Depleted Uranium Munitions

Posting for future reference...
http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d000500e.htm
http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1998/html/sess29/29-03/29-03.htm

[quote="Ringleader"]
RL's point in a nutshell: Cheaper, safer, better alternatives to DU exist, and should be used instead of DU, and we should bury our DU stockpiles in caves.[quote]

Except, you seem to be ignoring the additional costs of stockpiling it. Switching say...50 cal rounds to Tungsten instead of DU (idk if they even use them in 50 cal, but just an example) would both cost the amount of the tungsten, and the cost of getting rid of that DU now.

Correct, DUF6 is what they use for permanent storage.

Now, from that, what makes you think these nuclear enrichment facilities just hand it over it to the DOD? Evidence please? I'd be more than happy to agree with you on this if you would provide some, rather than just SAYING you provided evidence.

Narrowing the range of DU that's useful to the DOD inadvertently bolsters my point, if it's even less viable DU than I previously anticipated, I can only imagine it would cost even more. Good for me!

The government is in charge of uranium enrichment....private companies can't just run around enriching uranium for shits and giggles....and the DOD is government....The reason the DOD does the restriction thing is because of how much of the stuff there is (and hippies)

The fact that DU COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE actually tells us a lot, and I've already pointed out a number of possible reasons why. It costs money to process it, and it's probably worth SOMETHING in that there's not an infinite amount of it just lying around. Hell, maybe just the bureaucratic paperwork between the two end points of the process make it less economically viable than alternatives. Whatever the case may be, my point still stands, whatever factors contribute into making DU more expensive, it's still more expensive, and I'm pretty sure Nuclear Power Plants don't just hand it out for free in the form of weapons grade DU.

The DU is not more expensive, as the government already is stuck with it no matter what...

If I buy a lego truck so I can take it wheels off and have nothing to do with the body pieces, why would I then buy a different set of pieces later just because its cheaper than the pieces I already have?

Why pay to stick it in guns, and planes and tanks and stuff when you can just let those other guys stick it in the ground and go with a cheaper alternative?

Because the government is paying for it either way....duh....Earlier you talked about how much it would cost THE GOVERNMENT to dispose of it.

Leave it to NT to, NOT provide any proof, then say he did exactly that. The Wiki article I posted was sourced, feel free to peruse them at your convinced.

I already linked a page the studied the effects of DU rounds during the gulf war over an 8 year period.

And I already read yours which just said "could cause" and "may cause" and "with direct exposure" and a bunch of stuff that disqualifies its affects in terms of combat uses.

DU is better than Tungsten, Why? Because Tungsten rounds aren't rumored to sterilize or otherwise screw with the enemies DNA for as long as it isn't cleaned up. Rome salted the field of their enemies, were... salting them

KristallNacht wrote:

Ringleader wrote:
RL's point in a nutshell: Cheaper, safer, better alternatives to DU exist, and should be used instead of DU, and we should bury our DU stockpiles in caves.

Except, you seem to be ignoring the additional costs of stockpiling it. Switching say...50 cal rounds to Tungsten instead of DU (idk if they even use them in 50 cal, but just an example) would both cost the amount of the tungsten, and the cost of getting rid of that DU now.

"would both cost the amount of the tungsten, and the cost of getting rid of that DU now."

...Which might still be cheaper than using DU, is this really that hard to understand? Just because it involves an extra step doesn't make it more expensive by default. What makes you think the DU is ready to be used in munitions the second it leaves the enrichment facility? Most likely it goes straight to the storage facility.

How much DU do you actually think is used in making munitions? Well, according to the Nato site Rasq linked, the total amount of DU fired in Iraq by American and British forces amounted to 300 tons... Barely enough to account for a whopping 4 days worth of global production:

In Iraq, about 300 metric tons of DU ammunition were fired by American and British troops. Recently, NATO confirmed the use of DU ammunition in Kosovo battlefields, where approximately 10 metric tons of DU were used.

The often-heard claim that this use of DU was a cheap way to "solve" a waste problem, is certainly not true. The total quantity of DU in ammunition that was used in Iraq and Kosovo corresponds to barely four days of DU production worldwide.

Remember, just the US stockpile alone is just under 700,000 tons.

Tell me, what is the difference between storing 700,000 tons of DU, and 699,700 tons of DU from the perspective of Uranium enrichment facilities? Storage price difference of... 0.004%

If you were a Uranium enrichment facility, wouldn't you gear your operation towards stockpiling it? I mean, the overwhelming majority of the stuff isn't needed for anything. Even if there was a small demand for it, it wouldn't really be economical enough for you to do anything BUT stockpile it in the form of DUF6.

Correct, DUF6 is what they use for permanent storage.

Now, from that, what makes you think these nuclear enrichment facilities just hand it over it to the DOD? Evidence please? I'd be more than happy to agree with you on this if you would provide some, rather than just SAYING you provided evidence.

Narrowing the range of DU that's useful to the DOD inadvertently bolsters my point, if it's even less viable DU than I previously anticipated, I can only imagine it would cost even more. Good for me!

The government is in charge of uranium enrichment....private companies can't just run around enriching uranium for shits and giggles....and the DOD is government....The reason the DOD does the restriction thing is because of how much of the stuff there is (and hippies)

Uh, the government hires private contractors like GE and USEC to do it. The US only accounts for 4% of the total Uranium mined globally too.

I mean, they probably oversee enrichment operations, but... Does that meant enrichment companies automatically give the DU to them for free? WTF are they contracting them for anyway?

Hey guys, we need you to enrich some Uranium for us, you just gotta set some of your best DU aside for us instead of stockpiling all of it in the form of DUF6, the more economical route.

Wait, why would we give you the DU for free? We're doing you a favor by enriching the Uranium.

Alright, we'll pay you for to enrich the Uranium, and set aside some DU for us to use instead of stockpiling all of it like you would have done regardless.

The fact that DU COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE actually tells us a lot, and I've already pointed out a number of possible reasons why. It costs money to process it, and it's probably worth SOMETHING in that there's not an infinite amount of it just lying around. Hell, maybe just the bureaucratic paperwork between the two end points of the process make it less economically viable than alternatives. Whatever the case may be, my point still stands, whatever factors contribute into making DU more expensive, it's still more expensive, and I'm pretty sure Nuclear Power Plants don't just hand it out for free in the form of weapons grade DU.

The DU is not more expensive, as the government already is stuck with it no matter what...

If I buy a lego truck so I can take it wheels off and have nothing to do with the body pieces, why would I then buy a different set of pieces later just because its cheaper than the pieces I already have?

There you go again, inexplicably equating military grade DU with DUF6...

There are stockpiles of DUF6, the industry is geared towards storing DU in the form of DUF6, not military grade DU.

I mean you can say it's not more expensive all day long, but it is, so.

If I buy a lego truck so I can take it wheels off and have nothing to do with the body pieces, why would I then buy a different set of pieces later just because its cheaper than the pieces I already have?

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life...

It's cheaper to store the Lego pieces in a plastic bin and buy some megablocks than to buy the extra pieces required to make the chassis usable for anything but sitting around.

Why pay to stick it in guns, and planes and tanks and stuff when you can just let those other guys stick it in the ground and go with a cheaper alternative?

Because the government is paying for it either way....duh....Earlier you talked about how much it would cost THE GOVERNMENT to dispose of it.

Except it costs more to manufacture tank shells then to simply process it into DUF6, what they do with 99.99% of DU in the first place.

Leave it to NT to, NOT provide any proof, then say he did exactly that. The Wiki article I posted was sourced, feel free to peruse them at your convinced.

I already linked a page the studied the effects of DU rounds during the gulf war over an 8 year period.

And I already read yours which just said "could cause" and "may cause" and "with direct exposure" and a bunch of stuff that disqualifies its affects in terms of combat uses.

Lol, because it's not at all in the character of medical science to not use the words 'may' and 'might' in diagnosing. Boy, you really got me there...





NT logic:

Your evidence is purely anecdotal! See, these 20 soldiers report...

/irony

DU has better properties for armor penetration, it's as simple as that. Unlike Tungsten Carbide, because of the material structure of DU, it actually sharpens as it penetrates armor, instead of 'smashing' like a lot of metals or having unwanted fractures like in ceramics(WC is one).

Speaking of cost... a lot of focus has been put on the cost of the material, but has anyone looked into the costs of manufacturing the final projectiles?

From a production standpoint focusing only on the final penetrator, it should be both much cheaper and easier to form a DU projectile. DU is fairly malleable, and fairly standard manufacturing processes are capable of manufacturing the projectiles. Producing a WC part has to be done either through some pretty precise powder metallurgy processes, or by making a larger object via the same (or similar) method and then machining it. WC is fucking hard, as established in previous posts, so doing that is an expensive and time consuming process.

Stepping away from WC and over to Tungsten alloys (WC is a ceramic), you still wouldn't have that easy of a time producing a finished projectile. Tungsten cannot economically be cast, leaving a combination of sintering and then forging/extrusion/drawing as your primary manufacturing processes. However, because Tungsten alloys are typically very hard (which would be true especially for armor piercing projectile tungsten alloys), the machines capable of processing them are few and far between. You cannot cold work the stuff because the dies to do so don't exist (in the case that they do, you are gonna be paying a fortune to make/use them), but at the same time you have to bring it to a rather high temperature to work the material while hot, which also limits the machinery you can use.

It is likely that the final cost of a DU or Tungsten-based penetrator is near enough to that of DU to merit the use of DU (due to its fantastic armor defeating properties) over the alternatives.



I also found an interest article on this very topic, if anyone wants to take a look
http://fhp.osd.mil/du/pdfs/1999279_0000010.pdf

wait, ring...did you just comb his links for stuff that supports your stuff?

Cause you totally missed the part that says "tungsten costs $25 per pound" and "depleted uranium costs $6 per pound"

and the fact DU melts at a lower temperature, making it easier and cheaper and more efficient to turn into things as well as more dense.

so, its cheaper, and better. The only thing that's left is the anecdotal health risks.

Ringleader wrote:Right, I'm said we shouldn't use DU... My entire point was that better, cheaper, safer alternatives exist, which they do.

Tungsten Carbide is extremely inefficient and expensive to shape. It's melting point is too high to forge or cast, you basically have to cut it into shape using diamond or lasers. Therefore, DU is better.

DU costs less than Tungsten Carbide to us, because we get DU for free. Therefore, DU is cheaper.

The concept that DU is causing deaths in noncombatants because it is radioactive are essentially myths. DU is just as safe as Tungsten Carbide.

So if you're going to purport that there's something better, cheaper, and safer, you need to actually produce an example, because Tungsten Carbide is not your man.

Ringleader wrote:Who the fuck is 'We'? Is everyone that handles the Uranium from the moment it's mined from the moment it's fired out of a gun in league or something?

The United States needs the Uranium. It is going to buy the Uranium whether or not DU is used in munitions. It is going to have the DU anyway. This DU can be allocated to the United States defense contractors that are responsible for crafting bullets for dirt cheap because we have it in excess, and subsequently sold back to the military for dirt cheap because DU is extremely inexpensive to work with.

Ringleader wrote:Er, you do realize that DU isn't stored as munitions grade DU, right? Like, it actually COSTS MONEY to process it into what the military uses for their weapons. It's not ready to roll out the second a nuclear power plant enriches a batch of Uranium... Usually it's stored in the form of DUf6, and not for much longer as I pointed out in my previous thread, it's being converted by the fuckton into DUO for disposal.

I mean, even if power plants somehow outputted weapons grade DU directly, without having to first store it in the form of DUF6, as the demand for DU isn't such that it would make much sense for them to store it in anything BUT DUF6, why would they just hand it over to the military con gratis?

What's with this vision of complete cohesion between nuclear power plants and the people that make DU munitions? Does the whole process look like a 1950's style cartoon with Uranium studded rocks going into one end of the factory and tank shells coming out? Gimme a break.

Just for a moment, we're going to pretend like power plants are the people who enrich Uranium (because it doesn't matter; the same argument applies to the enrichment facilities that actually enrich Uranium). Power plants (and the appropriate enrichment facilities) are government buildings. The people who craft DU munitions are contracted through the government. There is established cohesion between the government and the defense contractors. Oh wow, look at that! Cohesion between nuclear power plants (or, in actuality, enrichment facilities) and the people who make DU munitions! Imagine that.

[quote=Ringleader]The fact that DU COSTS MORE THAN TUNGSTEN CARBIDE actually tells us a lot, and I've already pointed out a number of possible reasons why. It costs money to process it, and it's probably worth SOMETHING in that there's not an infinite amount of it just lying around. Hell, maybe just the bureaucratic paperwork between the two end points of the process make it less economically viable than alternatives. Whatever the case may be, my point still stands, whatever factors contribute into making DU more expensive, it's still more expensive, and I'm pretty sure Nuclear Power Plants don't just hand it out for free in the form of weapons grade DU.

DU is more expensive because it is less common. But, again, if you already have a ton of it, the cost doesn't really matter.

Ringleader wrote:LOL, Rot just said the radiation would spread everywhere if we threw the DU in a Volcano...

Volcanoes have a way of kind of venting into the atmosphere. Throwing DU into a volcano doesn't magically make it disappear. Given that you've take the standpoint that DU is so radioactive that it is unsafe to use in munitions, it wouldn't make any more sense to throw it into a volcano.

Ringleader wrote:Thank you for disqualifying yourself from the conversation with that brilliant streak of ignorance.

The irony here is hilarious.

Ringleader wrote:I could point out that I also said we could throw it in a cave, but what would be the purpose? Deaf ears, deaf ears..

Yes, let's just find some cave somewhere and cram it full of DU. Problem solved.

Ringleader wrote:My last point actually explained that the safe disposal of our DU stockpiles are currently under way, so... It's being done!

Oh, I was unaware the United States was actively dumping radioactive waste into volcanoes. Because that would be incredibly stupid.

Ringleader wrote:When did I admit the cost of DU is irrelevant? Is that your new strategy, start out your point with 'Oh, so you DO agree with my point!'. Sheesh...

It's hard to tell. You've flip-flopped around various contradictory points quite a bit. However, you have conceded (I don't know if conceded is the right word; you said it when it was convenient, and then pretended like it was never said when it was no longer convenient) that we have a ton of DU sitting around already, which would imply that we wouldn't need to buy the DU, which would imply that the cost of buying the DU would not matter.

Ringleader wrote:Well, there's a pragmatic and an ethical reason to use alternatives. I gave examples of both.

Right, except that your "examples" have been incredibly terrible, especially in regards to the pragmatic. At least there are actual myths regarding an ethical problem. The pragmatic problem is a conglomerate of statements that don't make any sense together.

Ringleader wrote:But if you do agree there's at least an ethical case to be made in favor of DU alternatives, would you at least concede that maybe we SHOULD use them? It's hard to tell from your rebuttal whether or not you would be in favor of using alternatives... Very hard.

Oh, no, I'm quite in support of the use of DU, because the evidence to suggest that the ethical problem is anything more than a myth is extremely limited, and DU is either inherently cheaper and easier to work with or more effective than proposed alternatives.

Ringleader wrote:And, riddle me this, is there anything particularly the matter with a larger Tungsten Carbide market? Not that it would be that much larger than how large it currently is, but still. I really don't see why this is a problem?

When did anyone suggest that it would be bad for Tungsten Carbide market to do better? The problem we have is that Tungsten Carbide is more expensive, harder to work with, and not as effective as DU.