north korea has nukes.
#21
Posted 13 February 2005 - 09:38 PM
#22
Posted 13 February 2005 - 10:19 PM
And when did you get your doctorate and get the right to say something as fact on a topic that is clearly being debated by medical professionals worldwide?Depends what the mutated cell does
#23
Posted 13 February 2005 - 11:54 PM
"To be governed is tragic, to govern is pathetic."
#24
Posted 13 February 2005 - 11:59 PM
Does anyone find it just as ironic as I do that the US is taking less actions towards NK that certainly has nuclear weapons then towards Iran where there is only a suspicion..
I think george bush is afraid of kim jong il, I wouldn't blame him hes creepy.
I mean look at him hes scary, I bet little kids would pee there pants if he went trick ot treating in someones town and without a costom too.
that and china would probably defend north korea like they always do.
#25
Posted 14 February 2005 - 12:22 AM
#26
Posted 14 February 2005 - 12:27 AM
Such biased and close-minded views are the basis of hatred, and misunderstanding.
who are you saying this to?
#27
Posted 14 February 2005 - 03:00 AM
#28
Posted 14 February 2005 - 10:35 AM
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
#29
Posted 14 February 2005 - 11:18 AM
DU is quite simply the best penetrator you can find. DEPLETED uranium, as in no more electrons and protons being emitted to make it change into lead. The Soviets weren't putting nukes into their tanks, stop playing Generals. They did not put any radioactive material in their tanks (considering they lacked the NBC protection as well as the evil genius to do so, if they had put nuclear material in their tanks, all Soviet MBTs from the East German blitzkrieg line would be glowing with radioactivity, and millions would be dead and dying from exposure to radioactive material), and I have no idea where you got this backward notion from. Did NATO use DU penetrators? Yes, because it will punch through the front of basically 90% of all tanks in existance. Also, it's not just NATO. Russia uses DU rounds for their tanks, primarily with their 115mm and 125mm guns.
Know what you are talking about before you make statements that could be outclassed by a two year old. Stop making things up.
#30 Guest_ImmoMan_*
Posted 14 February 2005 - 03:08 PM
Natural uranium metal is made of several isotopes of the same element. Uranium-238 is the most common, and makes up about 99.3% of all natural uranium. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Uranium-235 is the isotope that's used for nuclear fission reactions, since it is most suitable for that process. It makes up no more than 0.72% of natural uranium, and has a half-life of 703 million years. Finally, uranium-234 makes up only 0.054% of natural uranium, but has a half-life of 244 thousand years.
Now, because uranium-235 is so valuable in the fission process, natural uranium is put through a process that increases the amount of uranium-235 in a piece of uranium. The result is called enriched uranium, which is made up of about 90% uranium-235. Of course the uranium-235 has to come from somewhere, so you're also left with a very large amount of metal that contains less uranium-235 than normal. This is called depleted uranium.
Both enriched uranium and depleted uranium are radioactive. Both contain all 3 isotopes, and all 3 are unstable and therefore radioactive. Enriched uranium is about four times as radioactive as normal uranium, but there is no difference in radioactivity between natural and depleted uranium. So it's just as deadly. Having an area spread with depleted uranium bullets would almost certainly cause severe damage to an area over the years. The stuff poisons the ground air, plants and wildlife for years to come.
#31
Posted 14 February 2005 - 03:47 PM
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
#32
Posted 14 February 2005 - 04:30 PM
NK could not sustain itself without Chinese resources. Wiser people might convince me that would force NK to invade SK for it's own survival though.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#33
Posted 14 February 2005 - 04:41 PM
Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel
Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56
#34
Posted 14 February 2005 - 05:26 PM
From what I've read, Depleted Uranium is about 40% less radioactive than normal uranium. Otherwise, you have it exactly right.Both enriched uranium and depleted uranium are radioactive. Both contain all 3 isotopes, and all 3 are unstable and therefore radioactive. Enriched uranium is about four times as radioactive as normal uranium, but there is no difference in radioactivity between natural and depleted uranium. So it's just as deadly. Having an area spread with depleted uranium bullets would almost certainly cause severe damage to an area over the years. The stuff poisons the ground air, plants and wildlife for years to come.
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#35 Guest_ImmoMan_*
Posted 14 February 2005 - 05:31 PM
#36
Posted 14 February 2005 - 07:03 PM
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#37
Posted 14 February 2005 - 07:59 PM
#38
Posted 14 February 2005 - 09:25 PM
Just because you guys are more worried about defending Americas reputation of being good rather than looking at the truth it doesn't mean that what is being said is untrue. This uranium will causes lot of damage in Iraq, it will just take more years before it becomes clearer what it is attually doing.
Getting back on topic. IMO I would think that China should have the most influence on the situation. If they threatened NK with sanctions, they should be able to get NK to break under pressure.
Else america could disarm like most of the other countries and stop being so hostile towards communism, THEN MAYBE we could convince NK to disarm as well. NK to me seems like a hidden and inactive cold war. Its just a way to defend themselves from what they see is a threat. America.
#39
Posted 14 February 2005 - 09:32 PM
#40
Posted 14 February 2005 - 09:41 PM
If you read what i said you will find the following: "THEN MAYBE we could convince NK to disarm as well"
THEN MAYBE is not certain. I just said something because its a possible possibility of why he is building Nukes. America has no reason to continue nuclear programs, however IT DOES. Problem are far deeper than what you think they are spence. Stop targeting stupid little mistakes you make mentally then throwing them at me. I DO NOT SUPPORT Kim Jom just like i don't support George W. Read what i said. If America was willing to disarm the MAYBE NK would be too. Wake up.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users