5 ms·

True, depleted uranium is not fissionable, but it's still nasty stuff. It is used for amor-piercing ammunition and turns into fine dust on impact. For instance,

by deng 1y ago

True, depleted uranium is not fissionable, but it's still nasty stuff. It is used for amor-piercing ammunition and turns into fine dust on impact. For instance, kids playing in abandoned tanks inhale it, and it still radiates alpha and beta particles, leading to lung cancer later in life. It needs to be outlawed.

perihelions 1y ago
You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools! The people doing the actual work, today, use depleted uranium[0] rounds, because they have common sense and prefer to not have a main battle tank survive long enough to shoot back at them. "Let's not use (mildly) toxic weapons" is a fair-weather principle that disappears the moment the weather ceases being fair. Like cluster bombs, or landmines: all of the civilized countries in Europe that adopted these idealistic bans, in peacetime, they're repealing those treaties left and right, now that the moral dilemmas are no longer academic. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-uranium-rounds-ukraine-sources-2023-09-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-ura... ("US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine")
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Yeah. An active main battle tank will kill more people faster than inhaling uranium dust will. (This does not make depleted uranium rounds anything less than nasty. But it does make them better than the alternative.)
- seabass-labrax 1y ago
  > You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools! By that logic, we should skip the depleted uranium and head straight to thermonuclear weapons, and throw in some Sarin for good measure. No, the purpose of prohibiting such weapons is for wartime, and whilst it is true that some countries are backsliding on previous commitments, that comes out of cowardice; it should not be reinterpreted as pragmatism. The rules of war weren't idealistic, they were prompted by very real horrors that were witnessed on the ground, especially during the Great War.
  - perihelions 1y ago
    I don't believe that's historic; the landmine convention was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one in 2008. The European nations that dominated these movements (USA signed neither) were in peacetime, and had known nothing other than peace for a very long time. The treaties they're withdrawing from today aren't the post-WW1 Geneva conventions; they are modern treaties that were in actuality products of eras of peace.
    - seabass-labrax 1y ago
      > I don't believe that's historic; the landmine convention was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one in 2008 Not historic in the sense of 'old', but still motivated by real horrors that Europe witnessed. The Bosnian War occurred only a couple of years prior to 1997 and left the region with over a thousand square kilometres of land contaminated by live landmines, which are still being cleared today. I don't know about cluster bombs specifically, but I would imagine that the (widely televised) Second Gulf War and the conflict between Israel and Lebanon had something to do with changing European perception of the weapons. Certainly, the treaties are always drawn up in peacetime - it would be impractical to do so during an active conflict. However I believe that all of them have been prompted by some violent, horrific conflict in the years immediately beforehand.
      - cpgxiii 1y ago
        > However I believe that all of them have been prompted by some violent, horrific conflict in the years immediately beforehand. And in the cases of most of the European signatories, either the blinding naivete that they would never need to fight a "real war" again, or the disingenuous belief that while _they_ could take the moral high ground by signing and abandoning those weapons, the US would show up and use them in their defense if the time came. It also allowed these countries to coach more of their defense cuts in moral terms, rather than simply as saving money. Now, of course, those illusions have been rightfully shattered, and these countries have been reminded that cluster weapons and mines are used on the battlefield because they _work_. And modern cluster munitions with low dud rates and mines with automatic neutralization go a long way towards reducing the collateral damage.
- deng 1y ago
  > You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools! Thank you for not immediately escalating the discussion. Anyway, ever heard of Tungsten? Cool stuff.
- m4rtink 1y ago
  I am not really sure but isnt depleted uranium munition kida obsolete by this point ? It was used mostly in unguided kinetic tank shells and autocannon ammo. But most of the destroyed russiant tanks in Ukraine are due to mines and guided munitions using mostly shaped charges, ranging from Javelins to 400$ DiY FPV drones, neither of which uses depleted uranium in any form.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    Yes, the primary use case was in various direct-fire cannon systems, which have become less prevalent over time due to limited range. It still has use cases in auto-cannons because it significantly improves their performance against armored vehicles and allows them to go up against armor that may outgun them. It isn’t just used in munitions, it is a component of heavy armor. When you blow up a tank you may be vaporizing some depleted uranium in its hull.
    - dralley 1y ago
      Burning tanks aren't exactly environmentally friendly either. Like, without the depleted uranium, you still probably don't want to be eating around the wreckage.
      - m4rtink 1y ago
        IIRC some Abrams tanks in non-export variants use depleted uranium as part of their armor scheme - again not very safe to be around in case it burns out.
- jajko 1y ago
  What was the last time those uranium rounds were fired adequately, cca 1992 from A10 on iraqi tanks? Or 2003? Abrams tanks on Ukraine dont need uranium munition, thats a fact. Everything russia puts against them up to and including T90 can be destroyed by regular AP rounds, no armatas running around requiring some special toxic munition. Suffice to say 98-99% of those abrams shootings are aimed at much worse armor than T90 has. Sure you can try to have the best weapon available for all cases and not give a nanofraction of a fuck about consequences on civilians, just like US did everywhere. Videos of ie Iraqi kids being born en masse with nasty radiation diseases is a worry for some subhumans far away, not most glorious nation in the world right? Ie we could pretty effectively end current war in Ukraine easily by bombing moscow from the ground with some 10 megaton bomb, or 10x1 megaton ones, the russian state would be in total chaos. Yet we humans dont do it, even russians dont launch those bombs on Europe despite repeatedly claiming so. Moves have consequences, being mass murderer of kids aint something cold shower washes away.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
Depleted uranium is a toxic metal but not unusually so. Exposure limits are similar to e.g. chromium which is ubiquitous in our lived environment. While you wouldn’t want to breathe it in, depleted uranium is used as a substitute for tungsten, another toxic metal that you also wouldn’t want to breathe in. Fortunately depleted uranium (and tungsten) settle out rapidly; you are exceedingly unlikely to inhale them unless you were proximal at the moment it was vaporized. The radiation is not a serious concern. It is less radioactive than the potassium in our own bodies, and in vastly smaller quantities. Depleted uranium isn’t healthy but I don’t think we should be misrepresenting the risk either. Many things in the environment you live in have similar toxicity profiles to depleted uranium.
cpgxiii 1y ago
The alternatives are hardly better. In addition to worse penetration performance, the tungsten alloy alternatives for APFSDS rounds are not good for the body either, particularly if being breathed in as fine dust. If you have kids playing on recently destroyed armored vehicles, there will be an incredible collection of toxic materials present. Uranium oxides from DU (which, to be clear, are primarily toxic as heavy metals, not from their low radioactivity) are really the least of your worries when compared to all of the other breathable particulates that will be present (e.g. asbestos, all of the toxic plastic combustion products, explosive residues).
rad_gruchalski 1y ago
Well… don’t stand close to a tank that is being shot at?… or are you worried about the tank crew you are shooting at? good luck „outlawing” killing means, find „more humane” methods of murdering each other. come on.
nandomrumber 1y ago
> It is used for amor-piercing ammunition and turns into fine dust on impact How can it be amor-piercing and turn in to fine dust on impact?
- 00N8 1y ago
  The Wikipedia article says it's "self sharpening" on impact. I think this involves the projectile's leading parts ablating away into burning pyrophoric dust as they interact with the target.
  - nandomrumber 1y ago
    Here's a YT video implying something similar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_nMRbIlZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_nMRbIlZI I wouldn't really know how to verify this guys facts, but there doesn't seem to be anyone in the comments claiming he's massively wrong.
- mr_toad 1y ago
  The energy involved is enough to turn the both projectile and the armour to liquid. Once the projectile penetrates the armour it sprays out aa a jet of hot metal and solidifies as dust. (Depleted uranium also burns at high temperatures, so the liquified projectile is also on fire). Penetration depth (hydrodynamic penetration) is a function of the relative density of the liquids and the length of the projectile, which is why DU is favoured.
  - chipsa 1y ago
    The armor and projectile are solid the entire time. It’s just the pressures involved are enough to make the material flow despite that. Actual experiment: cut the rod into quarters long ways, glue it back together, then shoot it. Out the other end of the armor, the rod is in quarters still. Or at least, what’s left. Also, most materials will burn at a high enough temperature. DU dust is pyrophoric: it will spontaneously catch on fire at room temperature.

by deng 1y ago

perihelions 1y ago

You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools! The people doing the actual work, today, use depleted uranium[0] rounds, because they have common sense and prefer to not have a main battle tank survive long enough to shoot back at them. "Let's not use (mildly) toxic weapons" is a fair-weather principle that disappears the moment the weather ceases being fair. Like cluster bombs, or landmines: all of the civilized countries in Europe that adopted these idealistic bans, in peacetime, they're repealing those treaties left and right, now that the moral dilemmas are no longer academic. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-uranium-rounds-ukraine-sources-2023-09-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-ura... ("US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine")

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Yeah. An active main battle tank will kill more people faster than inhaling uranium dust will. (This does not make depleted uranium rounds anything less than nasty. But it does make them better than the alternative.)
seabass-labrax 1y ago
> You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools! By that logic, we should skip the depleted uranium and head straight to thermonuclear weapons, and throw in some Sarin for good measure. No, the purpose of prohibiting such weapons is for wartime, and whilst it is true that some countries are backsliding on previous commitments, that comes out of cowardice; it should not be reinterpreted as pragmatism. The rules of war weren't idealistic, they were prompted by very real horrors that were witnessed on the ground, especially during the Great War.
- perihelions 1y ago
  I don't believe that's historic; the landmine convention was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one in 2008. The European nations that dominated these movements (USA signed neither) were in peacetime, and had known nothing other than peace for a very long time. The treaties they're withdrawing from today aren't the post-WW1 Geneva conventions; they are modern treaties that were in actuality products of eras of peace.
  - seabass-labrax 1y ago
    > I don't believe that's historic; the landmine convention was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one in 2008 Not historic in the sense of 'old', but still motivated by real horrors that Europe witnessed. The Bosnian War occurred only a couple of years prior to 1997 and left the region with over a thousand square kilometres of land contaminated by live landmines, which are still being cleared today. I don't know about cluster bombs specifically, but I would imagine that the (widely televised) Second Gulf War and the conflict between Israel and Lebanon had something to do with changing European perception of the weapons. Certainly, the treaties are always drawn up in peacetime - it would be impractical to do so during an active conflict. However I believe that all of them have been prompted by some violent, horrific conflict in the years immediately beforehand.
    - cpgxiii 1y ago
      > However I believe that all of them have been prompted by some violent, horrific conflict in the years immediately beforehand. And in the cases of most of the European signatories, either the blinding naivete that they would never need to fight a "real war" again, or the disingenuous belief that while _they_ could take the moral high ground by signing and abandoning those weapons, the US would show up and use them in their defense if the time came. It also allowed these countries to coach more of their defense cuts in moral terms, rather than simply as saving money. Now, of course, those illusions have been rightfully shattered, and these countries have been reminded that cluster weapons and mines are used on the battlefield because they _work_. And modern cluster munitions with low dud rates and mines with automatic neutralization go a long way towards reducing the collateral damage.
deng 1y ago
> You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools! Thank you for not immediately escalating the discussion. Anyway, ever heard of Tungsten? Cool stuff.
m4rtink 1y ago
I am not really sure but isnt depleted uranium munition kida obsolete by this point ? It was used mostly in unguided kinetic tank shells and autocannon ammo. But most of the destroyed russiant tanks in Ukraine are due to mines and guided munitions using mostly shaped charges, ranging from Javelins to 400$ DiY FPV drones, neither of which uses depleted uranium in any form.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Yes, the primary use case was in various direct-fire cannon systems, which have become less prevalent over time due to limited range. It still has use cases in auto-cannons because it significantly improves their performance against armored vehicles and allows them to go up against armor that may outgun them. It isn’t just used in munitions, it is a component of heavy armor. When you blow up a tank you may be vaporizing some depleted uranium in its hull.
  - dralley 1y ago
    Burning tanks aren't exactly environmentally friendly either. Like, without the depleted uranium, you still probably don't want to be eating around the wreckage.
    - m4rtink 1y ago
      IIRC some Abrams tanks in non-export variants use depleted uranium as part of their armor scheme - again not very safe to be around in case it burns out.
jajko 1y ago
What was the last time those uranium rounds were fired adequately, cca 1992 from A10 on iraqi tanks? Or 2003? Abrams tanks on Ukraine dont need uranium munition, thats a fact. Everything russia puts against them up to and including T90 can be destroyed by regular AP rounds, no armatas running around requiring some special toxic munition. Suffice to say 98-99% of those abrams shootings are aimed at much worse armor than T90 has. Sure you can try to have the best weapon available for all cases and not give a nanofraction of a fuck about consequences on civilians, just like US did everywhere. Videos of ie Iraqi kids being born en masse with nasty radiation diseases is a worry for some subhumans far away, not most glorious nation in the world right? Ie we could pretty effectively end current war in Ukraine easily by bombing moscow from the ground with some 10 megaton bomb, or 10x1 megaton ones, the russian state would be in total chaos. Yet we humans dont do it, even russians dont launch those bombs on Europe despite repeatedly claiming so. Moves have consequences, being mass murderer of kids aint something cold shower washes away.

jandrewrogers 1y ago

Depleted uranium is a toxic metal but not unusually so. Exposure limits are similar to e.g. chromium which is ubiquitous in our lived environment. While you wouldn’t want to breathe it in, depleted uranium is used as a substitute for tungsten, another toxic metal that you also wouldn’t want to breathe in. Fortunately depleted uranium (and tungsten) settle out rapidly; you are exceedingly unlikely to inhale them unless you were proximal at the moment it was vaporized. The radiation is not a serious concern. It is less radioactive than the potassium in our own bodies, and in vastly smaller quantities. Depleted uranium isn’t healthy but I don’t think we should be misrepresenting the risk either. Many things in the environment you live in have similar toxicity profiles to depleted uranium.

cpgxiii 1y ago

The alternatives are hardly better. In addition to worse penetration performance, the tungsten alloy alternatives for APFSDS rounds are not good for the body either, particularly if being breathed in as fine dust. If you have kids playing on recently destroyed armored vehicles, there will be an incredible collection of toxic materials present. Uranium oxides from DU (which, to be clear, are primarily toxic as heavy metals, not from their low radioactivity) are really the least of your worries when compared to all of the other breathable particulates that will be present (e.g. asbestos, all of the toxic plastic combustion products, explosive residues).

rad_gruchalski 1y ago

Well… don’t stand close to a tank that is being shot at?… or are you worried about the tank crew you are shooting at? good luck „outlawing” killing means, find „more humane” methods of murdering each other. come on.

nandomrumber 1y ago

> It is used for amor-piercing ammunition and turns into fine dust on impact How can it be amor-piercing and turn in to fine dust on impact?

00N8 1y ago
The Wikipedia article says it's "self sharpening" on impact. I think this involves the projectile's leading parts ablating away into burning pyrophoric dust as they interact with the target.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  Here's a YT video implying something similar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_nMRbIlZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_nMRbIlZI I wouldn't really know how to verify this guys facts, but there doesn't seem to be anyone in the comments claiming he's massively wrong.
mr_toad 1y ago
The energy involved is enough to turn the both projectile and the armour to liquid. Once the projectile penetrates the armour it sprays out aa a jet of hot metal and solidifies as dust. (Depleted uranium also burns at high temperatures, so the liquified projectile is also on fire). Penetration depth (hydrodynamic penetration) is a function of the relative density of the liquids and the length of the projectile, which is why DU is favoured.
- chipsa 1y ago
  The armor and projectile are solid the entire time. It’s just the pressures involved are enough to make the material flow despite that. Actual experiment: cut the rod into quarters long ways, glue it back together, then shoot it. Out the other end of the armor, the rod is in quarters still. Or at least, what’s left. Also, most materials will burn at a high enough temperature. DU dust is pyrophoric: it will spontaneously catch on fire at room temperature.