0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 2,057 Given: 3,213 |
Depleted uranium is a byproduct of armor (tank etc) protection, although it is also found in some antiarmor munitions. The point isn't to use a "nuclear" weapon; it's danger comes if a tank is damaged to the extent that the depleted uranium may leach from the damaged armor tiles. That fact is, the soldiers fighting in the tanks and working with the munitions are the ones most likely to suffer the potential health effects than anyone in the civil population, unless they scavenge a burning armored vehicle.
PuntDNAl k15
Mother: Polish + Norwegian + Austrian + French @ 0.923102
Father: Karelian + Polish + Romani + Mozabite_Berber @ 5.277415
Me: Lithuanian + Mordovian + Bosnian + Spaniard @ 2.190271
MDLP World
Mother: 85.80% German_V + 14.20% Russian @ 1
Father: 73.10% Croatian_V + 26.90% Roma @ 4.65
Me: 94.70% Croatian_V + 5.30% Roma @ 1.61
Thumbs Up |
Received: 610 Given: 1,439 |
Doesn't the US military consume the most amount of oil and produce the most amount of C02? Where's Greta's pleas to reduce their carbon footprint?
IIRC, the Guardian wrote, a decade ago, that the US military is accountable for upto 60% of the US' oil use. Part of an article explaining why the notion that the US goes to war for oil, is only superficially plausible.
The US military also secretly tested radiation poisoning on the US population, iirc. Just as the DoD did in the UK, using the NHS iirc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks