PDA

View Full Version : US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal'


theory
03-31-2003, 08:57 AM
Published on Sunday, March 30, 2003 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland)
US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal'
by Neil Mackay

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and
deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass
destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the
soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading
to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium
project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville
University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US
department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium
desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about
Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using
weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such
double-standards are repellent.'

The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an
American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British
soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws
which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the
Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980;
and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid
employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or
materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws
are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed
conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by
chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the
first Gulf war.

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,'
according to the UN subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although
Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority
report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the
desert.

The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the
'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be
anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to
American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their
skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling.

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections,
respiratory problems and fused fingers.

Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause
harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions.

'To do so is a crime against humanity.

'We must do what is right for the citizens of the world -- ban DU.'

He called on the US and UK to 'recognize the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for
medical care and thorough environmental remediation'.

He added: 'We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately.

'It is equivalent to a war crime.'

Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the Gulf without adequate respiratory protection against DU
contamination.

The Sunday Herald has previously revealed how the Ministry of Defense had test-fired some 6350 DU rounds into the
Solway Firth over more than a decade, from 1989 to 1999.

cpud
03-31-2003, 01:00 PM
drastic times call for drastic measures. let's hope this doesn't escalate into a chemical war... but I wouldn't put that past Saddam. He's getting quite desperate.

Vada
03-31-2003, 05:58 PM
Doesn't mean we should be sinking to his level....

cpud
04-01-2003, 11:55 AM
the uranuim is used to pierce armor in this case, not to cause health problems like chemical/biological weapons.

Consumer
04-01-2003, 12:03 PM
That's like saying h-bombs are used to burn trees and melt buildings, not to cause health problems.

Vada
04-01-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by cpud
the uranuim is used to pierce armor in this case, not to cause health problems like chemical/biological weapons.

Ha ha! That's funny....funny as in....:crazy

cpud
04-01-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by deepfreq
That's like saying h-bombs are used to burn trees and melt buildings, not to cause health problems.

no its not. bad analogy.

cpud
04-01-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Vada
Ha ha! That's funny....funny as in....:crazy

funny as in right? i know, thanks.

Vada
04-01-2003, 02:41 PM
No...funny as in....amusing. You're here to amuse us. You know, you're a FUNNY GUY! (I've been watching Goodfellas a lot lately).

It's just silly to think that a metal like uranium, that can penetrate armor, wouldn't penetrate skin..... and then cause health problems for yourself and your children. Mmmmkay?

On another note....allergies suck.

cpud
04-01-2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Vada
No...funny as in....amusing. You're here to amuse us. You know, you're a FUNNY GUY! (I've been watching Goodfellas a lot lately).

It's just silly to think that a metal like uranium, that can penetrate armor, wouldn't penetrate skin..... and then cause health problems for yourself and your children. Mmmmkay?

On another note....allergies suck.

of course it can penetrate skin, but thats not the point. And yes, allergies do suck.. this sore throat i've had for like 4 or 5 days is getting old :(

Consumer
04-01-2003, 03:46 PM
So you honestly think the military/government was unaware that uranium tipped ammo might be radioactive?

Vada
04-01-2003, 03:53 PM
What really sucks is babies with allergies. My poor nephew Colin....he just coughs, and sneezes and sleeps. Not a happy boy.

So what's the point *poke*poke*, is that it?....he he, I'm delirious

Yeah, I need to let up on the decongestant....getting...sleepy....:snore

What was I talking about?....Oh yeah, just because it's meant to destroy armor doesn't mean that's what's happening right now. That's really the subject to take into consideration- what this weapon is actually doing. It just shouldn't be used.

cpud
04-01-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by deepfreq
So you honestly think the military/government was unaware that uranium tipped ammo might be radioactive?

No.

jlines
04-01-2003, 05:25 PM
Id believe that the govt. isn't aware of depleted uranium causing health risks/radioactivity about as quickly as id believe phillip morris wasn't aware that tobbacco causes health risks. On another note though, saying that it shouldn't be used in battle because it's a health risk is rediculous. Guess what, WAR is a health risk, and everyone involved has already been made aware, and signed off on that fact.

Vada
04-01-2003, 05:41 PM
It's not that it's a health risk, it against the laws made in many conventions many years ago. Why do you think we're targeting Saddam (besides the oil- ;) @ cpud), because of his biological and chemical weapons. It's a bit hypocritical of the US.

cpud
04-01-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Vada
Why do you think we're targeting Saddam (besides the oil- ;) @ cpud)

:down wrong its not the oil :D

Flagrant
04-01-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by jlines
On another note though, saying that it shouldn't be used in battle because it's a health risk is rediculous.


Read the first post you knob..... :rolleyes

jlines
04-01-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Vada
It's not that it's a health risk, it against the laws made in many conventions many years ago. Why do you think we're targeting Saddam (besides the oil- ;) @ cpud), because of his biological and chemical weapons. It's a bit hypocritical of the US.

Im not saying that i think its ok, or that innocent civilians deserve to reap the repercussions from using DU. Only that harm to soldiers isn't rally a valid argument.

Preecha
04-01-2003, 08:02 PM
A health risk to unborn children, due to birth defects caused by this, makes any argument pro-uranium as null and void. It's not "HUMANE" as Saddam's regime is not humane.

cpud
04-01-2003, 08:23 PM
nobody's arguing pro uranium. i was just trying to make the point that their purpose is to pierce tank armor, not hurt unborn babies.

Flagrant
04-01-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Preecha
A health risk to unborn children, due to birth defects caused by this, makes any argument pro-uranium as null and void. It's not "HUMANE" as Saddam's regime is not humane.


:up

Preecha
04-02-2003, 12:34 AM
Ya that is true. Saddam is just trying to keep his power not really just go out and hurt people. Im not trying to argue hehe :)

Marco
04-02-2003, 10:31 AM
;)

Vada
04-02-2003, 10:55 AM
Ha ha! Hummers with 20'' rims....and a platinum tank....that's just too much.

cpud
04-02-2003, 12:47 PM
Baghdad gets chumped wif mad CRAZY bombs