5 ms·

Expand that to 60 years and you include Japanese who suffered long term radiation problems and birth defects as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to menti

Expand that to 60 years and you include Japanese who suffered long term radiation problems and birth defects as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention Chernobyl and those who suffered as a result of depelted uranium munitions in both Gulf Wars. On the last point: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml Over x10 increase in Iraqi birth defects from 1989 - 2001: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/iraq-m10.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/iraq-m10.shtml

rbanffy 16y ago
I think giving lethal doses of radiation is an important part of what a nuke is supposed to do (which is mostly to terrify the other side). As for Chernobyl, it was significantly underengineered and negligently operated, something clearly indicated by the fact no other comparable nuclear accident happened, before or since. And depleted uranium ammo... well... that's what you get when you use something toxic (depleted uranium is toxic even if it's not that much radioactive) to make your ammunition.
- ori_b 16y ago
  It wasn't merely negligently operated. The safety was turned off for tests. Effectively, it was the equivalent of sawing off your brake pedal and driving full speed into a wall to see if the airbags hold. With known-faulty airbags.
- patrickk 16y ago
  The only point I was making was in response to the comment above where the commenter was downplaying the effects of radiation poisoning causing huge amounts of human suffering and death. I was merely pointing out that there has been a lot of hardship caused by both nuclear weapons, DU and nuclear accidents - read the second link above, and account of a guy who was sent to clear up DU after the first Gulf War. Pretty horrific stuff.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Both the radioactive fallout of a nuke and the toxicity of depleted uranium are features rather than bugs. Those things are designed to be as lethal as possible. OTOH, in the specific case of the depleted uranium, it could be possible the extra lethality was only a happy accident. Weapon designers are an interesting breed.

rbanffy 16y ago

I think giving lethal doses of radiation is an important part of what a nuke is supposed to do (which is mostly to terrify the other side). As for Chernobyl, it was significantly underengineered and negligently operated, something clearly indicated by the fact no other comparable nuclear accident happened, before or since. And depleted uranium ammo... well... that's what you get when you use something toxic (depleted uranium is toxic even if it's not that much radioactive) to make your ammunition.

ori_b 16y ago
It wasn't merely negligently operated. The safety was turned off for tests. Effectively, it was the equivalent of sawing off your brake pedal and driving full speed into a wall to see if the airbags hold. With known-faulty airbags.
patrickk 16y ago
The only point I was making was in response to the comment above where the commenter was downplaying the effects of radiation poisoning causing huge amounts of human suffering and death. I was merely pointing out that there has been a lot of hardship caused by both nuclear weapons, DU and nuclear accidents - read the second link above, and account of a guy who was sent to clear up DU after the first Gulf War. Pretty horrific stuff.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Both the radioactive fallout of a nuke and the toxicity of depleted uranium are features rather than bugs. Those things are designed to be as lethal as possible. OTOH, in the specific case of the depleted uranium, it could be possible the extra lethality was only a happy accident. Weapon designers are an interesting breed.