in the fight.

BUT its those little portion of exceptions in every 'certain' thing. ('NORMALLY' the start of a space shuttle is sure to be safe enough to deliver DU to the sun for instance, but there could be exceptions)

Now the human species as the most intelligent species on this planet (as we know atm) decides, which exception are sustainable enough to make use of the (highly economic mostly) opposite. Those at the power have decided that a few dead babies are acceptable to spread their respective idelogies faster.

IMO this will go as long as the "exception" becomes too important to ignore.

 

[Cutter]

I don't think I asked one...But anyway: To be objectively conscious in Eastern Philosophical terms (references on request) is to be self-aware on the mental and emotional level without hindrance of personality, social pressures, etc. This is really out there on the what's-this-got-to-do-with-the-thread scale but if you're going to ask "What's the difference between animals and humans?" then you've got to be prepared for a range of eclectic potential answers. While we simply discuss the merits of this bomb or that tactic we get no nearer to ending war. Ghandi is the pwnz!

Ahh, so effectively by "objectively conscious" you mean "amoral" - in other words, intelligent and self aware, but not hindered by notions of guilt, or not doing something because society views it as "wrong"? In which case, I'd say plenty of humans are "objectively conscious" (going back to friday night argument...)

I still say its premature to dismiss all non-human life as not subject to guilt or morals. Until we can "talk" to them in their own "language" we will simply be making assumptions.

Well I can't fly, rotate my head 360 degrees or enjoy smelling my friend's shit but I'm not putting my motorcycle servicing in the hands- or flippers- of a couple of penguins Atm I'm comfortable enough with the conclusion that we are the superior species at the moment but with the caveat that if we don't get a bit more superior real fast then we may not be for long.

Exactly. Horses for courses. The fact that Penguins might not be able to service a human motorbike does not mean that they are not self aware, intelligent and governed by moralistic notions of behaviour.

By what standard are you saying human being are superior? Intelligence? Morals? Guilt? Technology? IMHO, the only thing I can see where we are clearly more advanced is in the use of, and development of, artificial tools to compensate for lack of innate abilities, or to aid us in the "ascent" of our species. I'd dispute the comment that we are the most "superior" species on the planet. Lack of proof and conjecture m'lud...

Sorry, I'd rather not get into mud-slinging but if the mods aren't going to attempt to gag your pointless vitriol then I'm going to just have to call it as I see it.

Mods don't touch this forum with a barge pole. Not after one mod tried to enforce the clearly stated forum rules and suffered a whole load of vitriolic personal attacks, which were based more on personality clashes than any genuine complaint about abuses of power. This in fact being the second time this had happened, as it happened previously to a different mod. You'll note it was admins who made the recent "alterations" to this thread...

 

[Hector]

Ahh, so effectively by "objectively conscious" you mean "amoral" - in other words, intelligent and self aware, but not hindered by notions of guilt, or not doing something because society views it as "wrong"? In which case, I'd say plenty of humans are "objectively conscious" (going back to friday night argument...)

hehe

No I don't really mean that, and it's a tad pessimistic to take for granted that actions/ideas taken outside the realms of social pressures and laws should be automatically assumed to turn out 'bad', as I'm assuming you're inferring. I think people are probably capable of working together in a peaceful way simply because it's the most practical and productive relationship. I can't really produce a pat definition of 'objectively conscious' but if you're interested then read Ouspensky and Gurdjieff.

I still say its premature to dismiss all non-human life as not subject to guilt or morals. Until we can "talk" to them in their own "language" we will simply be making assumptions.

And it's irrelevant anyway.

Exactly. Horses for courses. The fact that Penguins might not be able to service a human motorbike does not mean that they are not self aware, intelligent and governed by moralistic notions of behaviour.

But it still stands that the most evil penguin faction the Antarctic has ever seen is unlikely to be able to mobilise into a world-threatening force, so their levels of those qualities is also irrelevant. (disclaimer: If the Penguiin Liberation Front are reading this, I don't mean to dis you guys. Peace. Or 'Quack' or whatever it is you say)

This is so off the wall that I'm going to refrain from further contributions before I get my knuckles wrapped. Perhaps I'll start the hippy peace train thread elsewhere

 

[Toa$ter]

MAN I didn't know what graphic means

 

[Joko]

Sorry to dig up an old thread but I thought some of you may want to take a look at this book.

Hitler’s scientists - John Cornwell ISBN: 0 670 89362 5

I only got a chance to leaf through it for an hour between lectures but it seems like a good read. It basically discusses how Hitler wanted to be viewed as a scientist etc It also mentions despite the fact that (at the time) Germany was the world leader in nuclear fission and rocket technology the Germans didnt combine the two to produce the worlds first ballistic nuclear missile. Cornwell hints at whether this was due to technical inability or else an underlying ethics in the Germans science community. Big book but worth it if you have the time to read it.

There's also a little comment in the RSC's Chemistry World this month, Tony Ryan from the University of Sheffield suggesting that we should invest in nuclear power as an interim between fossil fuels and efficient solar energy solutions. Some thought provoking questions.

 

[Dark]

Omg those pictures are so sick. Gotta hope nuclear fusion works some day eh, toxic waste free nuclear power, downside is the reaction has to be conainted within a magnetic forcefield because it is so hot it will melt anything else.

 

[Paa`]

Sorry to dig up an old thread but I thought some of you may want to take a look at this book.

Hitler’s scientists - John Cornwell ISBN: 0 670 89362 5

I only got a chance to leaf through it for an hour between lectures but it seems like a good read. It basically discusses how Hitler wanted to be viewed as a scientist etc It also mentions despite the fact that (at the time) Germany was the world leader in nuclear fission and rocket technology the Germans didnt combine the two to produce the worlds first ballistic nuclear missile. Cornwell hints at whether this was due to technical inability or else an underlying ethics in the Germans science community. Big book but worth it if you have the time to read it.

There's also a little comment in the RSC's Chemistry World this month, Tony Ryan from the University of Sheffield suggesting that we should invest in nuclear power as an interim between fossil fuels and efficient solar energy solutions. Some thought provoking questions.

lol i remember my mother working with tony ryan a few years ago on some bio-technology research for the university of sheffield.

On topic a bit i do think thing's seen in the first post are a total disgrace to the human race our history seem's full of death by our own "lazyness" and "greed" and till the time humans e-volve to a point ( as a planet ) that we can understand fighting each other will never get anywhere. It sounds silly but we should be working together as Planet were one very small planet amongst Billions!.

 

[Stiffler]

Its a bloody fake dammit I have seen half those photos before.... In Text books and nowhere was it mentioned that they were induced by radiation!

Bloody internet

 

[Cutter]

Using DU for weapons is just sick sick sick imo.

Why do we as a race have to find more disjusting ways to kill, stop and think what would happen if instead weapons be developed the whole worlds army budget for a year went into something good like finding a cure for cancer.

We as a race don't need war and its about time we grew up and saw this, Thur you earlyer had a dig at ck for saying he would rather leave than fight, did you ever consider the flip side ? If everyone started to think along those lines then there would be no attacking in the first place to run away from.

You don't need to spend army size budgets on finding cancer cures. You can prevent the biggest cause of cancer death in men & women simply by enforcing a prohibition on the sale and consumption of tobacco products by humans. Unfortunately, since all drug addicts are irrational, and goverments the world over are addicted to tobacco taxes, this won't happen.

As to war and stuff, here's another quote for you Ajax: "Those without swords can still die upon them". We live in a mortal realm, with finite resources. If you think conflict can be abolished, I'm sad to say you're dreaming, much as I'd like to see an end to conflict myself. All wars are fought for control of resources, be it land, monetary, mineral or animal wealth. As resources get scarcer, conflict will intensify.

Entropy always wins...

As to the walking away comment, well, all the freedoms we currently take for granted, many of our forebears had to fight, and die for to obtain or defend. And yet our generation seems quite happy to sleepwalk into authoritariansm without questioning it at all. Kind of makes me feel sick, that some people don't appreciate the sacrifices a previous generation made for them. Yeh, its all too easy to talk big, and let others bleed and die to protect your freedoms

 

[IceDragon]

damn first time I see the pics.


disgusting

 

[RighteousFury]

I wonder if this is an effect of the radiation or of the classification as a heavy metall... not that it makes a difference for the victims but if its the radiation the Uranium aint even proper depleted at all.

 

[-CrackKing-]

I had forgotten about this thread - those pics are still well rough

As to the walking away comment, well, all the freedoms we currently take for granted, many of our forebears had to fight, and die for to obtain or defend. And yet our generation seems quite happy to sleepwalk into authoritariansm without questioning it at all. Kind of makes me feel sick, that some people don't appreciate the sacrifices a previous generation made for them. Yeh, its all too easy to talk big, and let others bleed and die to protect your freedoms

Hmm, I don't see how anybody subscribing to the notion that walking away is the best answer pertains to the fact that they might not respect their forefathers/mothers. When you make a point like that it seems you've already decided in your mind how other people might feel, without actually asking. What happened to the Thur we used to know? I do see your point, though; there are plenty of dickheads (who may or may not want to walk away if battle arose) about with no respect for anyone, least of all their ancestors.

As to war and stuff, here's another quote for you Ajax: "Those without swords can still die upon them". We live in a mortal realm, with finite resources. If you think conflict can be abolished, I'm sad to say you're dreaming, much as I'd like to see an end to conflict myself. All wars are fought for control of resources, be it land, monetary, mineral or animal wealth. As resources get scarcer, conflict will intensify.

Good quote that