Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "What Are Thermobaric Weapons" video.

@trianglesandsquares420 I find it more interesting that rather than present an anti-war argument, you simply seem to imply we should conduct warfare without cruelty.
3
@PrivateSi DU isn't a good dirty bomb. The heavy metal toxicity will kill you a million times faster than the radiological effects.
1
@PrivateSi DU is terrible as a radiological danger. It has a very long half-life and it's 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. Its emissions are mostly alpha particles which have little penetration. Reactors and spent fuel storage are worse than DU precisely because they contain elements with half-lives of 100-10,000 years, meaning much less stable than uranium which has a 4.5 billion years half-life. Changing the topic to reactors is a red herring - DU is terrible for dirty bombs as the radiological danger is minimal in comparison to the acute and chronical toxicity effects from the heavy metal poisoning.
1
@PrivateSi I replied to a comment about DU and dirty bombs. That's the topic at hand. I don't don't know why you're talking about energy production in a discussion about radiological weapons. That's what usually people call "fluff", going off on tangents, etc.
1
@PrivateSi Flying a crop duster filled with mercury or driving a convoy of cars running leaded gasoline through a city isn't considered a "dirty bomb". You claimed American use of DU in munitions makes it a dirty bomb. It might be an ecologically damaging strike, and it may be as awful as Agent Orange. But it's not a "dirty bomb". The "force multiplier" is simply chemical toxicity. You could achieve the same with lead dust or by aerosolizing mercury during the blast. You inhale more radioactive stuff, with much shorter half lives, simply by smoking a cigarette. Are cigarettes a terror weapon?
1
The countries still using cluster weapons claim their new designs have less than 1% dud rate, and the duds make themselves inert after X number of hours.
1
It's necessary to pick at details when propaganda is reliant on people not understanding the subject. Some would also say that correcting the details about firearms is just being nitpicky - but it's necessary when someone is trying to influence gun policy based on nonsense.
1
That was the B61 thermonuclear bomb.
1
Missing the point. The claim was that the weapon was banned under the Geneva comvention.
1
@mickeyblueeyes I don't get your point. The issue raised was that Russia was using some kind of gruesome, banned weapon. So that was just a lie. Nobody said Ukraine has to use fists to defend themselves, the issue is that you're implicitly defending the use of lies to raise moral panic. In fact, thermobaric weapons being legal means that Ukraine can use them too. Nobody's saying they're aggressors using banned weapons. You're the one defending the lie about banned weapons.
1
@mickeyblueeyes All bombs are indiscriminate. No humane government would drop bombs on population centers, which by logical conclusion means there's no humane government on Earth. I'm not arguing on behalf of a bully state. I'm arguing on behalf of truth, because the Ukrainian side shouldn't have to lie when reason is on their side. You ask around online, many people are pro-Russia simply because they're sick of Ukrainian propaganda. There's a psychological trick in which we're always much more susceptible to the information we hear first. So when people saw Ukraine propagandists lying, they're now tuned out. You can show them how Russians are lying, they don't care. Their brain is stuck on "Ukraine lied" and now they won't be moved.
1