Blyatskrieg

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by jimbob » Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:26 pm

There was a Kiwi engineer talking about the risk of homemade cruise missiles about 15 years ago.

He made proof of concept demonstrators to highlight this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Simpson_(blogger)
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by monkey » Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:40 pm

jimbob wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:26 pm
There was a Kiwi engineer talking about the risk of homemade cruise missiles about 15 years ago.

He made proof of concept demonstrators to highlight this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Simpson_(blogger)
That's the Scrapheap guy.

Turning "Building a DIY cruise missile" into "researching pulsejets for clients in the aerospace and defence industries with the aim of producing a new generation of low-cost, high-speed pulsejet-powered UAVs" is some good euphemisming though :)

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:51 pm

The United States will send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine far more quickly than expected, with a number of them now scheduled to arrive later this year, the Pentagon said in a briefing to reporters.

The tanks will come from the U.S. military’s existing inventory of older M1A1 Abrams and will be renovated before shipment to Kyiv, which is expected to take several months. The U.S. military announced in January that Ukraine would receive approximately 30 newer M1A2 Abrams tanks, but they were expected to take a year or more to be made and delivered.

The new plan will take excess M1A1 tank “hulls” and refit and refurbish them in order to make them ready on a quicker timeline for Ukraine, Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said on Tuesday afternoon, noting that the plan came from an Army study that had analyzed different ways to get American tanks to Ukraine even faster.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/21/worl ... raine.html

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:34 am

jimbob wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:26 pm
There was a Kiwi engineer talking about the risk of homemade cruise missiles about 15 years ago.

He made proof of concept demonstrators to highlight this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Simpson_(blogger)
Given the use of things like the Iranian "Shaheds", he was clearly onto something. Though, as Dyqik mentions, small two strokes with propellers are often going to be more practical - not least pulse jets often visibly glow they run so hot, whereas the small two strokes actually represent quite a challenge for older IR guided missiles to lock onto. In addition, while the little petrol engine is more complicated than a pulse jet - almost anything is - they are made in vast numbers for civilian applications and COTS (commercial off the shelf) procurement is always useful, especially to those under sanctions or non-state actors.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:53 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:51 pm
The United States will send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine far more quickly than expected, with a number of them now scheduled to arrive later this year, the Pentagon said in a briefing to reporters.

The tanks will come from the U.S. military’s existing inventory of older M1A1 Abrams and will be renovated before shipment to Kyiv, which is expected to take several months. The U.S. military announced in January that Ukraine would receive approximately 30 newer M1A2 Abrams tanks, but they were expected to take a year or more to be made and delivered.

The new plan will take excess M1A1 tank “hulls” and refit and refurbish them in order to make them ready on a quicker timeline for Ukraine, Brig. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said on Tuesday afternoon, noting that the plan came from an Army study that had analyzed different ways to get American tanks to Ukraine even faster.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/21/worl ... raine.html
Speaking of tanks, it appears confirmed that the UK will be sending depleted uranium rounds for Challenger 2s in Ukrainian service. This is a good move as they hit harder, giving the Challengers the chance to penetrate the armour of any part of any Russian tank. Lots of b.llsh.t is talked about DU, so here's a few key points.

1) It's not radioactive. It's Depleted Uranium. Don't expect this to stop people scaremongering, though.

2) It is poisonous. It's probably less poisonous than the tungsten heavy metal alloys used in other kinetic energy penetrators, though.

3) It is exceptionally dense. Armour penetration is dependent on velocity and sectional density. The L27A1 (which is probably the round being discussed) leaves the muzzle just a fraction below Mach 5. There's two ways to achieve high sectional density. These are making the projectile long, and making it out of very dense materials. Making the projectile very long, though, makes it overall more heavy, and that makes it harder to accellerate to the extreme velocities needed. Consequently, armour piercing rounds use a narrow dart carried by a carrier (sabot) that separates from the dart as it leaves the muzzle. Despite this, there's still limits on how long the penetrator dart can be, especially in a rifled gun, as the penetrator has to cope with being violently spun, consequently, to maximise penetration, a very dense material is needed, which is why kinetic energy penetrators are almost always made from uranium or tungsten alloys.

4) Depleted uranium is self sharpening. As it abrades against the armour of the target, the penetrator remains sharp, which helps keep it aligned with the direction of travel - remember if the penetrator is deflected and it's long axis isn't perfectly aligned with the direction of travel, then the effective sectional density radically drops.

5) Depleted uranium dust is pyrophoric. As the penetrator pushes through the steel and ceramic of a tank's armour, it abrades, releasing fine dust. That dust ignites on contact with air. Tanks contain fuel and ammunition - and in the case of Russian tanks, the ammunition is not protected by "wet storage"* as it isn't compatible with their autoloaders. That incendiary effect more or less guarantees that perforation of the armour leads to a tank kill, which wouldn't necessarily be the case otherwise.

It's not that there's no downsides to the use of DU ammunition, but those downsides always need to be compared to the downsides of failing to eject the Russian invaders. Sending DU ammunition is the right move. Now if only someone could persuade the USA to perform the same cost/benefit analysis to the DPICM cluster munitions they reportedly have in storage in quantity.


*a method that's been used since the second world war where the ammunition is stored in tubes surrounded by a water/antifreeze mix that will flood out onto the ammunition if the storage is damaged, reducing the chances of ammunition detonation.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bob sterman » Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:22 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:53 am
Speaking of tanks, it appears confirmed that the UK will be sending depleted uranium rounds for Challenger 2s in Ukrainian service. This is a good move as they hit harder, giving the Challengers the chance to penetrate the armour of any part of any Russian tank. Lots of b.llsh.t is talked about DU, so here's a few key points.

1) It's not radioactive. It's Depleted Uranium. Don't expect this to stop people scaremongering, though.
No - it is certainly radioactive - just much less radioactive than natural uranium prior to depletion. It still contains U-235 and U-234 - just at lower levels.

See #3 for typical composition of DU in military applications...

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:50 am

bob sterman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:22 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:53 am
Speaking of tanks, it appears confirmed that the UK will be sending depleted uranium rounds for Challenger 2s in Ukrainian service. This is a good move as they hit harder, giving the Challengers the chance to penetrate the armour of any part of any Russian tank. Lots of b.llsh.t is talked about DU, so here's a few key points.

1) It's not radioactive. It's Depleted Uranium. Don't expect this to stop people scaremongering, though.
No - it is certainly radioactive - just much less radioactive than natural uranium prior to depletion. It still contains U-235 and U-234 - just at lower levels.

See #3 for typical composition of DU in military applications...

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Sorry, I should clarify what I meant. It's not meaningfully radioactive. Radioactivity has nothing to do with its military use.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:51 am

Reports of explosions in occupied Sevastopol, waiting for more information.

User avatar
TimW
Catbabel
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:27 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by TimW » Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:38 am

Guess what, the Russians say it was an unsuccessful attack.
TASS wrote:Black Sea Fleet repels drone attack on Sevastopol, says governor
It is reported that no war ships were destroyed in the attack

SEVASTOPOL, March 22. /TASS/. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet has repelled a surface drone attack on Sevastopol, Governor Mikhail Razvozhayev reported on his Telegram channel on Wednesday.

"Our fleet repelled a surface drone attack early this morning. So far, three drones have been destroyed. They attempted to penetrate the bay, but our Navy men opened gun fire against them. Also, air defenses were activated," the Sevastopol governor wrote.

No war ships were destroyed in the attack, he said. "Some windows <…> got broken from downed amphibious enemy drones. No one was injured," the official wrote.

According to Razvozhayev, the situation is being monitored, with all emergency services being on high alert.
Not sure I understand how the windows got broken, tbh.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:46 am

TimW wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:38 am
Guess what, the Russians say it was an unsuccessful attack.
TASS wrote:Black Sea Fleet repels drone attack on Sevastopol, says governor
It is reported that no war ships were destroyed in the attack

SEVASTOPOL, March 22. /TASS/. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet has repelled a surface drone attack on Sevastopol, Governor Mikhail Razvozhayev reported on his Telegram channel on Wednesday.

"Our fleet repelled a surface drone attack early this morning. So far, three drones have been destroyed. They attempted to penetrate the bay, but our Navy men opened gun fire against them. Also, air defenses were activated," the Sevastopol governor wrote.

No war ships were destroyed in the attack, he said. "Some windows <…> got broken from downed amphibious enemy drones. No one was injured," the official wrote.

According to Razvozhayev, the situation is being monitored, with all emergency services being on high alert.
Not sure I understand how the windows got broken, tbh.

There's some footage/audio I absolutely can't verify, but if true, looks like the explosions were large ones.
Large explosions could cause blast and/or fragment damage to windows regardless of the drones success in attacking targets. There's also footage of air defence engaging - or trying to engage - an aerial target. It's not clear if they know where the target is, judging by their rather variable trajectories.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:47 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:50 am
bob sterman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:22 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:53 am
Speaking of tanks, it appears confirmed that the UK will be sending depleted uranium rounds for Challenger 2s in Ukrainian service. This is a good move as they hit harder, giving the Challengers the chance to penetrate the armour of any part of any Russian tank. Lots of b.llsh.t is talked about DU, so here's a few key points.

1) It's not radioactive. It's Depleted Uranium. Don't expect this to stop people scaremongering, though.
No - it is certainly radioactive - just much less radioactive than natural uranium prior to depletion. It still contains U-235 and U-234 - just at lower levels.

See #3 for typical composition of DU in military applications...

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Sorry, I should clarify what I meant. It's not meaningfully radioactive. Radioactivity has nothing to do with its military use.
It is meaningfully radioactive in the sense that the radioactivity has been identified as a health hazard and US authorities put a lot of effort into limiting exposure to troops and to workers involved in production, clearing it up from firing ranges and converting stored depleted uranium into a more stable oxide. The health risks are mainly from inhaling or ingesting depleted uranium dust or fragments. In addition, someone who handled the ammunition as a full time job might also face health risks.

Links:
https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topi ... d-Guidance
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/ ... fo-du.html
https://www.energy.gov/pppo/duf6-conversion-project

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:56 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:47 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:50 am
bob sterman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:22 am


No - it is certainly radioactive - just much less radioactive than natural uranium prior to depletion. It still contains U-235 and U-234 - just at lower levels.

See #3 for typical composition of DU in military applications...

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Sorry, I should clarify what I meant. It's not meaningfully radioactive. Radioactivity has nothing to do with its military use.
It is meaningfully radioactive in the sense that the radioactivity has been identified as a health hazard and US authorities put a lot of effort into limiting exposure to troops and to workers involved in production, clearing it up from firing ranges and converting stored depleted uranium into a more stable oxide. The health risks are mainly from inhaling or ingesting depleted uranium dust or fragments. In addition, someone who handled the ammunition as a full time job might also face health risks.
To be clear, when I was referring to scaremongering, I was referring to the kind of scaremongering that treats it like a nuclear or radiological weapon. The risks involved in sending existing DU ammunition are minimal - the risks of not sending it are rather worse.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8244
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by shpalman » Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:00 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:47 am
... It is meaningfully radioactive in the sense that the radioactivity has been identified as a health hazard and US authorities put a lot of effort into limiting exposure to troops and to workers involved in production, clearing it up from firing ranges and converting stored depleted uranium into a more stable oxide. The health risks are mainly from inhaling or ingesting depleted uranium dust or fragments. In addition, someone who handled the ammunition as a full time job might also face health risks.

Links:
https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topi ... d-Guidance
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/ ... fo-du.html
https://www.energy.gov/pppo/duf6-conversion-project

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Converting stored depleted uranium into "a more stable oxide" (not uranium trioxide, I assume... U3O8 is the most stable one) will do nothing about its radioactivity (U-238 alpha-decays with a half-life similar to the age of the earth) but more to do with uranium's toxicity as a metal.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:04 am

shpalman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:00 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:47 am
... It is meaningfully radioactive in the sense that the radioactivity has been identified as a health hazard and US authorities put a lot of effort into limiting exposure to troops and to workers involved in production, clearing it up from firing ranges and converting stored depleted uranium into a more stable oxide. The health risks are mainly from inhaling or ingesting depleted uranium dust or fragments. In addition, someone who handled the ammunition as a full time job might also face health risks.

Links:
https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topi ... d-Guidance
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/ ... fo-du.html
https://www.energy.gov/pppo/duf6-conversion-project

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Converting stored depleted uranium into "a more stable oxide" (not uranium trioxide, I assume... U3O8 is the most stable one) will do nothing about its radioactivity (U-238 alpha-decays with a half-life similar to the age of the earth) but more to do with uranium's toxicity as a metal.
Fair enough.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:08 am

shpalman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:00 am
Woodchopper wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:47 am
... It is meaningfully radioactive in the sense that the radioactivity has been identified as a health hazard and US authorities put a lot of effort into limiting exposure to troops and to workers involved in production, clearing it up from firing ranges and converting stored depleted uranium into a more stable oxide. The health risks are mainly from inhaling or ingesting depleted uranium dust or fragments. In addition, someone who handled the ammunition as a full time job might also face health risks.

Links:
https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topi ... d-Guidance
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/llw-disposal/ ... fo-du.html
https://www.energy.gov/pppo/duf6-conversion-project

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Converting stored depleted uranium into "a more stable oxide" (not uranium trioxide, I assume... U3O8 is the most stable one) will do nothing about its radioactivity (U-238 alpha-decays with a half-life similar to the age of the earth) but more to do with uranium's toxicity as a metal.
Yeah, Uranium dust's pretty nasty. I mentioned that in my first post on the issue. It's not necessarily any worse than other heavy metal alloys used for penetrator rods.

Meanwhile, on the subject of tanks, as we discuss supplies to Ukraine of Challenger 2s and M1A1 Abrams, Russia's sending their T-14 Armata pulling T54/55s out of storage.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bjn » Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:57 pm

An Australian company is now shipping very cheap cardboard drones to the Ukranians who are apparently using them on the front line for surveillance and ordinance delivery. They were originally designed as 'precision delivery systems', are shipped flat packed and held together by rubber bands, have a range of 120 km and are fully autonomous. Price seems to be a few thousand dollars each.

An armed swarm of these descending on a position would be horribly nasty.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... australia/

Image

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:48 pm

bjn wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 12:57 pm
An Australian company is now shipping very cheap cardboard drones to the Ukranians who are apparently using them on the front line for surveillance and ordinance delivery. They were originally designed as 'precision delivery systems', are shipped flat packed and held together by rubber bands, have a range of 120 km and are fully autonomous. Price seems to be a few thousand dollars each.

An armed swarm of these descending on a position would be horribly nasty.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... australia/

Image
I know full well it isn't, but it just looks like it is powered by a big rubber band. It's a great idea. Lots of cheap munitions, and frankly, this kind of thing is proving quite difficult to intercept.

There's a real case for adding plentiful and cheap options alongside more advanced weapons for NATO, too, and to just adopt existing stuff that works - I had a discussion with someone a while back where I suggested NATO should just adopt the RPG-7, not as an anti-tank weapon, but for anti structure work and effectively as a heavy grenade launcher.

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by bjn » Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:58 pm

One issue is that lowering the price on such systems makes them more widely available. Cell phone electronics, a small 2 stroke engine, cardboard + software is not out of reach for most countries. Expect stuff like this to turn up in the hands of all sorts, from a random jihadi group to massive militaries.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:24 pm

bjn wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:58 pm
One issue is that lowering the price on such systems makes them more widely available. Cell phone electronics, a small 2 stroke engine, cardboard + software is not out of reach for most countries. Expect stuff like this to turn up in the hands of all sorts, from a random jihadi group to massive militaries.
Yes. The explosives will be the limiting factor with non-state actors, but not necessarily that much of a one. Nations that don't plan on how to detect and take down this sort of thing are sleepwalking into disaster.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7057
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Woodchopper » Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:33 pm

bjn wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:58 pm
One issue is that lowering the price on such systems makes them more widely available. Cell phone electronics, a small 2 stroke engine, cardboard + software is not out of reach for most countries. Expect stuff like this to turn up in the hands of all sorts, from a random jihadi group to massive militaries.
My brother and I built a radio controlled plane of similar size in the 1980s when we were teenagers. It was made of wood and had a small 2 stroke engine.

What's new is the gps guidance and cheap cameras and other sensors, which would make it far more effective. Small drones have been used extensively by non-state groups in the wars in Syria and Yemen.

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2141
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by JQH » Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:22 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:50 am
bob sterman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:22 am
EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:53 am
Speaking of tanks, it appears confirmed that the UK will be sending depleted uranium rounds for Challenger 2s in Ukrainian service. This is a good move as they hit harder, giving the Challengers the chance to penetrate the armour of any part of any Russian tank. Lots of b.llsh.t is talked about DU, so here's a few key points.

1) It's not radioactive. It's Depleted Uranium. Don't expect this to stop people scaremongering, though.
No - it is certainly radioactive - just much less radioactive than natural uranium prior to depletion. It still contains U-235 and U-234 - just at lower levels.

See #3 for typical composition of DU in military applications...

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Sorry, I should clarify what I meant. It's not meaningfully radioactive. Radioactivity has nothing to do with its military use.
U238 is a little radioactive (half life 4.5 billion years) dust created at the impact site could pose a problem if inhaled.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:29 pm

JQH wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:22 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:50 am
bob sterman wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:22 am


No - it is certainly radioactive - just much less radioactive than natural uranium prior to depletion. It still contains U-235 and U-234 - just at lower levels.

See #3 for typical composition of DU in military applications...

https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel- ... ed-uranium
Sorry, I should clarify what I meant. It's not meaningfully radioactive. Radioactivity has nothing to do with its military use.
U238 is a little radioactive (half life 4.5 billion years) dust created at the impact site could pose a problem if inhaled.
You'd be a lot more worried about the toxicity than the radioactivity.

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2141
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by JQH » Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:30 pm

I don't dispute that.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by Martin Y » Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:52 pm

If you survive the explosion and the fire and the poisoning, you finally get to worry about the long term effects of the alpha emitting dust you inhaled.

In the longer term I suspect DU rounds will eventually be banned like expanding bullets.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Blyatskrieg

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:27 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:52 pm
If you survive the explosion and the fire and the poisoning, you finally get to worry about the long term effects of the alpha emitting dust you inhaled.

In the longer term I suspect DU rounds will eventually be banned like expanding bullets.
There's a problem with specific weapon bans - it gives a military advantage to the people that just ignore them. In a conflict between somebody that follows international treaties and someone that ignores them, it's more common for former to be the more ethical side, and thus the side we want to win, but when they follow the treaty and their adversary ignores it, it puts them at a disadvantage, and gives an advantage to the side that ignores the laws and customs of war - more likely to be the less ethical side overall.

A historical example of that can be found in Japan's lobbying for smaller maximum calibre for battleship main guns in the naval treaties of the thirties where, to avoid naval arms races like the Dreadnought race before the first world war, participating nations agreed to limit the displacement of their ships and the size of their main guns. Japan lobbied for relatively tight restrictions initially* and the treaty went into effect with a 35000 ton displacement limit and 14 inch main gun limit - even as negotiations were ongoing, they were already working on the design of their Yamato class, which displaced almost twice that limit, and carried 18" guns.

An example from the current war is cluster bombs. Ukraine is short on shells, as is Russia, for that matter. Cluster shells can do the work of several conventional blast-frag shells, which also increases the effective firepower of a battery firing at its maximum rate of fire. There are also serious concerns that cluster shells leave UXO. Ukraine's asked the USA to transfer cluster shells from their inventory, but this request has not been met. Russia is already using a range of cluster munitions, giving them a battlefield avantage. The areas of fighting are already horribly contaminated with UXO and mines and will need extensive demining regardless of whether or not Ukraine uses cluster shells. They have also asked for the individual bomblets to drop from drones, and while the same concerns apply there, I suspect grenades in plastic cups or fishing bait bombs to hold the levers in place after the pins have been pulled, one of the munitions Ukrainian drones are dropping, are going to be rather worse on that.

DU isn't really that big of a deal compared to the other threats on the battlefield, and lingering toxicity can be offset against the fact that it, by definition, can't leave UXO behind. And, as I mentioned earlier, all kinetic energy penetrators use toxic materials.

Also the ban on expanding bullets was a product of German politicking because they thought they gave the British an advantage, rather than anything novelly unpleasant about them. Expanding bullets gave the newer small bore rifles similar wounding power to the older large bore rifles. It's not that expanding bullets are humane, of course - it's that no bullet is.

I'm not against arms control, in fact, I'm strongly in favour of it, but we need to remember why we're doing it. Treaties need to be tighly written to focus on harms that are beyond the usual harms of warfare. There's two principal factors to consider - firstly does the weapon cause suffering disproportionate to its military utility or complicate efforts to provide medical treatment to the wounded? Secondly does the weapon tend to cause harm to non-combatants, including by the lingering effects of unexploded ordnance?

*Japan ended up pulling out of the 2nd London Naval Treaty, the history of it all is pretty complex.

Post Reply