Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6857)	4/30/2004 6:52:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

Maybe in the time since I was involved with theses issues, by providing immunity from activation by bullets, they also "yielded" the immunity to DU rounds. Can't agree with you there Zeev... When I first joined the military, I was in an Armored Cav Regiment (ACR).. And I remember when the Israelis started using Reactive Armor to defend against shape charges.. It was designed to use explosives to disrupt the molten "jet" of metal from penetrating the armor.. We've seen skirting also applied to armored vehicles in order to trigger the shape charge prematurely so that it expends itself before striking the actual armor. But a kinetic round, tungsten, or DU, is far too dense to be stopped by reactive armor (except perhaps for a glancing blow). I believe the armor you're referring to vis-a-vis kinetic rounds is laminate armor (Chobham). theavonlady.org In any event, is it not the right time to simply ban DU munitions, they really have some nasty long term impact on civilian populations. Well, I guess that depends on if one believes the DU, which is less radioactive than naturally occurring Uranium is an established threat.. There is far more radioactive dust spewed into the environment merly by burning coal. But if I'm in an armored vehicle trying to destroy an enemy at 2-3 miles away, I think I would like have my DU rounds... Hawk