3 ms·
I would also assume that modern munitions are much more likely to either immediately explode or fail (relatively) safe rather than lingering as highly volatile
by jsheard 3y ago
I would also assume that modern munitions are much more likely to either immediately explode or fail (relatively) safe rather than lingering as highly volatile UXO. According to the OP about a quarter of the shells fired back then didn't detonate on impact, and those certainly weren't designed to fail-safe.
- actionfromafar 3y agoThat's true, but there is a big cave-at: Soviet shells and North Korean shells can hardly be called modern and there seems to be a lot of duds fired. Not to mention that Russia has littered whole landscapes with anti-personnel mines, something which didn't really exist in WWI. Small, plastic mines, very hard to detect.
- dralley 3y agoAnd cluster munitions, used extensively by both sides.
- actionfromafar 3y agoYep. Forgot about those. All of that stuff is going to be a sad surprise for a farmer one day, just like in France. :-/
- lostlogin 3y agoIt’s one of the most productive bits of farmland on earth due to its soil type. Presumably one of the reasons Putin decided to take it.
- davidw 3y agoSure, but there's still going to be a lot of wreckage and blown up stuff and ... maybe modern munitions aren't chemical weapons ala WWI, but I don't think the ingredients are like "organic, artisanally produced, biodegradable" stuff either. The US was using depleted uranium for a while, no?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoIsn't DU still used? Uranium pierces armor terrifyingly efficiently.
- dralley 3y agoBoth the Ukrainians and Russians have been using DU shells, but honestly tanks aren't killing tanks very much, so it's basically irrelevant. Even in the best case the DU is still hitting a 40 ton tank which is full of plenty of heavy metals itself.