Trying to use a medical guide from 2001 to disprove a federal budget audit from 2006 makes no sense. The CBO report is five years newer and specifically audited the manufacturing contracts for the AIM program. First-aid books for medics are not engineering records or production audits. The CBO uses the official Program of Record names provided by the Army. If the Army defines Heavy Armor as radioactive in the Federal Register, that is what the CBO is auditing. A 25-year-old medical text using recycled info from the 90s is irrelevant compared to a current financial audit.
Yet your sources didn’t even say DU? Any direct source is better than indirect speculations.
Also to note, since the army has already determined what ‘HA’ was in 1988, there is no claim that a 2001 would have any issues using the so called ‘90s’ data.
Item 9 of the NRC license literally says Depleted Uranium armor components for tank turrets and hulls. That is a direct legal document, not speculation. A medical guide from 2001 does not override a budget audit from 2006 or a license from 2016. Military hardware and production standards evolved after 1988. The 1998 Federal Register and 2006 CBO report prove the material and the location changed. Using an old first aid book to ignore actual possession records and congressional audits is not a valid counter.
You’re ignoring the production and handling part, it’s likely way more expensive to handle and create those DU parts compared to Composites even if the material cost might be lower.
How about this for an interpretation of the CBO: They label the composite separate, they label the Heavy Armor separate AND they label the DU separate. Does that not mean that the Heavy Armor is not ceramics but also not DU and thus either none of those of both of them? If all of the part of the Heavy Armor is DU then why would they differentiate between the Heavy Armor and the later DU improved DU armor? Why didn’t they label the later parts Improved Heavy Armor?
It does if there has been no changes to the guide since that date. If a newer version is found and that part is not changed or if it’s the opposite and there are changes then that can change both your arguments. So this argument (from both sides) hinges on if there are any newer versions and what they say in that case. If there are no newer versions then the 2001 is still in effect.
I doesn’t. it can be read that way, but doesn’t directly prove anything.
You are focusing on the footer link but ignoring the actual content of the audit. The CBO table lists specific budget-related upgrade blocks, production history, and cost implications. A hobbyist website does not have access to the Department of the Army’s internal procurement contracts. The CBO cites the website for general context or specs like weight, but the specific upgrade data regarding the AIM program comes from the budget they are auditing.
Regarding your interpretation of the labels:
You ask why the CBO distinguishes between “Heavy Armor” (AIM) and “Second-Generation DU” (M1A2).
The answer is simple: Generations.
“Heavy Armor” is the Army’s Program Name for the standard DU package (1st Gen).
The M1A2 received the “Second-Generation” package.
The CBO lists them separately to distinguish the generation , not the material .
Both contain DU. One is just the newer version.
If the AIM hull was non-DU, they would have used the term “Improved Composite” like they did for the IPM1. They didn’t. They used “Heavy Armor.”
Your argument about the Medical Manual relies on a timeline error.
The Manual is from 2001. The M1A1 AIM program was a fleet-wide zero-hour rebuild that was still ramping up and executing through 2006.
A general safety manual written in 2001 describes the fleet as it was in 2001.
The CBO Report from 2006 describes the fleet after the AIM upgrades were paid for and installed.
The 2006 Audit supersedes the 2001 Manual because it documents the changes made during that 5-year gap.
And you still cannot get around the Federal Register.
You claim it doesn’t prove anything.
Section 3 Paragraph A explicitly states that the Heavy Armor System emits radiation.
It does not say “The turret part of the system.” It attributes the radiation to the System itself.
If the M1A1 AIM has the “Heavy Armor System” in the hull (which the CBO says it does), then the hull contains the material that emits radiation.
You are trying to argue that the CBO used the wrong name, the Army used a confusing definition, and the NRC licensed a non-radioactive hull, all to uphold a medical manual that is 25 years old. My argument just requires reading the documents in chronological order.
You can’t reference a 1993 report regarding upgrades that happened after that year.
Here is the February 1993 report if you’re interested: ( https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/103rd-congress-1993-1994/reports/93doc04_0.pdf )
This doesn’t explain it though. They could just as well have called the generations Heavy Armor gen-2 but they didn’t, they differentiated them. Because the entire HAS did not get upgraded, just the parts that have DU in them.
Do you see how this still logically works?
You’re using the exact same logic to explain the name change between improved composites and HAS as i do between HAS and second gen DU. It’s the exact same logic. You can’t switch logical reasoning hallway through the same table of contents.
Conjecture, without a second, newer, medical manual you can’t definitively say anything about this.
Yes, that doesn’t prove DU in the hull. Again, box of nails, just one nail being radioactive is enough for the box to have to be handled in that way. It does not prove that all nails in the box are radioactive.
I’m saying that you are failing at the first step of that chronological order, all other documents logic fail if the first one can be read differently, which it can. Therefore i will from now on no longer be answering to any arguments regarding any other documents that only logically work for your conclusion IF the first one is only read in your own interpretation of it that is not the only one.
You are confusing the source material with the analysis. The 2006 CBO report references the 1993 report for historical context, but the 2006 report is a new audit of the 2006 budget and inventory. The CBO does not time-travel. When they list the M1A1 AIM in 2006, they are using 2006 data from the Army’s active budget. Claiming they just copy-pasted 1993 data for a tank that didn’t exist in 1993 is illogical.
Regarding the naming logic, there is no contradiction. Improved Composite means non-DU. Heavy Armor means DU Gen 1. 2nd Gen DU means DU Gen 2. The CBO uses different terms to describe different configurations. If the AIM hull was just Improved Composite, they would have used that term. They didn’t. They used Heavy Armor. You are the one forcing the term Heavy Armor to mean Composite in one specific instance just to save your theory.
And you are still dodging the NRC License text to protect your box of nails analogy. You claim the box or System is radioactive but the nail or Hull might not be.
Item 9 of the license authorizes the use of DU Material in Tank Turrets and Hulls. It does not license the System. It licenses the Hull itself as a container for the uranium. If the hull was the non-radioactive nail, the NRC would have zero legal authority to list it as an authorized use for Source Material. The fact that the Hull is listed proves it contains the material.
You are ending this by saying my interpretation is not the only one. My interpretation aligns the Federal Register definition, the CBO Budget Audit, and the NRC License text perfectly. Your interpretation requires the CBO to be incompetent, the Army to use the same name for different materials, and the NRC to license non-radioactive steel. One of these interpretations relies on reading the documents. The other relies on explaining them away.
Which they couldn’t because it has DU in the turret.
And you are the one forcing it to mean DU in all parts to save yours. That is my point, it can be done both ways so none of the ways are conclusive.
How does the NRC licence contradict the below explanation?
Please stop claiming i am “dodging” things I have answered all of them at least once.
Yes, IN 5 HULLS ONLY! There is absolutely NOTHING that forces all the tanks to have DU in the hull in that licence. just that THEY ARE ALLOWED TO.
So does mine.
No.
No.
No.
No.
I’m done here, you’re completely impossible to have any reasonable argument with and you’re so set in your ways that you cannot see any other possibility being valid. I have not tried to claim my way of interpreting it to be the only way. You have. I’m done.
Resorting to one-word denials implies that the contradiction in the theory cannot be resolved.
Claiming the License only covers 5 prototypes creates a direct conflict with the CBO Report, which audits the M1A1 AIM Program. That program produced hundreds of tanks, not five. The CBO states that the AIM Program added Heavy Armor to the hull.
If the theory holds that only 5 prototypes have DU hulls, then the CBO provided false information to Congress regarding the hundreds of other tanks in the AIM fleet. It is impossible to have it both ways. Either the CBO is correct and the fleet has the armor, or the CBO is incorrect and the fleet has fake armor with the same name.
Regarding the terminology, the idea that they couldn’t use the term Improved Composite for the AIM because the turret had DU is incorrect. The CBO table has plenty of space. It would have been easy to write Heavy Armor Turret and Composite Hull. That is not what was written. The text says Heavy armor added to hull and turret. The Heavy Armor label was applied specifically to the hull.
The License gave permission. The CBO confirms that permission was used on the fleet. Ignoring the mass-production reality of the AIM program to fixate on a schoolhouse permit ignores the industrial context.
Since it was stated earlier that there would be no further replies if the ambiguity theory wasn’t accepted, and the responses have devolved into just posting No repeatedly, this seems like a good place to end. The documents speak for themselves.
1 Like
No, it implies that i’m done trying because you continuously fail to see the very basic logic involved no matter how hard i try.
It doesn’t. It would ONLY do so if your logic is used but not mine. Reading it using my logic then there is no error.
No. It doesn’t. Because it has not been proven that Heavy Armor Exclusively refers to DU in hull.
They don’t, you have spoken for them. They have been used time and time again to try to prove what you are trying to prove and have failed every time, it’s been 3 years of this. Here are the threads, read through them:
Using your logic creates a massive error in the CBO table.
You are claiming the CBO used the term Heavy Armor to describe a non-radioactive hull for the AIM, even though they explicitly used the term Improved Composite for the non-radioactive hull of the IPM1 in the very same table.
Why did they switch terms if the material didn’t change?
Your logic requires the CBO to use the radiation-emitting system name for an inert composite hull, while simultaneously ignoring the correct term for composite they just used one column over. That isn’t a valid alternative interpretation. That is ignoring the text to force a fit. My logic accepts that they switched terms because the material changed.
It doesn’t.
While simultaneously including DU in turrets.
See above, DU in turret.
There is DU in the turret part of the System.
It is.
No.
Mine too, DU in turret.
US mains waiting for M829A3, turret ring fix, and I guess much more… which will never come
2 Likes
Your logic requires the term Heavy Armor to act as a shapeshifter within the same sentence. You are arguing that when the CBO wrote Heavy armor added to hull and turret, the term Heavy Armor implies Depleted Uranium for the turret half of the sentence, but simultaneously implies Non-Radioactive Composite for the hull half of the sentence.
That is not a valid linguistic interpretation. If I say Steel armor added to hull and turret, it means both got steel. I don’t mean the turret got steel and the hull got plastic. The subject applies to both objects. By claiming the hull got a different material, you are rewriting the sentence to say Heavy Armor added to turret and Composite added to hull, but that is not what the CBO wrote.
And you are still trying to decouple the material from the location in the license. Look at the exact phrasing of Item 9 again. It authorizes DU material utilized as Armor in tank turrets and hulls.
It effectively defines the Hull as a component that utilizes DU material. It does not say the Hull is just part of a system that contains DU elsewhere. It links the specific radioactive material to the specific physical location. If the fleet hulls were non-radioactive as you claim, listing Hulls as a utilization point for DU would be factually incorrect. You are arguing that the Army maintains a federal license that falsely claims DU is utilized in hulls where it isn’t.
Gotta love it when ChatGPT just feeds your delusions instead of being able to correct you
1 Like
4 Likes
No, it requires it to refer to a System comprised of several parts.
Yes. This semantically and logically works since it’s a System comprised of several parts.
It is.
Correct, but the HAS is not a material, it’s System comprised of several parts.
If i buy a bike; the tires are rubber and the frame is aluminium. Both materials still covered by one term.
If a By a Terrain Upgrade Kit for the bike then that kit can be new rubber tires and new metal suspension. I can then say “Terrain Upgrade Kit added to wheels and frame” and it’s semantically correct and means two different materials.
→ AUTHORIZES ←
NOT
“all hulls magically have this now”
Doesn’t need to, it covers the 5 hulls they already had. It doesn’t mean all hull to ever have existed and will ever exist MUST have DU in them. If you are Authorized to have as many red cats as you want that doesn’t mean that you suddenly have to buy every red cat in the world.
No, that part is still needed for the 5 prototypes. if that part had not been there they wouldn’t have been allowed to have those 5 hulls anymore.
It is utilized in 5 hulls.
The links point directly to my sources. Unless you think an AI traveled back in time to forge the 2006 CBO report and the NRC license, your comment is pointless.
Attacking the poster instead of the evidence is just admitting you can’t actually debunk the sources. Read the documents or move along.
Your bike analogy fails because a “Terrain Upgrade Kit” is a marketing term, not a federally regulated item with a specific safety definition.
The “Heavy Armor System” is legally defined in the Federal Register.
The document states: “…maximum potential exposure to radiation from the Heavy Armor System…”
The Army defined the System itself by its radiation output.
If the hull armor was just non-radioactive composite (the metal suspension in your analogy), it would not be part of the “Heavy Armor System” definition because it doesn’t emit radiation.
The CBO proves this distinction.
For the IPM1, they called the hull upgrade “Improved Composite.”
For the AIM, they called the hull upgrade “Heavy Armor.”
If the AIM hull was just the non-radioactive part of the kit (like the IPM1), the CBO would have kept calling it “Improved Composite.”
They switched names to “Heavy Armor” because the material changed to the radioactive definition found in the Federal Register.
You are arguing that the CBO decided to rename “Composite” to “Heavy Armor” for no reason, and that the NRC decided to license a non-radioactive hull for no reason.
There is no logic in this statement.
Yes, one of the parts of the HAS has DU in it (the turret part) thus the whole System will be radioactive.
one radioactive nail in a box of nails. The box is radioactive.
Logical fallacy.
No, it doesn’t. Logical fallacy.
Of one of the parts, not all of them.
The re-name because DU in turret. I’ve never argued otherwise.