Post by SpaceSavantI guess since I responded I need to continue, although I find it
strange to be discussing this in this newsgroup and especially under
this thread!
Subject changed to be more appropriate.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertOne: No treaty is specifically listed.
Two: Treaties are not between individuals, they are between nations.
Individuals have no standing to interpret, or reinterpret, or assert
reinterpretations of treaties as international law or convention.
No treaty signatory nation for any law of war treaty, nor for that
matter more generally any nation on the face of the earth, has asserted
any interpretation of any existing treaty which would render in any
way Depleted Uranium's use to be forbidden or illegal.
I seemed to interpret what I read differently, although legalise
always send shivers down my spine. Based on the short read I had,
anything nasty and of "human effect" can be listed by the UN. THe
treaty itself is not renegotiated everytime someone deploys a new
variation of weapon which makes sense given how long these things tend
to take.
I find your interpretation strangely lawyerish.
We are discussing international law. Lawyerish is the nature
of the beast.
If you would like to see DU banned from warfare
because you think it's toxic to people, that's fine.
But that's different than it being illegal to use
in warfare. And that's also different from stepping
back and rationally considering the toxic and environmental
effects of warfare as a whole, and looking to solve those
effects starting with the ones that are actually and
demonstrably the worst ones.
My argument on the moral side is this: DU is not good
for people. The medical evidence is clear on that.
It's about three times as chemically toxic as lead,
etc etc. Given the choice between living somewhere
free of nearby environmental DU and somewhere with some,
I would chose to live without, all other things equal.
But DU is not the most toxic thing left over on a
battlefield. Trying to solve those more toxic
things first is morally a higher priority.
Those who jump straight to wanting to ban DU
are using bad science and anti-nuclear fear
to try and attack it, rather than focusing on
actually maximally reducing toxic effects on
battlefields.
To the extent that they make those attacks in
order to cause political activism against the US
military and our military actions, and not to
in fact make a good faith effort to improve the
health and safety of people living in areas that
become battlefields, they are in fact immoral.
They are exploiting other people's suffering and
lying by using bad science in order to promote
their political anti-US agenda.
Post by SpaceSavantEither way, given the
things I read on the UN site, their is no doubt about its effect. I
stopped reading when I got to 50,000 leukemia babies in Kosovo.
There is considerable doubt about its effect.
Uranium is a heavy metal. It is more toxic than lead,
but less toxic than mercury.
Its toxicity is *very well studied*. Lots of people got
very heavy doses of it in the US and other countries before
it was understood how toxic heavy metals are. Their health
problems were studied in depth. Their health problems are
very like health problems people get from exposure to lead
and other heavy metals.
A lot of the health problems ascribed to DU on battlefields
are not health problems which were seen in people who had
uranium poisoning in the US in the 50s and 60s. It is unlikely
that the nature and effects of uranium poisoning changed
over the last 40-50 years.
A lot of the specific people on battlefields who have had
illnesses which were blamed on DU were tested and found to
not have elevated uranium levels in their blood.
Some of those illnesses which do not correspond, in people who
don't have elevated uranium levels, are certainly not due to
uranium poisoning.
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that there are other
things at work in at least very many cases.
I fully support further research and remediation of uranium
in areas where people live, based on known and demonstrated
toxic effects. But it is being blamed for a large quantity
of medical effects that it is clearly not responsible for.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertThree: The logical path asserted for that argument claims
that DU being a toxic substance which will continue to
contaminate the battlefield, it must be illegal, is known
to be logically fallacious. Almost *every* substance used
in warfare is a toxic substance which will contaminate
the battlefield. Bullets are lead, though that is changing.
No one has, however, argued that lead bullets are or might
become illegal under any international treaty. Some nations
are moving to tungsten to save money on cleaning up old rifle
ranges at army bases. That's all. Explosives are generally
toxic. Rocket propellants are toxic. The residue from the
detonation of explosives and firing of rockets often
includes toxic chemicals. Broadening even further,
unexploded ordnance poses even greater health and
safety risks.
I'm not sure of the relevance of lead and tungsten to DU.
Lead and tungsten are also toxic (lead significantly,
tungsten not particularly badly). Lead and tungsten
are used in warfare. As are explosives, rocket propellants,
etc etc.
That's the point. If you really care about people being
made ill on old battlefields, and want to reduce that,
you need to look beyond one political movement's propaganda
and work on the toxics that are causing the most damage.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertThe *only* substance which anti-nuclear zealouts have pressed
this claim over is Depleted Uranium, despite the fact that
on a pure mass / toxicity basis it is not the largest
contributor to battlefield toxicity.
Is the WHO and UN anti-nuclear. Their is much materials on their site
condeming it's effects. An honest question, I really dont know their
stances.
There are a large number of scientifically questionable statements
by a lot of people blaming uranium for a lot of things it doesn't do.
Some of those people work for the UN and WHO.
That does not change that uranium is toxic, and is out there,
and is not good for people. The question isn't whether it's toxic.
The question is whether it's responsible for all the things people
are saying it is or not. If it is, then sure, let's stop using it.
If it isn't, and is less of a lingering health threat than all
the other things, then let's work on cleaning up all the other
things first.
Focusing on DU if it is not the largest health threat,
for political purposes, is wrong and exploitive of the
victims of battlefield toxicity.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertIf it's applied rationally to all substances, then it is
obviously absurd and will be rejected out of hand by
any nation, who will not unilaterally disarm completely
in order to prevent possible battlefield toxicity
problems in the future.
Dont know what that means, again sounds very lawyerish.
Again:
If you take the logic that using weapons that leave toxic
environmental effects behind are illegal and accept it
as valid, then it should apply to all weapons that leave
toxic environmental effects. And more so to the weapons
that leave the most toxic environmental effects.
Which are not depleted uranium weapons.
Nations and militaries know that. If that theory were
to become accepted international law, then they would all
have to completely disarm, as nearly no weapons system
on the face of the earth is significantly cleaner than
DU weapons are.
They aren't going to do that.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertIn expanding the question to all battlefield toxics it
is shown to be a ridiculous claim.
Only you have expanded to include battlefield toxics unless their was
another posting I missed.
That's the point and the problem. If you don't expand to include
other battlefield toxics, and compare the risk of DU to those,
you're not solving the real problem, you're exploiting all
battlefield toxics victims in order to promote an anti-US military
political agenda.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertName the convention, date signed, signatory nations, etc.
and prove me wrong, if you can. As a quick encouragement,
all the relevant treaty documents are in fact on line
on the web, so you can even google for them.
Yes I'm aware of it. Although I question the thoroughness of your
research of them. The UN site in particular is far too depressing for
me to go back.
This is not an easy problem. Turning your back on actually understanding
it, and sticking with opinions which are demonstrably scientifically
false and you got from clearly biased anti-American sources,
is not helping anything.
Education *is* the answer. Battles do leave lingering health
effects in addition to their immediate effects on those wounded
and killed. The greater question, of whether in today's world
we need to look to reduce those effects or not, is an important
one to look at. And I support doing that.
I do not support focusing in on DU due to other political
agendas which are hidden.
Post by SpaceSavant[......]
Post by George William HerbertIf you can't do that, then acknowledge that no such treaty
or convention exists.
No, I will not acknowledge something I do not know the answer too. But
I will acknowledge that DU appears to be vile weapon based on those
reports on the WHO and UN sites. The fact you deny those reports
doesnt make them go away.
Those reports are grossly exaggerated.
Uranium is toxic. That's not in debate.
There is plenty of medical research and case
history here in the US. We know that.
Other things are toxic, too. They aren't banned as being
vile weapons. And that's a problem.
Uranium is being blamed for things in people who,
often, test out at not having elevated levels of
uranium in their blood. And that's a problem.
It's some other agent causing their health effects,
and the anti-DU zealouts sweep those results under
the rug rather than actually work to identify that
other agent and remove it.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertIf you *want* to ban the use of DU in warfare, that's fine.
It's logically unreasonable compared to other toxic threats
from warfare, however, the same can be said of proper military
use of marked minefields and those are banned now.
So go for it, though I disagree with you.
I said "I assume" what the original poster meant. He may have meant
whatever treaty that bans minefields. Although, I wasnt aware that
minefields are banned.
I respectfully submit that if you aren't aware of the 1990s
campaign to ban landmines and the subsequent treaties,
you probably aren't educating yourself enough on the larger
questions of the laws and issues of warfare and human rights.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertThe mechanism to make such changes in allowed weapons
is that activists get actual nation-states to get together
and write new treaties.
Activists who feel that the use of dialectic is a valid
replacement for the processes of international treatymaking
are deluding themselves. Convince at least one nation that
it's actually something they want to bother trying to ban,
and then convince other nations to go along with it.
That's how it's done.
This I will kick back on. Their are several reports listing many
nations requesting a ban on these weapons that I found before writting
my response. If you have studied this for so long why do you not know
this?
I didn't say it wasn't happening. I said that it was wrong
to try and play a game and pretend that activist legal position
statements would would be what made the change.
One activist saying that it's illegal under existing laws does
not make it so. Nor would many many activists saying so.
Nor, for that matter, would lots of nations doing so.
A lot of nations agreeing to a new, DU weapon banning treaty,
would. And that could happen. Though I don't support it,
because I feel it's anti US politics rather than true
concern to reduce the battlefield toxics problem by
focusing on the worst parts.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by Paul RezzoThe fact that they offer no significant military advantage
This is not true. They offer three significant military
advantages: One, Uranium self-sharpens during penetration.
Two, Uranium (or, Staballoy, as it's not pure DU used in
penetrators) is moderately denser than the tungsten alloys
used by other nations. Three, the pyrophoric effects are
a major kill mechanism enhancer after penetrations through
armor packages.
Sorry...But you dont generally find these things in human bodies
especailly in civilians to which the US widely uses them.
Could you please restate that claim in a manner that
contains some parseable english? I have no idea whatsoever
what you were trying to say.
Well pardon me for not speaking my second language as well as you.
You still have not restated what you meant.
Please explain it.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertIf it were just a cost issue, the US would have abandoned
it decades ago. The raw materials cost for the penetrators
is trivial compared to the sabot, machining, propellant,
and casing costs. Tungsten is more expensive but the
cost difference is down in the noise of total round cost.
We're still using it because it kills tanks more reliably.
Tell that to the parents of stillborn children if you have the guts to
visit them.
A number of ill people examined in southern Iraq by
Medecins Sans Frontieres showed that a large majority
of people who 'seemed' to have DU poisoning had no
noticably elevated blood uranium levels, and though
some people did, they were not significantly less
healthy than average in those regions.
The US has a large medical history database of what
Uranium toxicity does to people; before its hazards
were fully recognized, miners and prospectors and
uranium processing workers often got relatively
high levels of personal contamination.
Unfortunately for those who claim that we've caused
ridiculous numbers of deaths or deformities, the US
Uranium workers got higher levels of contamination in
their bloodstream and showed less effects and of different
types of effect than is claimed by activists.
Oh please dont the use the US said so argument.
This is not the US government.
This is the body of medical literature in the US.
It's been studied to death. The studies are all in
any good University library. Go read some.
Post by SpaceSavantI'm involved with a
american company who regularly battles dealing with tree huggers,
environmentalists, anticarcos and just plain greedy politicians, we
are involved in everything from Nuclear facilities to medical
equipment. I know EXACTLEY how easy it can be to manipulate such data
and the irrelevance of statements such as yours. And this is not
something I study in my spare time, but get paid significant amounts
of money to be involved in.
This is not a conspiracy theory. There are not little men
in trenchcoats in the corners here.
The health effects studies were done by many independent
researchers. There was no reason for them to hide any
identified health effects. The Government has been open
and accepting of the results. It's well and widely known.
You are suggesting that, despite the fact that Uranium's
health effects were clearly identified and openly and
widely studied, there was some sort of conspiracy to hide
some of those effects so that forty years later we could
use DU weapons and hide the health effects?
Uranium wasn't even in use in penetrators at the time that
the studies were done. There was no military reason to
bother to hide any effects.
Similar studies on animals, and in some cases on uranium
miners and processing workers, have been carried out in
other nations. All of which agree with the US results,
as far as I have been able to tell.
Post by SpaceSavantTheir are multiple reports on the WHO and UN sites listing the effects
which is what made me stop. I now state that you have not even read
the WHO reports in addition to the UN reports. I will place UN and WHO
teams who are experts above that piece of dribble.
Post by George William HerbertGermany, France, and the UK maintain war stockpiles of DU
penetrator tank ammunition.
Do you know the difference between a stockpile and active use.
They have not banned it. When they ban it, and take it out
of stockpile, you'll have a point.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertWhen they dispose of those, come back and we'll talk again.
No you appear far to defensive and ignorant for me to respond further.
Take it up with the original poster.
You're defending his statements. And you admit not having
done research beyond some very high level stuff focused on
the activist groups statements which want it banned.
Spend some time reading old medical journal articles on it.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by SpaceSavantYou will also note the reports in the UN archives
on the issue which states that only the US continues "to endorse the
use" of these weapons.
It doesn't matter who endorses it. The fact is that far more
nations still use DU penetrators than have abandoned it.
The US does not stand alone as the only DU user, and there is
no sign that Israel, Russia, China, or the others are going
to give up using it, though they aren't making a big deal
about it.
Again you appear ignorant of the submission that Russia has made to
the UN. Another piece of "selective" stuying.
Russia is still using it.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPossibly the people who protest this issue have issues
with the United States and its behaviour, and only
secondarily with Depleted Uranium itself. But that is
only my opinion.
It does seem to be the way of the times. However the UN and the WHO
are organisations you are a individual. And as you stated previously
individuals are " not in a position to be interpreting or
asserting interpretations of humanitarian international law, as they
are not a nation". I see you consider yourself better and much more
than a indivudal.
I am not asserting a change in international law. You, and the
original poster, and the referred to information source, are.
And the UN and WHO don't make international law. They carry it out.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertPost by Paul Rezzothe US has
increased production. THat and the fact that the effect of them is to
make the area contaminated thereby affecting civilians. In the case of
Iraq, the regions largest water table is centralised around Iraq and
testing has shown it to be increasingly contaminated by these weapons.
Please show us that you have a slight clue about the level
of 'contamination' by working out for us how many tons of
uranium are in the typical first meter of topsoil over a
square kilometer of land in Iraq, due to purely natural
abundance.
UNICEF, Redcross and some UN nuclear agency wwith a really long
acryonym all claimed that, and I only looked for about 30 minutes in
google.
I repeat myself: please show that you have a slight clue.
Look up the crustal abundance. Tell us how many tons of uranium
are in the top meter of soil over a square kilometer.
No I will not pretend to be a chemist or whatever speciality it is. I
will rely on the UN and WHO reports. The reports for Iraq I found
state nothing about crust, only water tables in iraq.
As you are apparently too lazy to educate yourself:
The crustal abundance of Uranium is 2.7 parts per million.
That level is fairly constant (within a factor of roughly two)
across all rock types around the world, though there are Uranium
ore bodies with much higher abundance.
2.7 parts per million means that in a one meter cube of rock,
weighing about three tons, there are about ten grams of Uranium.
In the top ten meters of soil and rock under a house which
is ten by twenty meters, there are about 20 kilograms of uranium.
If you take a 5 kilogram DU penetrator and vaporize it and mix
it with topsoil across a hundred meter square, one meter deep
layer out in a field, the quantity of uranium present in that
soil goes from about 80 kilograms to 85 kilograms.
And DU is *less* radioactive than natural environmental uranium.
Just as chemically toxic, but less radioactive by about a
factor of two.
Post by SpaceSavantPost by George William HerbertThis is a simple question. It takes a little research
(hint: one google search with "uranium crustal abundance"
will do it) and a little math.
Not really, I'm far to busy to get in a pissing match with someone
with your attitude. Life is too short. Take it up with the original
poster.
Profound ignorance on your part will not help the world's problems.
I do not pretend to be entirely correct and infallably educated
on all matters that concern me. But in this matter, I have done
my homework, and you have not.
Read some and think critically about what you read.
It's usually time well spent.
-george william herbert
***@retro.com