Depleted Uranium...

[-CrackKing-]

so u trying to tell me honestly that all u fucking hippies have never been in a fight?

I've had fights, but seeing as I'm a well rounded individual I don't go out looking for them. Or claim to have had more than i've had etc.

We might not have landed on the moon

Maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe maybe. Refer to ID Cards thread for more maybes

I don't see how natural and unnatural feelings (including animal instincts) pertain to the belief(s) that war is wrong. It might show why people actually GO to war but it's no argument for why it's wrong. I know the thread has gone back and forth with it's subject but still, this ain't no english essay.

I don't value my life over another person's. I would never sign up for the army, as cool as they may make it look on the TV.

Trying to tell people that ur nothing more than an animal, and those around you are too, is just the same as what soldiers were told in wars. That the other person is just meat. They get broken down until they obey completely. I love watching war films, but don't find real war particularly amusing. I'm not even saying that i'm a person who couldn't be broken down, but, as long as I have sound mind P) I'll be completely anti-war. I can never find a justified reason for war.

 

[Hector]

Tenner for anyone who tells me who said that.
And my "insults" were because i dont like your tone "gramps".

I don't actually contribute to this forum for your benefit Joko. Personally, I don't think you have the brains to blink symmetrically tbh so how about if you stay away from stuff you don't understand and I'll reciprocate and stay away from things I don't have time to read.

M'kay?

 

[Martz]

The purpose of this thread was to point out that we could be fighting wars in more humane ways, more humane like the Lion in your euphemism. However this Lion also has Uranium coated claws which not only kill the prey marginally faster but cause the suffering of other animals around it at the time, and future generations.

To debate and conculde if war should be waged or not is an impossible task.. so back to the topic of what we should do with our nuclear waste if we are not going to fire it into civillians and their towns to kill and disfigure their children.

 

[Joko]

Hmm from my interpretation the only topic in this thread was "oh isnt this horrible" - answer to that is .... yes it is.
But if we going to talk about nuclear waste disposal....

Then the only realistic option so far is the geological deep disposal of nuclear waste at climatically and geologically stable sites around the world. There are problems with this however, the main one being that radioactive waste stays nasty for hundreds of thousands of year and prediciting climate change (glaciation, rising sea level etc) is beyond the scope of modern modelling techinques. We can hazard a good guess, but there are way too many variables to be sure of the outcomes. Another major concern is Earthquakes, if we dispose of nuclear waste deep underground then an Earthquake in the area could have catastrophic effects.

According to the govenment report (11) the UK should aim to have a deep disposal site up and running with tests being carried out constantly, until the repository is filled. Then it shold be sealed but the waste should be retrievable just in case ...

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth want to leave nuclear waste stored on (or just below) the surface of the Earth until it is clear that deep disposal is the best option. However, with the recent terrorist attacks both US and UK governments are relcutant to leave thier waste above ground for too long.

Finland has had most success so far with deep disposal of nuclear waste, they have an underground repository at Forsmark for intermediate level nuclear waste, whic has public support. But so far all the referendums held on the DEEP disposal of high level nuclear waste have been against (althought lost by narrow margins)

1. Stone, NUCLEAR WASTE: Deep Repositories: Out of Sight, Out of Terrorists' Reach, Science Jan 9 2004: vol 303, 161-164.
2. Apted et al, Yucca Mountain: Should We Delay? Science Jun 28 2002: vol 296, 2333.
3. Ewing and Macfarlane, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Science Apr 26 2002: vol 296, 659.
4. Edwards, However hot, bury the lot New Scientist 4 Oct 1997 vol 156, 2102 pp20.
5. Edwards, Dead and Buried New Scientist 18 Sept 1999 vol 163, 2204 pp21.
6. Edwards, Digging and hole New Scientist 27 March 1999 vol 161, 2179 pp26.
7. Dalyell, Westminster Diary New Scientist 24 Aug 2002 vol 175, 2356 pp58.
8. Mason, Yucca Mountain could become a nuclear volcano New Scientist 24 Aug 2002 vol 175, 2356 pp10.
9. Mannahan, Environmental Chemistry 6th Edition. Lewis. Chapter 20. 1994.
10. U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. (April 2004). Managing Nuclear Waste: Options Considered.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0017.shtml
11. The Select Committee House of Lords Record Office, Science and Technology Third Report. (March 1999) Nuclear Waste Management in the UK.
http://www.parliament.thestationeryoffice.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldsctech/41/4104.htm#a10
12. Uranium Information Centre (April 2004) Radioactive Waste Management. http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm


At Crack, if your country was invaded by an army wanting to kill you all and take over, are you just gonna say ... "sure go ahead, i dont value my life above yours"? Sure, course you are.

 

[Useless]

Your first totally intelligent reply in this thread Joko

The thread is about dumping nuclear waste, yeah, but I just wanted to make a point about war (if Mughi has no objections). I think everyone can see how war could be avoided - you either start a war or you don't, either get into a fight or walk away etc. It could be compared with a pub fight - either you get sucked into one because of provocation or you make a decision that walking away from it is best, however this might appear to other people.

But when you compare that to a war, although it's essentially the same thing on a larger scale, the same rules don't really apply. The reason people like Bush will never ban all nuclear weapons or whatever, is the 'If we don't do it, the other guy will, so why not just use them anyway?' thing. If someone is threatening to invade or bomb your country, you deal with the threat either by negotiation or by a pre-emptive strike. And the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists blah blah so you hit them before they hit you. You can't just sit back and hope the other guy has a change of heart because he's just seen a website with some deformed babies on it.

We're talking about human beings, probably the most morally vile creatures to ever exist in any part of the universe, and made even worse by the way they try to justify their actions (religion, territory, money...). I imagine Iraq could see that website and decide the time has come to eradicate Americans from the face of the Earth, instead of sitting back and thinking 'Hmm maybe we shouldn't have any more wars'. Trying to appeal to the goodness of human nature is a ridiculous idea.

 

[Apoc]

Trying to appeal to the goodness of human nature is a ridiculous idea.

Ohh yes, do onto others as you like them to do to you.

But you already answered that.

'If we don't do it, the other guy will, so why not just use them anyway?'

Enough people thinking 'moraly good' as oposed to fear what the other people might do to you
and the world might just be a better place to be for most people.

And no you can't convince me to fear a guy with a gun who might use it aginst me and get be to buy one for 'protection'. Utter useless thinking.

Sadly the world noir humans are 'black and white' so to speak..

And joko, no humans are not 'just' animals. Most animals have no self awareness, and thus no motivation beoynd instints. correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you will ever see a lion comit sucide if it didn't get the most female lions or it had the most ugly mane by lion standards.. ect ect.

 

[-CrackKing-]

At Crack, if your country was invaded by an army wanting to kill you all and take over, are you just gonna say ... "sure go ahead, i dont value my life above yours"? Sure, course you are.

if if if if maybe maybe maybe maybe if if if if if maybe maybe blah blah

Fact is, who within their right and sound mind is gonna declare war on ANYONE.
And if someone comes into the country i reside in to take over, i leave m8. I don't let them kill me. I kinda thought that would be obvious. You're argumentation relies on me doing things as you, or the case you're trying to make, does.

Then the only realistic option so far is the geological deep disposal of nuclear waste at climatically and geologically stable sites around the world. There are problems with this however, the main one being that radioactive waste stays nasty for hundreds of thousands of year and prediciting climate change (glaciation, rising sea level etc) is beyond the scope of modern modelling techinques. We can hazard a good guess, but there are way too many variables to be sure of the outcomes. Another major concern is Earthquakes, if we dispose of nuclear waste deep underground then an Earthquake in the area could have catastrophic effects

Agree with that. It might get to the point where we have to send radioactive waste right up into space. I dunno what the likelyhood of that would be, but i imagine it would be immensly expensive. The only other realisitc alternative is burial. As you've said; it's risky business.

Anyway, I still think that anyone willing to put DU into bullets or whatever is sick and, cough cough, wants shooting.

 

[Useless]

But you already answered that.

Quote:
'If we don't do it, the other guy will, so why not just use them anyway?'


Enough people thinking 'moraly good' as oposed to fear what the other people might do to you
and the world might just be a better place to be for most people.

I wasn't saying that attitude is right, I'm saying that's what happens.

 

[Joko]

Sending nuclear waste into space (more specifically sending it into the sun) has been rejected by all major nuclear nations due to

1. the shear expense of it as you say (despite the fact that reasearch into Yucca Mountain site has already cost 60 billion )
2.. After disasters like the Challenger space shuttle, you just cant take any risk (no matter how small) of a nuclear catastrophy in the atompshere. The rockets would also be packed full to make most economic sense and with such a load in it, if there was an explosion, forget Chronobyl, the whole planet could be fucked, for a very long time.

However attractive nuclear fission may be i think that it will eventually have to be abandoned unless a way of disposal is found. Deep disposal IS the best thing on the table just now but even that is risky as hell for future generations.

Nuclear fusion however is a MUCH better idea if it could only be achieved without so much initial energy input. There's currently two type of fusoin (deuterium - deuterium fusion and deuterium - tritium fusion) Both have successfully been achieved but not to produce a net gain of energy. Deuterium - Tritium yields the highest amount of energy out of the two types (i think current record is 20 percent of original energy input). The only problem is that tritium is only naturally present at about 7.3%, which makes it a pain in the arse to get, whereas deuterium is abundant. And as for cold fusion ....

Things might have changed since i last looked into it, the paper i read on it was from 2002, im not in the uni library atm so i cant get you a full reference or up-to-date figures without googling, and i cba

 

[Joko]

I think you underestimate the intelligence of some animals Apoc, but im not going to have this "yes it is, no it isnt" type of argument with you, ive said all i want to and you just ignore it and keep repeating yourself so talk about disposal instead

 

[RocK]

You guys should write a book:p

 

[Joko]

I have written a paper on it, didnt get published though cos i dont have a "Dr" in front of my name .... YET!

 

[Cutter]

Your first totally intelligent reply in this thread Joko

Now if only other people in this thread could stick to the topic, quote some support for their views, and not simply engage in "moral high ground" lectures, eh crackking?

And if someone comes into the country i reside in to take over, i leave m8. I don't let them kill me. I kinda thought that would be obvious. You're argumentation relies on me doing things as you, or the case you're trying to make, does.

Uh-huh. As opposed to say, remaining in your country as a partisan, fighting against an undemocratic oppressor of an invader? Yep, no respect for people like you cK. What your basically saying is, you'd abandon a country which has given you a very soft, safe life at the merest whiff of danger? And tell me, how exactly would you move away from that country if a hostile invader had control of the motorways, railways, airports and sea ports?

Old and trite, but still true: "You only need one sword to start a war". And ain't you shafted if you don't have one. You might just lie down and die, but I like to think I'm not as depressed and fatalistic as that, so from that point of view, I see my life as worth fighting for to protect. In the absence of warm fuzzy feelings shared by all the people on this planet for each other, being tooled up and willing to use them is the one thing which prevents you being picked on all the time by aggressors.

Tell me, you being so peace loving an all. Why do you play a computer game(s) which is/are all about destroying your opponents in the most violent way possible? Or are you playing UT with the special "knitting mayhem" mod where you crochet your opponents into submission?

And joko, no humans are not 'just' animals. Most animals have no self awareness, and thus no motivation beoynd instints. correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you will ever see a lion comit sucide if it didn't get the most female lions or it had the most ugly mane by lion standards.. ect ect.

Yep, I see lots of evidence of higher human motivations every friday at the pub, with loads of people not thinking beyond the next beer/pack of fags/joint/possible shag with the cute guy/girl at the next table. I would contend that most animals are self aware to a great extent. Especially the mammals. They form societal groups, use implements and tools (apes), care for their young etc etc. Tell me, other than guilt (and how do we know other mammals do/don't feel this), what exactly sets humans on such a higher pedestal?

Returning to the original (notional) thread subject, I can't see what the major problem with DU rounds is. I mean, if we're talking of "poisoning the area for generations afterwards", well, WW2 has done that fairly well. I mean, 50 years later they're still excavating live UXBs from London and other cities, active mines still float ashore or damage shipping etc etc. And those were all "conventional" weapons. Does that make them somehow less "yucky" or something? Not to me...

 

[Martz]

Returning to the original (notional) thread subject, I can't see what the major problem with DU rounds is. I mean, if we're talking of "poisoning the area for generations afterwards", well, WW2 has done that fairly well. I mean, 50 years later they're still excavating live UXBs from London and other cities, active mines still float ashore or damage shipping etc etc. And those were all "conventional" weapons. Does that make them somehow less "yucky" or something? Not to me...

Yeah you can see the major problem, if you would choose to look at it. We have learnt from WWII in many areas. That was 1940's - 60+ years ago. Before what we call today modern times. WWI and II forced innovation and the most innovative period in our modern times. Yet we choose not to learn through ignorance, greed or for alteria motives.

Dirty bombs and dirty weapons are always avoidable. They are just more effective against the enemy and leave a political sting in the country for the life of ammunititon. To use non-DU armour piercing rounds would save (say for e.g.) the lives of 500 civilian children.

That has to be a good thing. There is absolutely no justification for killing or disfiguring a civilian child. Even in War, these casualties are truely innocent civilian children who should not be getting killed or effected. Even on a militrary level you are creating propaganda for the opposition, live broadcasted images from a hospital showing kids missing limbs and with bandages around their head. Even at a heartless and practical level, why give the opposition a hospice full of deformed babies and children? Bad idea - it's not going to win you any votes back home.

Leaving radioactive shells scattered throughout your homeland for the next 30 years is not justice. You cannot, under any situation, justify these weapons being used by our nations. There are no valid excuses for supporting the use of any weaponary which causes this much suffering to innocent people.

 

[Hector]

Yep, I see lots of evidence of higher human motivations every friday at the pub, with loads of people not thinking beyond the next beer/pack of fags/joint/possible shag with the cute guy/girl at the next table. I would contend that most animals are self aware to a great extent. Especially the mammals. They form societal groups, use implements and tools (apes), care for their young etc etc. Tell me, other than guilt (and how do we know other mammals do/don't feel this), what exactly sets humans on such a higher pedestal?

LOL good point Thur, the quality of awareness and intelligence we lay claim to is hardly in evidence at a superficial level. but the answer to your question could be that, unlike other animals, humans have the potential to become objectively conscious, even if most don't.

And to simply resign yourself to facts and figures, percentages and odds and completely disregard any idealism and positive imagination concerning the future of the human race seems to be as one-sided as a gung ho "come and get me fookers!" attitude. If this thread is purely going to be regurgitated numbers then it will become very dry indeed and our collective futures will be in the hands of accountants, if they're not already.

 

[Cutter]

LOL good point Thur, the quality of awareness and intelligence we lay claim to is hardly in evidence at a superficial level. but the answer to your question could be that, unlike other animals, humans have the potential to become objectively conscious, even if most don't.

And to simply resign yourself to facts and figures, percentages and odds and completely disregard any idealism and positive imagination concerning the future of the human race seems to be as one-sided as a gung ho "come and get me fookers!" attitude. If this thread is purely going to be regurgitated numbers then it will become very dry indeed and our collective futures will be in the hands of accountants, if they're not already.

What exactly do you mean by "objectively conscious" ? (Just so that I can answer you question properly.)

Take dolphins and whales. At the time we invented radar and sonar/asdic, did we even realise that dolphins had their very own natural three dimensional echo location system? We can't even understand the language of dolphins and whales, so for us to say that we are more advanced than them, or have the potential to reach higher is somewhat premature. How are we to know that sounding whales are not in fact modelling the universe in some group mind meld gestalt or something?

Intelligence, awareness and "soul" should not simply be measured by reference to artifical technologies and constructs.

As to your paragraph 2, I was merely commenting on the fact that some people give no support (not even a token effort) for their views with reference to other sources, but then go on to spout off long diatribes, and then have the temerity to slate others for doing the same.

As to our future, that isn't in the hands of accountants. Its in the hands of the taxman. Didn't you know that? Jeez man, where have you been ... ?

 

[Cutter]

Yeah you can see the major problem, if you would choose to look at it.

Dirty bombs and dirty weapons are always avoidable. They are just more effective against the enemy and leave a political sting in the country for the life of ammunititon. To use non-DU armour piercing rounds would save (say for e.g.) the lives of 500 civilian children.

That has to be a good thing. There is absolutely no justification for killing or disfiguring a civilian child. Even in War, these casualties are truely innocent civilian children who should not be getting killed or effected. Even on a militrary level you are creating propaganda for the opposition, live broadcasted images from a hospital showing kids missing limbs and with bandages around their head. Even at a heartless and practical level, why give the opposition a hospice full of deformed babies and children? Bad idea - it's not going to win you any votes back home.

Lets look at this in terms of what you are really meaning - attacks on civillians. Now there, I can agree 100% with you. Soldiers should never be attacking civillians. Whether they do it with "conventional" or "nuclear" weapons, it instantly provides the "other side" with a propaganda victory.

Tell me, have you ever seen the injuries produced by "conventional" weapons? Bomb damage, shrapnel damage, knife/sword/spear/bullet damage to the body? Powder burns? Napalm burns? Incendiary bomb burns? All non-nuclear, all quite "permitted" weapons, and all capable of producing the most horrid injuries and disfigurements to the body. I'm quite happy to dig out some pictures for you if you want.

At the end of the day, the civillian is still likely to be dead or maimed, irrespective of the weapon used. That is the main problem.

I'm not trying to condone the use of "non-conventional" weapons, I'm just trying to put things into a bit of perspective.

 

[Martz]

Tell me, have you ever seen the injuries produced by "conventional" weapons? Bomb damage, shrapnel damage, knife/sword/spear/bullet damage to the body? Powder burns? Napalm burns? Incendiary bomb burns? All non-nuclear, all quite "permitted" weapons, and all capable of producing the most horrid injuries and disfigurements to the body. I'm quite happy to dig out some pictures for you if you want.

At the end of the day, the civillian is still likely to be dead or maimed, irrespective of the weapon used. That is the main problem.

I'm not trying to condone the use of "non-conventional" weapons, I'm just trying to put things into a bit of perspective.

The difference being that that they have the same effects on the civililians as they do on the soldiers at the time of use. DU is harming innocent people (even our own soliders) in a completely different time frame of days/months/years later. The use of DU is to penetrate armour from what I have read, it's inclusion is not to directly kill people - but rather to increase it's effectiveness. Once it has been used, it's waste is what harms people. Creating a micro Chornobyl wherever your fights take place.

No other "conventional" weapon material used seems is to be comparable to DU. Maybe it is mis-classified. Maybe nobody actually gives a damn, the equivalent is to probably fire twice as much ammunition to achieve the same rates. But that costs more money.

 

[Hector]

What exactly do you mean by "objectively conscious" ? (Just so that I can answer you question properly.)

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!

Take dolphins and whales. At the time we invented radar and sonar/asdic, did we even realise that dolphins had their very own natural three dimensional echo location system? We can't even understand the language of dolphins and whales, so for us to say that we are more advanced than them, or have the potential to reach higher is somewhat premature.

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.
Look at what we have here: Some of us, young as we are, can't even conceive of a world without war, let alone consider working towards it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers being a kid and thinking "Why are adults so stupid? Why do they have to fight all the time?".
Didn't we all think like that? Did we lose something or did we just have some growing up to do? And if it's the latter aren't Bush, Blair, Bin Laden et al just about the most grownest uppest of everyone?

How are we to know that sounding whales are not in fact modelling the universe in some group mind meld gestalt or something?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that that's a part of it.

Intelligence, awareness and "soul" should not simply be measured by reference to artifical technologies and constructs.

Absolutely.

As to your paragraph 2, I was merely commenting on the fact that some people give no support (not even a token effort) for their views with reference to other sources, but then go on to spout off long diatribes, and then have the temerity to slate others for doing the same.

Eek! I hope I haven't done that. Although I am saddened by the reliance on facts and figures to support a view based on the inevitability of war. I know you're very solid and thorough in your references and research, or appear to be, I haven't checked anything. Principally because I find it's irrelevant (that's not to say I don't find your posts interesting) . I've mentioned the US pulling out of the Kyoto protocol a couple of times and no one even mentioned it. It's all insane I tells ya!

 

[Joko]

Some of us, young as we are, can't even conceive of a world without war, let alone consider working towards it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers being a kid and thinking "Why are adults so stupid? Why do they have to fight all the time?".

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?

You call it idealistic, i just call it naive.