From: "Robert Comer" 

> Not so. I won't go into details but poorly depleted uranium is one option
> & another is the "we don't give a f*ck if it's depleted or
not" option.

Except expense and ROI.

--
Bob Comer


"Ad"  wrote in
message news:4544ae58$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>> A dirty bomb with _ENRICHED_ uranium?  A hideously expensive and very
>>> difficult way to do it, and it wouldn't be my choice of isotope anyway.
>>
>> That's pretty much why the whole story doesn't ring true.  With uranium
>> you have two options, fission or dirty bomb -- if fission was achieved it
>> would have been a whole lot bigger, and detectable, explosion, and for
>> dirty bomb, if it were uranium it would be a bigger load if intentional,
>> and if not, it's too expensive, you can get things done a lot cheaper
>> some other way.
>>
>
> Not so. I won't go into details but poorly depleted uranium is one option
> & another is the "we don't give a f*ck if it's depleted or
not" option.
>
> A) Uranium is heavy & thus penetrates well.
>
> B) When subjected to pressure in the presence of oxygen (e.g. hitting
> something while traveling at speed) it burns which is a usefull secondary
> effect wrt damage caused.
>
>
> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5