Enriched uranium weapon new battlefield horror

Somebody just enailed these links to me and I didn't see this story posted on ATS yet.

I have taken a keen interest in anything involving radiation ever since I was caught in the Japan earthquake earlier this year. I think the issue deserves exposure.

I am a proud American whose brother and father are both veterans and I support the troops of the USA. But I do not agree with the use of controversial weapons, especially uranium weapons.

A debate needs to be kept alive on this topic and information like this needs to be exposed. I don't know if it is valid information, but we should examine it.




NEW BOMBS AND WAR CRIMES IN FALLUJAH

It has become apparent from Busby’s research that a new kind of bomb–which seems to be a neutron bomb–has been used in Fallujah, but also in other areas, including Lebanon...

More including transcript at source:
www.veteranstoday.com...

Good find PartyGirl, this seems pretty huge. I wonder, who is responsible for the decision to use uranium in anti-personnel weapons? I'd heard of the depleted uranium ammunition but not an enriched version. It seems a deliberate ploy to cause as much long lasting and far reaching damage as possible and for future generations, not in the conventional way of just shooting someone (which is bad enough).

Thanks for posting.


ETA: Are there any servicemen here (veteran or serving) that know of the use of this in rifle rounds (excuse if I don't have the right names for the bullets and ammo) and other anti-personnel weapons?

ETA2: I also wonder how long it will be before we see our troops exhibiting the same symptoms after having used these things. I mean, if its a large battle surely lots of radioactive particles are going to be just floating around being inhaled by everyone? I would imagine that at least some "dust" will not just be affecting the people who get shot with that stuff. In the ground and the water? Pfff. Methinks we don't need to drop nuclear bombs anymore.

this is the kind of stuff that should be debated and asked for reponsability, instead of discussing if USA or UK should attack Iran... etc etc ....
nice find

Originally posted by Partygirl
Somebody just enailed these links to me and I didn't see this story posted on ATS yet.

The silly claim that mini nuclear weapons were used on 9/11 has been posted and debunked here before.

reply to post by spoor

Were people firing anti-personnel weapons on 9/11. Can't say I remember hearing that or understand your statement with regard to the OP.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Can't say I remember hearing that or understand your statement in regard to the OP.

Visit the website, they claim that a "neutron bomb" was used on the twin towers

Note:

This thread is about nuclear weaponry used in Iraq.

It is not about 9/11.

Please stay on topic

Interest piqued.
Star and flag. If you can find anything that might support a new "secret" weapon I would like to read it. I am looking around and reading.

I have wondered for a long time what went on at Fallujah, and what weapons were "tested" or used there, given the accounts I have read of units moving in wearing hazmat suits and water trucks washing the streets before other troops moved in. I mean, what were they washing, or trying to wash away?

There was also the case of the young boy who ended up coming to the UK for treatment after losing both arms in one of the Fallujah attacks. I saw some very nasty photos taken of the boy when he first arrived at a hospital in Iraq. From what I had read, he had been lying in bed next to a window with his arms above the blanket. His midsection and lower torso had the blanket material fused to skin and the flesh on his arms was carbonized. It wasn't just burnt. it was almost charcoal, what was left that is that was hanging from the bleached white bone. It was almost as if this was a very intense heat souce that had, in a moment, incinerated exposed flesh. His upper and lower body, which had been shielded by the wall were untouched, only those parts in line with the window were affected. No conventional weapon I know of produces that much instant heat to produce such injuries!

Thanks for linking the article. A long, but very good read!
I also couldn't help a small chuckle escaping at the irony of the Israeli situation and the reduced sperm count among Israeli males. The likely cause being the use of DU weapons on Gaza and the onshore breezes blowing the dust and smoke particles back into Israel.

reply to post by Partygirl


There was a thread about this last year and years before on this site and other sites, about the use and testing of new types of weapons in the middle east. They supposedly "tested" among others, some of the pretty big weapons such as neutron bombs, the newer versions supposedly are more compact and do not leave as much to very little radiation. I cant think of the thread's now, but there around if anybody would search for them.

But it was around the time we invaded Iraq and such. But ya does it surprise you, if they have a new toy...Do you really think they could stand not testing it out, or using it out discreetly and under the cover of all the usual names given for such thing. Be thankful no one is teaching them how to set the atmosphere/air on fire as of yet, or most likely they would want to test out that weapon to.

I am usually for blowing things up, but you got a point Partygirl, it is not all that good.


Edit to add, the search engine is your friend.

Here are some links from this very site about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

neutron bombs, interesting if true.

It seems one of the scientist that worked on the atom bomb was a big proponent of the Neutron Bomb in War over conventional weapons.

a post I made about Red Mercury and Neutron bombs a while back.

Samuel T. Cohen, Red Mercury, Neutron bomb.


Also Neutron bombs are mention in a declassified army manual.

is included as an 'enhanced neutron weapon' in chapter 5 of the declassified (formerly secret) manual edited by Philip J. Dolan, Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Department of Defense, effects manual DNA-EM-1, updated 1981 (U.S. Freedom of Information Act). Provided that the weapon was not used in a thunderstorm, no fallout effects would occur from the use of a neutron bomb according to that manual, as the combination of 500 m burst altitude and low yield prevents fallout in addition to significant thermal and blast effects. The reduction in damage outside the target area is a major advantage of such a weapon to deter massed tank invasions. An aggressor would thus be forced to disperse tanks, which would make them easier to destroy by simple hand-held anti-tank missile launchers.

Could you imagine how much radioactive sand would go into the atmosphere if a nuke went off over there.....

here is the link on the effects and why it is used www.manuelsweb.com... i do not think it was , how ever in this world anything is possible. here is another link www.nuclearfiles.org...
on further study of what the op has posted links to i find this to the real source of the contamination

TOXIC ZONES IN IRAQ: High risk areas contaminated with depleted uranium and other toxins from 30 years of war have left large areas of environmental ruin. The largest towns and cities account for 25% of the contaminated areas. Higher rates of cancer and birth defects have been reported at these sites. Contaminated agricultural lands in southern Iraq have caused a decline in the health of the poorest people living in those parts of the country. Recently a severe drought has decreased the water flowing in the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers by 70%, causing additional unprecedented environmental disaster. In October 2010, news sources in Baghdad Province reported 1 billion cubic tons of garbage had been dumped into the Tigris River and was increasing every day. [Sources: Chulov, M., “Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds”, Guardian, January 22, 2010. Kamal, F. “One million cubic tons of garbage dumped in Tigris River”, AZZAMAN.COM, Oct. 28, 2010]

30 years of war?? here is the statement

High risk areas contaminated with depleted uranium and other toxins from 30 years of war have left large areas of environmental ruin

how long have we been in Iraq??

ATS thread : Enriched Uranium in Iraq.

There is an alternate possibility it wasn't a NATO weapon and instead is contamination caused by nearby defunct facilities that handled the materials.

Don't take this thread down though because it has a map that shows 'contamination' in more places that Fallujah, whereas the thread linked above focused exclusively on that. I was not aware of further contamination being discovered outside of that area.

If that is the case, the local facility excuse won't fly. It has to be some other source if it's this widespread.

reply to post by muzzleflash
this is what i am thinking a storage facility, perhaps they Iraqis die hard's planed on making a dirty bomb but we hit it instead as for the other hot spots??? still think it is DU not fallout

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

this is what i am thinking a storage facility, perhaps they Iraqis die hard's planed on making a dirty bomb but we hit it instead as for the other hot spots??? still think it is DU not fallout

They said specifically it's not depleted it was enriched.
I have no evidence or proof of this, and I have not seen the actual documents yet to review the claims closer, so I cannot assert any of these claims with any certainty. Only passing along what they said, take it with a barrel of salt.

We also don't have any comparative information to look at and investigate our questions either. For example are nearby nations also contaminated in the same manner? What about in the Americas or in Europe? Just curiosities that are important to consider in order to get more definite answers.

Another problem is "what other types of contaminants were found in these locations?" I have seen no information detailing these facts. It's all a mystery.

There are a lot of potential explanations but little to no data to go on at this time. They probably have all of this data somewhere on file but it's probably also kept under wraps to some extent for obvious reasons.

If anyone finds out anything more and can help find answers let me know what you come across.
Thanks everyone for caring about the topic and seeking resolutions to our questions.

it's ironic they are planning to bomb and invade iran for enriching uranium with enriched uranium weapons.

the hypocrisy of the united states and nato knows no limits.

An ex military buddy of mine, told me one night reluctantly that on a few occasions, when they were en-route to different sites, that towns they had passed by which were known to be enemy held would just go up like as if a mini nuke had just exploded, small scale cloud.

DU goes on the tips of rounds to make them armour piercing, i've been saying as such for years to anyone I know IRL who wants to 'join up' -_- no one ever listens though.

nice find spread the word yadda yadda...i'd be happier if this wasn't the 50th time i've posted in a DU thread.

ed: I do have recent news though, there is talk of DU use in lybia, if anyone could dig that up it might do some favours to those in quest of information.

Originally posted by whatsinaname
DU goes on the tips of rounds to make them armour piercing, i've been saying as such for years to anyone I know IRL who wants to 'join up' -_- no one ever listens though.

nice find spread the word yadda yadda...i'd be happier if this wasn't the 50th time i've posted in a DU thread.

Yes the Depleted Uranium talk has been going on for a long time.

However this thread is about enriched uranium, which is a different beast altogether.
Depleted Uranium is about 60% less radioactive than normal Uranium.

Also another interesting question is "Was the Enriched Uranium detected Low (LEU) or High (HEU)?"
All of these make a big difference and would give clues as to it's possible origins.