Russian Tanks Cross Border Into Ukraine

You seem to be having trouble with the phrase "Should be" - and the rest of your other 3 points were complete nonsense.

 

Doesn't change the fact that you apparently don't have a clue what a "chemical weapon" is.

I thought every idiot knew that.

 

Lead is a chemical?
Technically lead and uranium are elements.
Depleted uranium is used because it's heavy. In my country uranium ore is common. We call it yellow cake.

 

When you spray it all over a population - and it is still causing birth defects decades later - it is a chemical weapon.

How about we explode a few shells in your back yard and see how that turns out for you.

 

Naw .. just a chemistry degree - what would I know about chemicals - and do not project your lack of understanding onto others - calling them "idiots" when it is you who is looking in the mirror.

The claim that something is not on the banned list - does not make it "Not" a chemical weapon .. but I never stated it was on the list in any case - so you are building a big stawman - cause you have no game.

 

Well, I did some research and found out that you were right, on several counts. But not completely. It seems that these small, battlefield nukes, encompass a great span of blast powers from things much stronger than Hiroshima's bomb, down to land mines and shells. However, it seems that the pulverized dispersal of depleted uranium shells, while showing serious health risks, is not classified as a battlefield nuke. So I stand corrected.

That does not mean, though, there is not a controversy, surrounding their use. And, though it has been proposed that use of these led to higher general mortality rates in Iraq (which falls under your description of toxic metals), that does NOT explain the Fallujah phenomenon.

Here is a little bit of a wiki article on DU. I found it interesting that, under, "military uses," it lists armor-piercing projectiles, but not bomb shell casings.
<Begin SNIP>
Depleted uranium...

The uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 grams per cubic centimetre (0.69 lb/cu in) (68.4% denser than lead).


The DU penetrator of a 30 mm round[1]

Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shielding in medical radiation therapy and industrial radiography equipment, and containers for transporting radioactive materials.

Military uses include armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles...

The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of concerns about potential long-term health effects.[6][7] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by exposure to uranium, a toxic metal.[8]...The aerosol or spallation frangible powder produced by impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites, leading to possible inhalation by human beings.[10] According to an article in Al Jazeera, DU from American artillery is suspected to be one of the major causes of an increase in the general mortality rate in Iraq...[11]
<end SNIP>

Here is a link to a different wikipedia on Tactical Nuclear Weapons. This term is to distinguish them from the more powerful, "strategic," nuclear arms. Another name for the tactical, battlefield nukes is nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

 

It's about time Russia steps in to lend a hand to its neighbour.

Don't tell that the U.S. (and its NATO flunkies) are travelling half-way round the world to engage in a dispute between neighbours? Wouldn't that be contrary to their own justification?

 

Six NATO nations are "neighbors" with Russia.

 

@Dayton3
Here is a little bit of the wikipedia article on tactical nukes, the link to which I posted in #81. There are a bunch of interesting facts in the article but, trying to defer to PF's policy of limiting such quotings, I have edited much of it out so that, for any w/ an interest in the subject, it would still be worth visiting the site.
<begin SNIP>
A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon[1] is a nuclear weapon which is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons: which are designed to be mostly targeted in the enemy interior away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy's ability to wage war.

Tactical nuclear weapons include gravity bombs, short-range missiles, artillery shells, land mines, depth charges, and torpedoes which are equipped with nuclear warheads. Also in this category are nuclear armed ground-based or shipborne surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and air-to-air missiles. Small, two-man portable, or truck-portable, tactical weapons...

There is no exact definition of the "tactical" category on range or yield of the nuclear weapon.[2][3] ... Modern tactical nuclear warheads have yields up to the tens of kilotons, or potentially hundreds, several times that of the weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Specifically on the Korean Peninsula, with a nuclear North Korea facing off against a NPT-compliant South Korea, there have been calls to request a return of US-owned and -operated short range low yield nuclear weapons, called tactical by the US military, to provide a local strategic deterrent to the North's growing domestically produced nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.[4]

 

Yes, and lead pollutes watercourses, gets into birds, and kids etc..
Depleted uranium and lead are not defined as chemical weapons.
We need to stick to definitions.

 

Lead - if used as a weapon - would be a chemical weapon - by definition -- and doubly so - if used as a weapon of war .. just one that has not been banned.

You are confused.

 

How would the US feel if LaRaza backed Texan separatists were being backed by Mexico? HIstorically it's about the same thing

 

Well I disagree with that. Putin will not invade a NATO country like Lithuania.

The GDP of the European union is $17T. Russia's GDP along with their military allies on paper is around $2.2T. So yes our NATO allies collectively should be able to stand up to Russia even without our help so it makes no damn sense for us to represent over 60% of NATO's military expenditures.

Trump was 100% right so of course the libos bashed him for asking our most power NATO allies to pay their fair share.

 

For the libos posting here please explain how Trump asking, demanding that our NATO allies spend more on military was helping Putin and Russia?

NATO allies spent $150B more on national defense while Trump was in office. That is double Russia's entire military budget. So how was that helpful to Putin?

 

Why?

 

Many of the American public are thrilled to be kept in the dark. They know and rejoice that ignorance is bliss.

 

because when something is both a chemical - and a weapon - it is a "Chemical Weapon"

 

That is not what defines a chemical weapon. See the definition from wikipedia (among others). Your "definition" would define any weapon used in the world (aside from bladed weapons) as a "chemical" weapon. And that is utterly ridiculous.

 

The U.S. and Russia are NOT moral equivalents.

 

The big lie must eventually be defended.

The omission of facts, not nearly so much.

 

I already told you - just because a chemical is not banned as a weapon - does not mean it is not a chemical weapon.. it just has not been banned yet.

In this case - as stated previously - it should be banned. The only "utterly ridiculous" thing here .. is that you can't figure out that a chemical used as a weapon is a "Chemical Weapon"

 

Trump causing NATO to wonder if US can be counted on in a war situation was like music to Putins ears.

Did you like the fact the Obama got NATO to commit to meet the spending goals by 2024?

 

Anyone who knows anything about the U.S. knows that the U.S. can be counted on to support its allies in Europe in any "war situation".

 

then why does wikipedia and every other source define "chemical weapons" differently than you do?

 

Anybody who knows anything about the US knows that it is now and has been for years a practitioner of military aggression around the globe.