Simulations that prove precisely nothing. Those rounds in all likelihood were fired at a t 72b 89. If they didn’t work they would not have been adopted. We know firing trials were done with m829a1 and failed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to assume those rounds were not fired at those tanks when the US had them to hand.
You can’t be serious :D
It’s says "The Nuclear Regular Commissions regulations shall govern unless the STATEMENTS, REPRESENTATIONS and Procedures in the LICENSEE’S APPLICATION and correspondence are MORE RESTRICTIVE that the regulations.
No Amendment No.9 clearly says in accordance with letter dated February 22, 2006.
We don’t even know if they changed the wording compared to Amendment no.8 they certainly didn’t change the wording in amendment no.10
No, the US army specify refenced ML060590665.pdf until 2016. Which mentions the hull limitation, of cause they COULD have change it, but they didn’t which is the point, there were no clandestine DU put into hulls in the early 2000’s.
- If you find that argument compelling, who am I to force your deliberation of illusion.
Notice how “Expiration Date” is written below “to read as follows:” Changing the expiration date is also changing or dare I say amending the Material License.
LOL hahaha, you are a funny guy Count-Trackula, I will give you that!
Thank you for providing a source that specify only mentions DU turrets and they they are marked as such.
I can’t even this is so funny, what is going on?
jesus christ…
AND CORRESPONDENCE
not only the application. thus also including the amendment.
yes. they are accepting the renewal, and ALSO amending (CHANGING) it based on the letter dated February 22, 2006. they are NOT accepting it in its current form, they amend (CHANGE) it and give a license according to the scope listed IN AMENDMENT NO.9.
yes we do:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0625/ML062540068.pdf
SEVERAL ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.
oh absolutely, but everything else after that also is. would you not agree that the rest of the document follows after that?
Edit:
its like if you apply for a drivers license, want to be able to drive a car and you get a license back stating that you are allowed to drive a car AND a quadbike. just because your application did not include the quadbike does not mean you are not allowed to drive one. you are now allowed since the license included it.
6 Likes
Those images are not related to the same weapon used,… therefore it means nothings ^^"
OMG
It’s a MATERIAL LICENSE that has been Amended:
The license was amended because of the application. The is no sperate “amendment”. They have changed the MATERIAL LICENSE several times, or they have amended the license several times which ever semantics you prefer.
Thats a weird way of saying that I am right, unless you actually have no.8 somewhere?
What are you talking about, I haven’t denied any part of the document? The License specifically says that restrictions that the US army places on themselves via their application can supersede the license. I.e. no new DU hulls until 2016 at least.
its not based on a No.8 its based on a No.6:
expiration date 31 march 2006.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
"Enclosed are three copies of a NRC license renewal
application for NRC License SUB 1536. The NRC license is
scheduled to expire 31 March 2006. "
the renewal is referring back to an amendment no.6. which DOES contain the 5 hulls limit.
amendment no9. removes that item from the licence making the use in turret AND hulls unlimited.
this is completely wrong. point 17. in the amendment states the exact opposite. “Except as specifically provided otherwise in this licence, the licensee shall conduct its program in accordance […] with documents below” (the renewal application and letter).
as in: “unless we changed anything in this licence compared to the application; follow what you said in your application, if we changed something, then follow the licence”.
how would an application trump the licence?? that makes no sense.
and again, the previous licence contained the 5 hulls as a limit, the new amended one does not. as in it has changed the scope of the amount allowed.
Edit:
Amendment no.9 litterally states:
8.A “Uranium(depleted un U-235), as needed”
9. “authorized Use:” A and B. Tank turret and hulls
meaning point 8.A also applies to hulls and has the amount limit “as needed”
6 Likes
I have yet to see a document that says this though.
4 Likes
Amendment No. 10 for Department of the Army, License No. SUB-1536. (nrc.gov)
The Material License was amended a 10th time in 2016 See where point 17 exceptions refenreces nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf
And the inventory that they are keeping is also described in ML060590665:
So unlimited Turrets, 5 hulls.
2 Likes
Still doesn’t exactly say it. So all I see is an interpretation of the document by some random person.
4 Likes
From one random person to another, keep the dream alive!
no.13 is talking about procedure, not amount. “conduct” NOT “keep”. the word inventory is both a noun and a verb, they are using it as a verb.
what it is talking about is this part in the letter Feb 22, 2006:
same here, “Except as specifically provided otherwise in this licence, the licensee shall conduct its program in accordance […] with documents below” (the renewal application and letter).
so the licence still trumps the application.
1 Like
We are all random people, so unless that other random dude on the forum magically gets a reply on the FOIA request or whatever it’s called. I won’t believe random people saying anything with 100% certainty like you did.
1 Like
There is no restrictions. Not even having to argue this point, if that was the limit when the license was signed. there is nothing stopping the army from changing it the vary next year or at anytime before 2016.
1 Like
ups not for you
The US Army could always have changed the license, they just had to make a new application, it was always a self-imposed limitation.
That’s fair.
I have been thinking about it and I think you are right, I probably misinterpreted no.17
Exactly, that document means nothing other then the army was capable of adding DU to the hull. Besides that it is meaningless because SEPv2 came out in the end of 2007.
1 Like
“The amount of DU in the armor is UNLIMITED per the NRC license. It provides armor protection for the Abrams Tank.”
Please point out where it mentions any limits. Because it says unlimited, and says it provides protection for the tank. The hull is part of the tank. If you knew anything about the Abrams, you’d know that the only casting numbers to identify the tank are on the turret, that’s why it mentions the markings. If you have to use a radiac meter because the letters aren’t visible or damaged, starting with the turret will let you know that it is at least an early HA model that might not have had DU in the hull.
NOWHERE DOES IT SAY SUB-1536 LIMITS THE ABRAMS IN ANY CAPACITY!
You are a clown.
8 Likes