Doc
As the article stated, "...Because of its density, the military uses DU as a protective shield around tanks,..." the entire article should have been suspect, as should its author and his/her agenda from the git-go. And as Scamp so eloquently stated in his post, a vehicle clad in DU would be too heavy to move, or would require an engine the size of a small destroyer. Some tactical vehicle, eh?
That's why I posited the contention that the entire piece of drivel was probably politically driven. Did the author tell a lie to begin with? And if there's that one lie, shouldn't the flag of suspicion be raised for others? Seems that way, and one has to wonder why. Have you bothered to check out the website for the Lone Star Iconoclast? No overwhelming demonstration of objectivity there.
I find it hard to believe that in light of the AO black eye the military received it would turn around and foist another culprit on a much better informed soldier and public.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
|