I grew up with A-10s flying overhead almost daily (I lived next to BDL airport and the CT Air National Guard had A-10s). I had pictures of all kinds of different planes on my wall and wanted to be a fighter pilot - as did half the boys in the Top Gun generation. Much later my wife's cousin in the British Army was shot by an American F-18 in Afghanistan on a close air support mission. I clicked on this article because of my old fondness for A-10s but you're absolutely right, it's easy to become fascinated by the technology and separate yourself from the reality that these things are purpose built to kill other humans.

If history shows anything, it is that is absolutely sucks to be on the losing side of a military conflict.

As an American, I am happy that the US develops and fields weapons, including A-10's, that help win conflicts.

War always sucks. There is always suffering and innocent lives lost. This is better solved by limiting what wars we engage in, than in feeling bad about our warfighting equipment.

My point has nothing to do with the equipment. It's the cultural celebration of warfare and the white washing of the true horrible nature of war. "This gun is f'n awesome" is but a symptom of the true problem.

I'm not ignorant to human nature and our inherent trend towards conflict, I'm just somewhat sad that our culture in particular throws the metaphorical gas on the flame.

I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees. We love all kinds of things of a technical nature. Trains, skyscrapers, bulldozers, rockets, tanks, guns, etc. I love driving a tank in video games and I love watching movies about tanks, but that doesn't mean I condone their use in real-world warfare unless absolutely necessary.

Except when you build such a large war industry that stopping the wars isn't really an option, which is where we are now.

Well, are you concerned about any lives, or just lives of the innocent? This plane has killed a lot of terrorists and insurgents, but probably has a pretty good track record of not killing the innocent, since it is almost always used for close air support during an active battle.

Unfortunately the US fetishness about the A-10 gun (esp when Maverick and others were much more effective) also likely caused significant long lasting cancerous effects in the areas it was used because of the depleted Uranium.

I'd like to see the sources for this.

There was a lot of focus on DU at times, especially with regards to Gulf War Syndrome (perhaps because of the "uranium" being in the name) but I believe most of the focus has now shifted elsewhere, particularly with regards to the anti-chemical and anti-biological mixes soldiers were given in the run up to the invasion. I can't find many of the articles I've read on this over the years, but Wikipedia has a decent summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome#Causes

The thing with DU and what ended up ruling it out as much of an exposure factor is that it is extremely heavy. Particulates of it don't travel far. They sink, fall short, etc. They don't waft around in air or get suspended in water like some compounds do. I don't think anyone would suggest that you ingest the stuff, but from what I'd read, the extreme weight of the stuff kept it localized and unlikely to be ingested or exposed to in any amounts that would cause wide issues.

That there were other factors that could cause these effects I don't dispute. But it was my understanding that it was determined that it was concluded DU wasn't one of them.

Environmental pollution by depleted uranium in Iraq with special reference to Mosul and possible effects on cancer and birth defect rates. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130521105557.h...

Thanks for this!