Is DU Ammunition Self Defeating?

[Jissy]

Depleted Uranium ammunition was developed to penetrate the hardened armour of tanks etc. It is an effective tank killer, of course, we have all seen evidence of its effectiveness in the Iraq theatre, for example.

So, although I certainly appreciate the tactical use of DP ammo, reports are now coming out of Iraq that the background radiation levels are very high, in areas DP ammo was used. Other reports are pointing to a rise in civilian abnormalities (new borns) and cancers in adults.

So, taking into account the need to effectively eliminate the enemy, with the goal being, (in Iraq's case), to free its people of tyranny, is the longer term harmful side effects of DP ammo actually causing us to win the battle, but to 'lose the war?' (that is, the hearts and minds of the people?)

Mod edit: Changed title from DP to DU
-Preceptor

 

[Marc 1]

Very hard question to answer - I doubt there are many on here who have the technical qualifications and can source the correct studies to comment with any authority.

 

[Feanor]

You're assuming that the goal of the war is to benefit the local population. What if it's not? What if you don't give a sh*t about the birth defects?

A self-righteous moral crusade is all fine and dandy, but if the decision makers in question don't happen to share your morals then you're wasting your time.

 

[eckherl]

You're assuming that the goal of the war is to benefit the local population. What if it's not? What if you don't give a sh*t about the birth defects?

A self-righteous moral crusade is all fine and dandy, but if the decision makers in question don't happen to share your morals then you're wasting your time.

Kinda like the cluster bomb debate that is currently going on, DU type projectiles can cause environmental and health issues but you still will have plenty of countries out there that will use it as a primary armor defeating projectile for tank use. This *may* change with better material process in regards to Tungsten.

 

[Feanor]

Isn't tungsten also toxic?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You're assuming that the goal of the war is to benefit the local population. What if it's not? What if you don't give a sh*t about the birth defects?

A self-righteous moral crusade is all fine and dandy, but if the decision makers in question don't happen to share your morals then you're wasting your time.

Because in the modern world that is usually counterproductive. Your right decision makers may not have a moral compunction about civilian casualties, but they will be very aware of the negative effects such an attitude will have. By disregarding civilian casualties you either sow the seeds for further resistance in the form of a widespread insurgency, loose the moral high ground or solidify international opposition to your military actions. All of those have tangible and significant impacts on the ground. Limiting unintended civilian effects is more than a "self righteous crusade", even though the moral implications are significant, its a realistic strategic objective in any form of contemporary (i.e. limited) warfare.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Kinda like the cluster bomb debate that is currently going on, DU type projectiles can cause environmental and health issues but you still will have plenty of countries out there that will use it as a primary armor defeating projectile for tank use. This *may* change with better material process in regards to Tungsten.

That's why I see less and less of a future for DU. You can achieve comparable effects with Tungsten Carbide, without many of the moral implications. I would assume for a non nuclear nation Tungsten is much easier and cheaper to produce/acquire?

 

[eckherl]

That's why I see less and less of a future for DU. You can achieve comparable effects with Tungsten Carbide, without many of the moral implications. I would assume for a non nuclear nation Tungsten is much easier and cheaper to produce/acquire?

We are getting real close to having better performance with Tungsten, especially in regards to projectile mushrooming or bending, but there are alot of countries out there that still rely on the little dirty bombs. A M829A3 projectile cannot be matched in performance at the current time, especially at ranges of 2000 meters and beyond.

 

[eckherl]

Isn't tungsten also toxic?

Isn`t the majority of metals toxic to either the environment or to ones health.

 

[Feanor]

Because in the modern world that is usually counterproductive. Your right decision makers may not have a moral compunction about civilian casualties, but they will be very aware of the negative effects such an attitude will have. By disregarding civilian casualties you either sow the seeds for further resistance in the form of a widespread insurgency, loose the moral high ground or solidify international opposition to your military actions. All of those have tangible and significant impacts on the ground. Limiting unintended civilian effects is more than a "self righteous crusade", even though the moral implications are significant, its a realistic strategic objective in any form of contemporary (i.e. limited) warfare.

Currently DU projectiles are used by the USA frequently, and it doesn't seem to be causing much of an uproar. In many cases it's easier to control press coverage then to change what you're doing.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Currently DU projectiles are used by the USA frequently, and it doesn't seem to be causing much of an uproar. In many cases it's easier to control press coverage then to change what you're doing.

Well I guess I was responding to a larger question of the importance of civilian casualties to decision makers at a strategic level. As was mentioned earlier there is a similar discussion with cluster munitions, and the US is moving away from those weapons with superior technology such a the sensor fused weapon. Once they can achieve comparable performance with tungsten the environmental and civilian consequences will make DU unattractive.

 

[Marc 1]

Isn`t the majority of metals toxic to either the environment or to ones health.

Yes although I don't think the majority of people when hit by ball small arms ammo die of lead poisoning

 

[Jissy]

Because in the modern world that is usually counterproductive. Your right decision makers may not have a moral compunction about civilian casualties, but they will be very aware of the negative effects such an attitude will have. By disregarding civilian casualties you either sow the seeds for further resistance in the form of a widespread insurgency, loose the moral high ground or solidify international opposition to your military actions. All of those have tangible and significant impacts on the ground. Limiting unintended civilian effects is more than a "self righteous crusade", even though the moral implications are significant, its a realistic strategic objective in any form of contemporary (i.e. limited) warfare.

Well said,
this just about sums up the scope of the poser I have put. However, with one addition, albeit an obvious one, the politicians rule our countries (one would think otherwise according to some other commentators) and once the tide of opinion starts turning against them at home, or in countries they trade with, then attitudes change and practices are altered accordingly.

What no one here has picked up upon, is the ultimate polluting nature of DU ammunition. It does not just affect the country where it is used. Of course it affects that populace most, but it also carries further through wind (contaminated dust particles) and even the hydrological cycle.

The current careless attitude of the USA (and other nations today) regarding the use of DU ammo does say a lot about their contempt for the country (and its people) that it is used in.

However, lest we forget, we are the "FREE WORLD", the supposed "good guys" who, in WW2, for instance, stomped out the totalitarian regime of Germany, and have since stood against Communism, because of its lack of regard for human rights, among which, is total control of the press.

From what I have read here, some non-military commentators do not give a toss for human rights, and that, is a very sad fact.

My father fought, as did my uncles, and grandfathers too, in WW2 and WW1, and none of these men would stand for contempt of human life. They killed when they had to, fullstop. They treated prisoners with some duty of care.

That is what made them different from the enemy, and why they felt it was so important that they fought against the nations who disregarded their creed.

We all live in a 'reasonably free' society because of their sacrifices, some people here make statements that sound reminiscent of dictatorship policy.

History is littered with examples of great nations that eventually fall, once they begin to disregard human life and decency.

I want my nation to be proud and strong, to not cower at the feet of other nations, but never at the cost of what made our way of life the envy of all the countries plagued by dictatorships.

Let us develop smart weapons, yes, not genocidal ones!

 

[Moebius]

To echkerl or anyone else:

Even with the advances in tungsten penetrators, DU penetrators still have pyrophoric properties. Are these properties still advantageous or are they considered superflous to requirements.

 

[OPSSG]

Let us develop smart weapons, yes, not genocidal ones!

Weapons are tools used by armies. It is people who commit genocide and they don't even need very advanced weapons to do that. A case in point of a modern genocidal regime, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot killed millions. No depleted uranium ammo was necessary for his reign of terror.

My apologies for disagreeing. From my point of view, war is to be avoided if possible, given the human cost. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that war may be necessary if war like acts are committed by an aggressor. As such, I'm not a big fan of waving the morality flag once war has commenced.

My father fought, as did my uncles, and grandfathers too, in WW2 and WW1, and none of these men would stand for contempt of human life. They killed when they had to, fullstop. They treated prisoners with some duty of care.

Don't romanticize military history. War is ugly and it should be remembered in full, otherwise please explain the fire bombing of cities by allied forces and the nukes on Japan. In my view, they were necessary actions by the allied forces but the 'necessity of these actions' does not change their character. War is ugly and we should not get used to it.

 

[Feanor]

From what I have read here, some non-military commentators do not give a toss for human rights, and that, is a very sad fact.

It's not that I don't care about human life. It's that the people important enough to make these decisions often do not.

 

[Jissy]

Weapons are tools used by armies. It is people who commit genocide and they don't even need very advanced weapons to do that. A case in point of a modern genocidal regime, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot killed millions. No depleted uranium ammo was necessary for his reign of terror.

My apologies for disagreeing. From my point of view, war is to be avoided if possible, given the human cost. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that war may be necessary if war like acts are committed by an aggressor. As such, I'm not a big fan of waving the morality flag once war has commenced.

You do not need to apologize. Of course, I know it is the people behind the weapons, that are always the problem, and big mistakes often happen in the melee of war, however, DP ammo has such a a long half life that it will continue to affect everyone, way after the dust has settled on the war. It seems to me to be an unnecessary and careless use of a waste product from the nuclear power industry.

Don't romanticize military history. War is ugly and it should be remembered in full, otherwise please explain the fire bombing of cities by allied forces and the nukes on Japan. In my view, they were necessary actions by the allied forces but the 'necessity of these actions' does not change their character. War is ugly and we should not get used to it.

Too right, however, I was not attempting to generally 'romanticise' war, but I admit, I should have been more directed in my response, to other people's votes here, (the number one response in the poll) as their response smacked of a blindly bigoted approach, "who cares what happens to them" attitude. I was trying to foil that, (clumsily) with what I knew of family member's personal experience, (as I had not served myself) and I just know they would not cop some of the comments made, especially from people who had not served.

However, DP ammo has been flying under the radar for too long, and it really should be addressed, in my opinion. I am not aware of how much DP ammo is used, or has been, but the doco I saw, supported by a (Swedish or Swiss?) scientist, shows that it has dangerous and (very) long term side effects.

The nuclear bombing of Japan was terrible, even more disturbing was the idea that the Americans considered using them right across the mainland. However, Japan had, by the Aug 6th drop, demonstrated a distinct lack of humanity and mercy, with full intent of enslaving all they captured, so I can see a limited justification of its use. although, I would have preferred they bombed a small (uninhabited) island out of existance, as a 'shot across the bow" warning to the Emperor, after seeing it, I doubt Japan would have risked continuing hostilities, had they been shown its awsome power.

As with everything, the weakest link is mankind, both a bane and a blessing.

cheers

jissy

 

[Jissy]

It's not that I don't care about human life. It's that the people important enough to make these decisions often do not.

Yes, very true, if these pollies etc had to sit on the front line, I dare say they (well, hopefully most) would demur regarding breaches of human rights.

cheers

jissy

 

[Feanor]

There are quite a few people on here who have sat on the front lines.

 

[nikola_281]

Nice topic to discuss about.

At the moment I don't have any stats regarding the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 but the DU ammunition was heavily used back then. It was mostly used in some areas of Kosovo and those areas fell under responsibility of Italian KFOR units after the war. 45 Italian soldiers that served with the KFOR died as victims of cancer and 515 became ill with it. There is also a high number of Serbian civilians (mostly Eastern Serbia) that are suffering greatly from effects of the DU ammo.

I just thought it was worth mentioning.