shallowdeep
Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59
If this isn`t an issue or problem, then fine. But we should at least consider it.
Just don't be incurious or willfully ignorant.
A perfectly reasonable position.
quote:
I`ve been hearing stories from the beginning of the war(on NPR,BBC Radio,etc),that UM shells are in constant use and are causing problems.
The US Army and Air Force have acknowledged using 115 metric tons of DU munitions in Iraq from March 2003 to March 2004. In January of 2005, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff claimed that no further DU munitions were being used in Iraq or Afghanistan. Usage from March 2004 - January 2005 and Marine Corps use from March 2003 to March 2004 are less clear, but the totals are probably less than the 286 metric tons used in the Gulf War. The British expended an additional 870kg of DU munitions in Iraq in 2003 and have not used it there since. [source]
While non-trivial, a couple hundred metric tons really isn't enough to cause widespread problems, especially as most of that mass is buried, or sealed in wrecks. It also appears that, after an initial period where DU arguably had some utility, it has been withdrawn from the theatre.
Should it have been used at all? Maybe not. DU is inarguably a great penetrator, but we weren't exactly facing a large amount of quality enemy armor, even in the early part of the war. Did DU munitions help prevent any allied casualties? Maybe, but probably no more than a handful.
In all probability the DU used will only have negative effects on a few people, with only a handful of those, if any, dying significantly prematurely. But while no studies have clearly shown a substantial risk from DU munitions, there are some questions that could use better answers and, especially in cases where water supplies might be affected, relatively costly monitoring and cleanup is recommended by the WHO. When factoring in the bad publicity, even if unjustified, it seems like the smart thing to do would have been to avoid it in the first place. I wouldn't rate it as one of the bigger ones, but its use was arguably a mistake. Keeping DU in the arsenal as an option makes sense, but I agree it's an option that we probably don't need to exercise in lower intensity conflicts.
As to armor alternatives, the M1 already uses composite/Chobham armor. Such armor still needs a metal backing to be effective against kinetic penetrators – and DU provides superior protection to the alternatives, like tungsten. I really think its use in this context is easily justifiable - especially in a combat environment with explosively formed penetrators.
quote:
Same with DU dust. If you eat, breath or get it in an open wound, you could get heavy metal poisoning.
It's absolutely true that uranium is toxic, but you may be overestimating the risks relative to other heavy metals used as munitions, like lead. For instance, the EPA suggests a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal in drinking water of zero for both lead and uranium. However, the Maximum Contaminant Level (the level actually enforced) is set at 30 ug/L for uranium, but a more stringent 15 ug/L for lead [source]. It's best to minimize exposure, but you have to realize uranium is omnipresent naturally and, in small amounts, doesn't appear to pose a huge toxicological threat.
|
RE: depleted Uranium - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread