When is the time to kill?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystophilus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cynic:
then why are military personal encouraged to wear safety gear while handling the material (loading shells)? It is much worse then lead based paints - it is radioactive material, what are you smoking?. Studies done in Kosovo and post Gulf War Iraq have shown large increases in the rates of certain cancers, lukemia, around affected combat zones…

Most armored combat took place in built up areas in Iraq, shells used to blow out buildings with insurgents in them… guided missles used to penetrate multi level buildings and bunkers.

here’s your link though i don’t expect you’ll give it much weight

sundayherald.com/40096
Click to expand...
Cynic,

Maybe I can shed some light here. I am a Army Major (now reserve) from a Armored Battalion. We use DU ammunition regularly.

Depleted Uranium is Uranium where all the fissionable material has been extracted. What remains are the more stable U isotopes

Vern is correct, the danger with DU resides in the fact that it is a heavy metal. Lead too causes cancer when ingested, and DU is remarkable similar in it’s toxicity. There is little doubt that the rate of cancer increases, but the increase would be pretty much identical if the tanks shot lead instead (actually, probably less, the tanks would have to fire more lead rounds to do what DU does in one shot).

DU emits largely alpha radiation, if you remember from high school physics, alpha radiation is a helium atom without the electrons. It is stopped by your skin. The remainder is beta, which is a hydrogen atom without it’s electrons. That is stopped by regular clothes or gloves.

No special equipment is needed for handling DU ammunition, than regular clothes on your body and a pair of work gloves. Tank rounds are very heavy, so we always wore the safety equipment one would wear moving heavy objects (steel toe-ed shoes, back braces, knee pads )

As far as the use of DU ammunition in open vs. closed spaces.

DU is used in a long range, anti-tank role. What a tank essentially shoot is a long spear of DU with fins on it. The fins make the round VERY accurate and it penetrates an enemy tank using mass*velocity (there is no explosive warhead on DU ammunition).

So, by definition, a DU round could NOT be used to destroy a building. all it would end up doing would be punching a 3 inch hole in the brick in the front of the building, and a 3 inch hole in the back.

The round there is an HE (High Explosive) round, and if an enemy tank was sighted in an urban situation, a HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round would be used. This round uses a shaped explosive charge to blow through the armor. While effective, it’s not as accurate or as long range as a DU APFSDS round.

But that doesn’t matter in urban combat. And unlike a DU round, if you happen to have a HEAT round in the main gun and need to take out a building, you would not have to change ammunition. The HEAT round is almost as effective as HE (High Explosive)
 
Regarding the original question.

I would shoot the guy in the mall and aim for center mass. Not interested in trying to disable him because if I miss, shooting isn’t as you would think, I then become his next target because of the threat I pose to him.

I chose all of the choices in the survey but the last one, I would have chosen that also if the person would continue to pose a threat to people even after being sent to prison for life.

Shooting to defend property would depend on the property. Classified material - yes. My football - no.
 
40.png
weddy:
for the protection of life only (not property)
Click to expand...
Was in the military, property(intelligence) is sometimes above an individuals life because of the many more lives that could be at stake.

What fool would keep running when a gun is pointed at him because he is trying to steal something. It then becomes his decision if his life is worth what he is stealing.
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
I checked all of the options. They are all reasonable.

The man would get a double-tap to start, with more coming if he was still a danger to those around him.

(Singing cadence)
2 to the body, one to the head. That’ll always make 'em dead…

And BTW, I wouldn’t need his, I’d pull mine (although its always good to have a backup gun…).
Click to expand...
Beat me to it.

And if you wouldn’t use those wussy 9mm, a double tap’ll do it every time.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
If asked, most people will say that killing is Wrong. If pressed, most will admit that there are certain circumstances under which they would do it. Please answer both the poll, and the questions at the end of this scenario:

Imagine that you are in a shopping mall.
You hear a ‘clunk!’.
You look down.
On the floor beside you is an automatic pistol.
You pick it up.
It is real, it is loaded, and the safety is off.
You look up again, only to see that the guy who dropped the pistol has taken another gun out of a bag which he is carrying and, standing in the middle of the shopping mall, has begun to shoot shoppers at random. You have a clear shot, and there is a solid concrete wall behind him: you are not likely to hit anyone else.

1/ Would you shoot him?
2/ Why?
(and, if you are going to say that you would shoot him in the arm or leg, just consider how good you really are at shooting)
Click to expand...
In my opinion, the answer is clear…

You must take the necessary action to protect innocent life. Wounding him may still cause others to die. He must be stopped completely at all costs. He must be killed. I think God would understand.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Cynic,

Maybe I can shed some light here. I am a Army Major (now reserve) from a Armored Battalion. We use DU ammunition regularly.

Depleted Uranium is Uranium where all the fissionable material has been extracted. What remains are the more stable U isotopes

Vern is correct, the danger with DU resides in the fact that it is a heavy metal. Lead too causes cancer when ingested, and DU is remarkable similar in it’s toxicity. There is little doubt that the rate of cancer increases, but the increase would be pretty much identical if the tanks shot lead instead (actually, probably less, the tanks would have to fire more lead rounds to do what DU does in one shot).

DU emits largely alpha radiation, if you remember from high school physics, alpha radiation is a helium atom without the electrons. It is stopped by your skin. The remainder is beta, which is a hydrogen atom without it’s electrons. That is stopped by regular clothes or gloves.

No special equipment is needed for handling DU ammunition, than regular clothes on your body and a pair of work gloves. Tank rounds are very heavy, so we always wore the safety equipment one would wear moving heavy objects (steel toe-ed shoes, back braces, knee pads )

As far as the use of DU ammunition in open vs. closed spaces.

DU is used in a long range, anti-tank role. What a tank essentially shoot is a long spear of DU with fins on it. The fins make the round VERY accurate and it penetrates an enemy tank using mass*velocity (there is no explosive warhead on DU ammunition).

So, by definition, a DU round could NOT be used to destroy a building. all it would end up doing would be punching a 3 inch hole in the brick in the front of the building, and a 3 inch hole in the back.

The round there is an HE (High Explosive) round, and if an enemy tank was sighted in an urban situation, a HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) round would be used. This round uses a shaped explosive charge to blow through the armor. While effective, it’s not as accurate or as long range as a DU APFSDS round.

But that doesn’t matter in urban combat. And unlike a DU round, if you happen to have a HEAT round in the main gun and need to take out a building, you would not have to change ammunition. The HEAT round is almost as effective as HE (High Explosive)
Click to expand...
thank you for your post, but I’m still searching the net for the data some british/german study on soil radioactivity and cancer rates in Kosovo/Iraq ( 60 mins, some months back)…but I can’t find anything yet… If I remember correctly the point was that DU particles are deangerous because they can be ingested…
 
40.png
cynic:
thank you for your post, but I’m still searching the net for the data some british/german study on soil radioactivity and cancer rates in Kosovo/Iraq ( 60 mins, some months back)…but I can’t find anything yet…
Click to expand...
You’ve already been given a site that has a detailed examination of those studies and claims – and not from a DoD point of view.

Have you considered that since the facts in your original post were so wrong, the conclusions you drew from them had to be wrong, too?

Now, as Issac Asimov said, “Give me leave to pick and choose my facts and I will undertake to prove anything you like.”

Ask yourself if you are in seach of facts that back up your earlier conclusion, and excluding anything that doesn’t fit.
40.png
cynic:
If I remember correctly the point was that DU particles are deangerous because they can be ingested…
Click to expand...
Yes – as the rest of us have pointed out over and over, the danger from DU is heavy metal poisoning – just like lead. And the primary form ingested is ash – which is produced when a projectile strikes armor and exhibits its pryophoric characteristics.
 
I can’t find what I wanted…60 minutes few weeks ago, possbily months ago for you…joint British/German studies into cancer (particularly leukemia) patients Iraqi hospitals…I need the names of the researchers but no luck…and I’m well aware of the official denials of any hazard by the U.S department of state and the WHO.

but anyway…

commondreams.org/headlines03/0804-04.htm
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
If asked, most people will say that killing is Wrong. If pressed, most will admit that there are certain circumstances under which they would do it. Please answer both the poll, and the questions at the end of this scenario:

Imagine that you are in a shopping mall.
You hear a ‘clunk!’.
You look down.
On the floor beside you is an automatic pistol.
You pick it up.
It is real, it is loaded, and the safety is off.
You look up again, only to see that the guy who dropped the pistol has taken another gun out of a bag which he is carrying and, standing in the middle of the shopping mall, has begun to shoot shoppers at random. You have a clear shot, and there is a solid concrete wall behind him: you are not likely to hit anyone else.

1/ Would you shoot him?
2/ Why?
(and, if you are going to say that you would shoot him in the arm or leg, just consider how good you really are at shooting)
Click to expand...
Here is my take on the use of deadly force:
Check the laws regarding the use of deadly force in your State.
**THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE **
  • To protect yourself or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, or
  • To prevent a crime where the suspect’s actions place persons in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury, or
  • To apprehend a fleeing felon for a crime involving seriously bodily injury or the use of deadly force where there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily injury to others if apprehension is delayed.
Additional considerations: While the use of reasonable force may be necessary in situations which cannot be otherwise controlled, The use of deadly force should not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances. The use of deadly force to protect others or yourself from serous injury or death must always be **reasonable **and **necessary **and the last resort available to eliminate an immediate threat.

Acronyms:

IDOL

In
Defense
Of
Life

BALKS

Background
Age
Lighting
Knowledge
Severity
 
vern humphrey:
Yes – as the rest of us have pointed out over and over, the danger from DU is heavy metal poisoning – just like lead. And the primary form ingested is ash – which is produced when a projectile strikes armor and exhibits its pryophoric characteristics.
Click to expand...
and if you read that study i posted, cynic, you’d see that the around 80% of the DU rounds used actually miss their targets, and thus do not aerosolize their uranium, and are thus not ingested…
 
40.png
cynic:
If I remember correctly the point was that DU particles are deangerous because they can be ingested…
Click to expand...
Oh there is little doubt of that at all. Ingestation of DU, like any heavy metal (such as lead) is a very bad thing.

The question is, is DU any more toxic than an equivent amount of lead.
 
Cynic,

Perhaps this might help

gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

Especially these parts
john doran:
and if you read that study i posted, cynic, you’d see that the around 80% of the DU rounds used actually miss their targets, and thus do not aerosolize their uranium, and are thus not ingested…
Click to expand...
Probably those flyboys in the A-10, firing blasts from that gattling gun of theirs.

We tankers are substantially more accurate than that 😉
 
40.png
Brendan:
Probably those flyboys in the A-10, firing blasts from that gattling gun of theirs.
Click to expand...
oh, for sure - even at 5 mil, 80%, 4200 rounds per minute from the GAU 8a is gonna end up in a lot of misses…
 
40.png
Lonevoice:
Beat me to it.

And if you wouldn’t use those wussy 9mm, a double tap’ll do it every time.
Click to expand...
A 9mm? What do you take me for? A fool? I wouldn’t use one of those as a back-up for my back-up… 😃

The double tap from my .45 is just so I can be sure he’s down for the count.
 
I voted for self-defense…but that does not include cloning or fetal tissue experimentation…which some people would say would save their own life. That does not count…you are not in danger from the baby whose life you are taking…No, only from a person who is causing you to protect your life from eminent danger. That is all!!!
 
The standard answer would be that it is admissable to defend yourself or your family, if you or they were in danger of being killed. However, it does bring up the case of killing in order to save the life of another? I am not sure about this point. At first thought, it seems like you should be able to kill in order to defend another innocent person who is in the position that his life is being unjustly threatened by another. However, this brings up the question of the abortion clinics and my understanding is that Catholics have been told that they are not to employ violence and that it is wrong to employ violence at an abortion clinic. Isn’t it the case that the Church authorities allow only peaceful demonstrations at these abortion clinics? So it looks like in this case the Church does not allow us to kill in order to save the life of an innocent person.
 
We are never allowed to kill a person in defense of property. For a human life is of infinitely greater value than any thing that lacks an imortal soul.

Property that we ‘own’ comes with a social mortgage.
According to this body of thought, the social mortgage is the conditions under which humanity is allowed to use the goods of the world, which are viewed as part of God’s creation. Use of the world’s resources is bound to responsibility towards the rest of humanity. Although there is a right to private property, it is not an absolute right. In particular, no one has the right to accumulate large amounts of private property while others in the world lack the basic requirements for survival and development.
Click to expand...
Any person that has need of some of our property to live, has a claim on it. Not a right to it, but a claim. This claim is expressed as we, the owner, must use our property to assist others in living. We do not need to give up all our property to assist others, for we have a right to goods that we have earned through our labor. But it is not an absolute right.

For example, in NO, if a store is not open, if the food will go bad before it opens, and another person is starving. That person can take the food in order to live.

This is limited by the case that if a starving person is unwilling to work for a just wage, then they give up their claim to another’s property.

Along another line of thought: Thomas More wrote that we are to always seek to do the will of God. If we look for work and cannot find it, it may be the will of God that we starve. See his writings on the Four Last Things.
 
40.png
Evan:
For example, in NO, if a store is not open, if the food will go bad before it opens, and another person is starving. That person can take the food in order to live.
.
Click to expand...
Good theory, but as we have seen in New Orleans:
  1. The strong got the food, the weak went without (you didn’t see any elderly people with walkers or pregnant women cleaning out those stores, did you?)
  2. The general atmosphere created by the looting led some people to steal things they didn’t need to live.
  3. The lack of security attracted violent criminals from outside New Orleans to join in the looting.
  4. Violent crime went up dramatically and many innocent people were killed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top