Should depleted uranium be considered a weapon of mass destruction?

[Palefire]

opinions...........

[Jake]

If you know the defintion of mass and destruction this question is quite simple to answer.

[Palefire]

Share Jake. Why would something that poisons drinking water and gives off radiation for years following its use not fall under that definition? There still seems to be some question as to how much long term damage DU does, but little question that it does long term damage. So in terms of its impact on child and fetus should it be looked at in a similar light as agent orange or as something else?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WMD discovered in the hands of terrorists!

Oh, they're a right-wing married white Texas couple so it's ok.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/01/30/cyanide.probe.ap/

[Ebowed]

Option 3.  I have no idea.

[J. J.]

Well, in theory someone could get lead poisoning from a bullet.

No, it doesn't qualify even remotely to a WMD.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

[Moooooo]

I know its bad, but Im not sure if it qualifies as WMD.

[Palefire]

Well, in theory someone could get lead poisoning from a bullet.

No, it doesn't qualify even remotely to a WMD.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

JJ, You're old enough to remember the DoD playing down agent orange as well - and in a similar fashion to the link you posted on DU, correct?

[AuH2O]

Please.

In any case, they are a military necessity. You'll need some real proof of a problem for a case to get rid of them, and by extension require the reconstruction of our armor corps.

[opebo]

Please.

In any case, they are a military necessity. You'll need some real proof of a problem for a case to get rid of them, and by extension require the reconstruction of our armor corps.

Why are they a military necessity?  The US only attacks weak countries, much like the Brits mowing down the hottentots with gattling guns, so it shouldn't need very advanced military gear. 

[DanielX]

Please.

In any case, they are a military necessity. You'll need some real proof of a problem for a case to get rid of them, and by extension require the reconstruction of our armor corps.

Why are they a military necessity?  The US only attacks weak countries, much like the Brits mowing down the hottentots with gattling guns, so it shouldn't need very advanced military gear. 

Two things:

1. War with, say, China, is still quite possible in the future.
2. Even so-called 'weak' countries have armored tanks and vehicles. Pre-1991, the Iraqis had them. Depleted-uranium is one reason why post-Gulf War they did not...

And to answer that, depleted-uranium is only a WMD in a very loose sense of the term that would also consider dyanamite a WMD (a mass that destroys; almost all explosive weapons are thus WMDs). Why? It's just a chunk of heavy metal, even if it's got a little radiation.

[AuH2O]

Taking out a modern armored vehicles requires depleted uranium, though M-1s can even survive DU hits. Lots of countries have tanks and Russia is eager to sell them... T-80s are not an unreasonable opponent to be prepared for.

[Palefire]

I would argue that keeping DU around is a good idea, but that using it on missions of "liberation", where we are supposedly fighting for the people of the land we invade is unethical at best. Leaving radioactive material scattered across the face of a nation and in their water supply is hardly my concept of "liberation".

A portion of a DU shell vaporizes on impact (40%-70%), creating an aerosol of radioactive heavy-metal particles which can spread over 100 miles. When inhaled or ingested, the DU particles can cause radioactive damage to the bronchial tree, kidneys, liver and bones. The DoD analysis of DU seems limited to looking at it as a shell sitting on the ground and ignores the fact that it vaporizes, it also ignores the fact that uranium is water soluble.

It’s also worth noting that a single 120mm tank round has about 10 lbs. of solid DU in it and they are scattered all over the playgrounds of Iraqi children. Since the first Gulf War (in which DU was also used), doctors have estimated that birth defects have increased by as much as 600% and child cancer rates have increased by as much 1200%. Is that linked to the fact that we have scattered radioactive materials across their country? It would seem likely.

Another interesting thing about DU is that its radiation persists for around 4.5 billion years. So it can keep on killing long after a conflict has ended.

[J. J.]

Well, in theory someone could get lead poisoning from a bullet.

No, it doesn't qualify even remotely to a WMD.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

JJ, You're old enough to remember the DoD playing down agent orange as well - and in a similar fashion to the link you posted on DU, correct?

Agent Orange was not a WMD, by the definition.  That doesn't mean that Agent Orange doesn't create serious health problems.  Likewise, the site was clear that there can be health problems with DU.

The question is, can DU Kill or injure large numbers of combatants through it's chemical or radiological properties?  No.

[Palefire]

It would appear that over a period of time it can kill or maim a large number of non-combatants. That would seem to put it in the WMD class. And I would certainly call agent orange a chemical WMD. DU seems to create many of the same concerns that Agent Orange did; long term damage to the environment and to future generations. Vietnam is still paying the price for our use of Agent Orange and would seem likely that Iraq will be paying the price for our use of DU decades (and perhaps much longer than that) into the future. If you limit the definition of WMD to only the initial damage it does, DU would not meet the requirement, but looking at the total amount of damage inflicted - it almost certainly does.

[J. J.]

Ah, but it might be paying the price for a long time from conventional artillery shells, from lead leeching into soil from conventional bullets.

We are not talking about weapons that generally kill people not in a direct line of fire and where the use of these weapons kill or destroy large numbers of non-combatants or combatants, because of their military use.

[Palefire]

Arguing that lead has similar long term effects as DU doesn't seem to be a starter to me.

And I'm talking about weapons that kill people, period. It would seem to me that killing the next generation living in a former combat zone is a much graver wrong than killing combatants - killing combatants is usually the goal of such ventures.

[Jake]

Okay, let's say that Depleted Uranium is a "WMD". What do you do about it? Ever heard the quote, "War is Hell". That applies here. Tough luck

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Okay, let's say that Depleted Uranium is a "WMD". What do you do about it? Ever heard the quote, "War is Hell". That applies here. Tough luck

How about not starting wars for no good reason?

[Jake]

Like which wars exactly? Both Iraq Wars were for oil, WW2 was to destroy British hegemony over the world, the Spanish American War was to expand the US by feeding off a dying carcass, and the War on Terror is an excuse for the Bush administration to restrict civil liberties.  All those sound like perfectly good reasons to go to war.

[Palefire]

I agree that war is hell, and as such should not be used as often as it has been. DU has escaped the attention that such a thing should get. If the average American were aware of what DU does, I doubt that they would support its use. Too many Americans look at war like it’s a video game, not the hell that it is. Folks should really learn a little bit more about what is being done in their name. If long term health problems and large scale environmental damage in Iraq has been caused by our use of DU, the entire point of this mission will be a bust. No WMD's there, no ties to 9/11 and we will have created a people that truly hate us, because even after the last American troop has left Iraq; we will still be killing their children with the DU we left behind in their water, on their play grounds, in their blood and in the wombs of their expecting mothers.

[Jake]

And? What exactly is your point?

[Palefire]

Think about it Jake. Why did we go into Iraq? Are we defeating our own reason for being there by using DU? It certainly takes the moral high ground away from us. It also raises the horrid question - are we performing countless abortions upon mothers that do not want them by poisoning their wombs with DU?

Another thing worth noting; that I have already noted, is that forcing the next few generations of folks living in Iraq to pay for this war with their children’s lives strikes me as just being wrong. Does that seem like a good thing or even an acceptable thing to you?