Depleted Uranium...

  • Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!

    Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.

Lex_Mortis

Lex_Mortis

Not here
Sep 2, 2002
7,685
0
The Netherlands
Be advised the following link is VERY GRAPHIC: http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

Its unacceptable.. look at those pictures.. that DU is fucking evil. :mad:
Both the Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence officially deny that there is any significant danger from exposure to DU ammunition.
Click to expand...
Of course they deny it, think about all the lawsuits if they admit its fucking evil and bad.

Funny how Bush battles the evil claiming he is good, while using stuff like that... :o
 
:topic: That pictures are EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW :topic:

Anyway, the good ones shouldnt use 'bad' weapons like these.
 
FFS damn stop posting these things almost puked that just sick!!!!!!@!!!!!! :ban:
 
There are no 'good' ones
Click to expand...

Ones that stop you being killed are quite handy.

DU is a great way to get rid of your spent reactor fuel init.
Click to expand...

Frightneningly close to the truth unfortunately, of course on a small scale but still .... Especially since the troubles that the US are having with their Yucca Mountain deep disposal site.

Im preparing a paper for Uni discussing Nuclear Waste disposal.

Deep underground disposal is agreed by just about every major world nuclear nation as the best option. Only major problem with it, is that burying something that remains at unacceptable radioactive levels for hundreds of thousands of years in a geological environment that you cant accurately model on that timescale is a bit risky.

Anyway, could waffle on for ages about it but going a bit off topic.
 
-CrackKing- said:
That all depends on how much you value your life over someone else's, really.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation, doesn't it? I mean, a mother might lay down her life to save her children, or a father to protect his family, but in a combat situation, if you're both armed and on opposite sides, I'd shoot first.

War is dirty, war is nasty, war is messy. Unless the Geneva convention bans certain types of weapon or certain behaviour, war will always be nasty.

Anyone seen "Black Hawk Down?" The bit where the convoy is trying to escape from the city, and you see one US Marine (still living) with his body from the waist down blown away completely by an RPG. The camera lingers on that shot for a good few seconds, and its quite graphic, so I'm surprised the film only merited a "15" rating.

My point is, even "normal" or "good" weapons can cause quite horrific injuries.
 
Thuringwethil said:
combat situation
Click to expand...

But I would never be in a 'combat situation'. Which brings me back to my first point: there are no 'good ones'. 'Good ones' would find a healthier alternative to war. It's just laziness and the thought that war is the last resort which seems to make it 'ok'.
 
Thuringwethil said:
Depends on the situation, doesn't it? I mean, a mother might lay down her life to save her children, or a father to protect his family, but in a combat situation, if you're both armed and on opposite sides, I'd shoot first.
Click to expand...

This is what it comes down to. The older I get the less important "sides" become. How two (for instance) supposedly intelligent sections of humanity can consider themselves so morally right that they must kill the other is just the ultimate joke, in a Watchmen kind of way. We either all share the planet, and are therefore responsible for each other, or it's all for one, in which case everything we do is irrelevant and it doesn't matter whether we kill Muslims, Frenchmen, Jocks, northerners, East Londoners, or a local down the pub who accidentally took your pint. There is no middle ground. There is simply never a case for war. It's all preposterous. How can we still be doing this? We have the internet for god's sake!!

PS you're all fired.
 
Re:

I dunno about frenchmen

To say there is never a case for a war is over the top imo, sometimes there is in extreme cases where evry other effort has failed. The people who decide to go to war should however be more intelligent than George Bush.
 
so u trying to tell me honestly that all u fucking hippies have never been in a fight?

I wish there was some way of seeing what the world would be like if there were no wars. We might not have landed on the moon ... no nuclear energy for the future...Science would be no were near as far advanced if there were no wars, not to mention countless other advances brought about by the pressure of war. People dont think about stuff like this, they just want to say "uhh thats sick, uhh thats a shame, now were did i put the UT2004 CD".

Despite what you say its the extinct of every living organism on the planet to survive. Its only because humans have this "higher" intelligence that we feel such weak emotions as guilt, regret etc. (IMO these are not natural and are shaped by the society we live in and the environment around us, but thats beside the point). You think a lion cares about how it kills its prey? NO! it does it as quickly and as efficiently as possible, only because it doesnt want to waste energy, not because it cares for them.

I bet you're all fucking veggies an all aint ya.

Anyway thats straying a bit, what that article is attempting to show, despite its attention seeking nature, IS bad, and wrong and nasty etc etc

:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: sobo
There is simply never a case for war
Click to expand...

BAWS! Unless you want to completely rid the planet of religion (which wouldnt be a bad thing imo).
The only other way you are going to get rid of wars is to have a single world ruling power, which aint gonna happen. Unless you can persuade anyone to do and think anything, even if it goes directly against everything they've known in thier life.

People have opinions, people are different, people have different opinions, people have wars.


Its a fact of life. You talk about your getting "older", you always take the older and "wiser" :rolleyes: point in every argument. But, in truth, saying that billions of people could co-exist without ever disagreeing is just naive ... and quite frankly ignorant. Now go back to your rep flaming Mr Maturity. :eek:
 
Joko said:
Its a fact of life. You talk about your getting "older", you always take the older and "wiser" :rolleyes: point in every argument. But, in truth, saying that billions of people could co-exist without ever disagreeing is just naive ... and quite frankly ignorant. Now go back to your rep flaming Mr Maturity. :eek:
Click to expand...

Never said anything about wiser, young 'un :D

BTW, yes it would be naive to suggest that we could exist without war. but it's not to say that we can opt out of it on a personal basis, and in this forum, Joko, you should respect an opinion.

Try to keep your insults to a minimum on this forums, though. If that's what you're looking for try the chat channel and I'll willingly join in. Deal?
 
@Joko

Its useless to compare an animals killing for food to humans fighting / war.
Humans have toughts, we can think past primal urges..
In your eyes cruelty and wars may be 'Ok' since thats what some people do, but then you must think theft, murder, child abusement ect ect. is also 'Ok' ?
I for one like to adapt to social accepted morals, and yes I think humanity will benifit much much more from that, than we would wars, even your precious sience.

But can there be 'good' without 'evil' ?
 
Don't argue with fools. They drag you down to thier level and beat you with experience.
Click to expand...
Tenner for anyone who tells me who said that. :rolleyes:
And my "insults" were because i dont like your tone "gramps".


as for Apoc

1. Believe it or not you are an animal
2. Unless you are celebate, dont eat sugar, dont smoke, dont drink then you cannot say you can think past primal urges. Its all about dopamine my friend. Chemicals, not your spirit (or whatever you want to call it), govern parts of your brain which you cannot control and they are the same thing that governs other animals brains.
3. Animals (even fucking plants) fight each other (yes the same species) for territory, food, resources. Give me a single war that wasnt fought for the same reasons?

If there were no wars, then logically there would have to be no countries, there would have to be no religion, there would have to be no order (unless was one ruling power, which i dont think your political views would support somehow, unless im mistaken). Tell me how far your "socially accepted morals" would get you when there are 6 billion people all competing for the same resources? How are you going to decide who gets priority without anyone wanting to kick your ass? You going to bring that many people to agree with you and your "human thoughts".

Your ideas are nice, but i cannot see how you cant think they are ridiculous and totally impractical. No wars is just nonsense, especially living in the era we do, war has shaped our lives and will shape our future. (you may not like it, it may sound cold hearted, but its the truth).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back