Depleted Uranium Ethics Of the Silver Bullet
- :: 15 Works Cited
- Length: 6412 words (18.3 double-spaced pages)
- Rating: Excellent
“All the soldiers there were wearing NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical warfare) protective clothing. We said: ‘What’s going on here?’ And their answer was: ‘Didn’t you know? This ammunition is a bit dodgy.’” – Tim Pubrick, Gulf War veteran, British Royal Army tank commander.6
Depleted uranium (DU) ammunition is a very recent advancement in military weapons use. Due to its effectiveness against piercing armor, DU ammunition has recently become a popular item among NATO armies and will most likely become a mainstream form of conventional ammunition among many other armies of the world. However, massive amounts of circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the use of DU ammunition has known to cause dramatic side effects, such as health problems, stillborn babies, toxic and poisonous land, water supplies, and residential territories. Hence an important question arises, is it ethical to use DU ammunition on the battlefield?
II. WHAT IS DEPLETED URANIUM (DU)?
Before we can analyze the ethical use of DU ammunition, it is important to first establish the technology behind DU and DU weapons. Uranium is one of the heaviest elements found in nature and is emits alpha, beta, and gamma particles. It is 1.7 times denser than lead.12 The half-life of U238 (DU is 99% U238) is 4.5 billion years!13 Uranium byproducts(such as Thorium (Th232)) have even longer half-lives, making uranium an element that gets more radioactive during its own decay process.5 Natural uranium is 99.274% U238, 0.720% U235, and 0.0055% U234.14a Uranium is enriched when its contents of U235 reaches 3.2-3.6% (since U235 is fissible). Weapon-grade uranium is +90% U235.14a What is depleted uranium? We start out with natural uranium and extract enriched uranium for nuclear fuel and weaponry. The leftover from the extraction process is something very similar to natural uranium, known as “depleted uranium”. The only difference is that DU has 0.202% of U235 and 0.0008% of U234.14a How much DU do we currently have? As of June 1998, we have around 57,800 huge steel cylinders of DU or 496,000 metric tons. 14b Storage of DU is very complicated and problematic since corrosion of DU storage cylinders often occurs over relatively short periods of time.15
III. MODERN APPLICATIONS OF DU:
The applications of DU are quite extensive. DU is very low cost and is readily available. DU can be used as a commercial aircraft counterweight. A Boeing 747 needs 1,500 kg of DU.
12,14c Due to volume restrictions, DU is an ideal dense counterweight that takes up very little space. However, due to widespread fears of DU, Tungsten can also be used in a wide range of commercial aircraft counterweights.14c An interesting note: in past plane crashes (e.g. 1992 Israeli El Al cargo jet crash in Amsterdam), local authorities usually end up scraping around 40 cm of topsoil from the crash site and nearby soils, most likely to rid of toxins produced from DU.13,14f
As well, DU can be used in tank armor. Around 1500 tanks were loaded with DU armor in 1993 and 2000 more were ordered by the US military for the future.14c How do we implement DU armor on tanks? Most tanks contain two thick shields of conventional steel armor. There exists a moderately thick gap between the two shields. DU is inserted into the armor plates and the two shields are then welded together to make one tough three-layer armor plate.
Finally, DU is extensively used in military grade ammunition. Ammunition has always existed in various different forms. DU is simply a new type of ammunition. Regular low-caliber bullets are made of compacted hardened lead.3 Armor piercing rounds (usually of higher caliber) are made out of steel. Incendiary and high explosive rounds (for even higher caliber rounds) are made with chemical explosive compounds.3 DU is merely a recent but simple advancement made in high caliber ammunition. What is depleted uranium ammunition? Basically DU + conventional ammunition = DU ammunition. DU weapons can be installed in conventional ammunition in a variety of ways. However the common methods are the following: you can either coat the ammo in DU or you can make conventional ammo with a DU core. 9,10 DU and tungsten ammunition research was being conducted as early as the 1970s as a means of generating conventional effective armor piercing rounds. 14d Tungsten is generally very expensive, has a higher melting point, and doesn’t cut armor as well as DU. Depleted uranium is cheap, abundant, and even provided free to arms manufacturers. DU rounds can be classified in many different types of ammunition. DU is employed in tank rounds (usually as a kinetic dart/projectile, high-explosive device, or smart bombs)1, heavy machine guns (as used by US Bradley Fighting Vehicles), gatling guns (as used by US Apache helicopters, A-10 Warthogs, Harrier jets, and other anti-personnel aircraft), artillery (e.g. Howitzers and mortar shells), and probably in ultra-high caliber sniper rifles. The most common DU round is a high kinetic energy projectile. The projectile can pierce all forms of heavy armor. Contact temperature between the projectile and the armor is 1132 degrees C.1 DU also easily burns, just like magnesium, upon penetration, adding to the effectiveness of the ammo as an armor piercing device.14c When the projectile cuts through the armor, the DU penetrator and parts of the tank get so hot that it literally vaporizes. Anywhere from 18-70% of the DU usually oxidizes (depending on type of impact).14c For example, direct impact yields 99% oxidization. A Uranium oxide (which consists of insoluble UO2 and soluble UO3) aerosol forms, where 50-96% of the particles are less than 10 microns and hence can be inhaled easily.2
Another important characteristic of DU ammo is that it dramatically increases the lethal range of conventional weaponry. For lower caliber weapons (such as heavy machine guns fired from the BAV or aircraft), DU rounds can be lethal from up to 8km.10 On larger caliber heavy weapons (such as tanks), DU rounds can easily destroy an enemy tank from 3-5km.1 However, a cautious note, circumstantial evidence suggests that DU exhibits harmful radiological, chemical, and biological effects (which will be discussed later on in this paper). But for now, keep in mind that DU is extremely toxic and still contains much of the radiation that natural uranium has. For example, US Army field manuals indicate that those who handle DU contaminated vehicles or DU injured individuals must wear gas masks and protective radiological suits.14f There are at least 15-17 countries that currently possess DU ammunition (e.g. US, Britain, France, Israel, Egypt, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.)14c,13 Large military manufacturers, such as the US, China or Russia, could easily become a major DU ammunition distributors to other major militaries in the near future.
IV. RECENT EXAMPLES OF DU AMMO USAGE:
In order to analyze the effects of DU ammunition, recent conflicts involving DU ammo need to be considered. The two most recent cases involve Iraq during the Gulf War in the early 1990s, and Kosovo/Bosnia during the Balkan conflicts of the mid and late 1990s. A harmful reaction by Allied veterans to chemical, biological, and radiological effects from the Gulf War culminated into what is known as Gulf War Syndrome (part of the cause is potentially due to DU weaponry). A very recent similar series of events occurred with post-DU use in the Balkans, which lead to “Balkan War Syndrome”.
CASE 1: IRAQ (THE GULF WAR)
The Gulf War is an older case but was the first time that the US military employed DU weaponry on a large military scale against an enemy. DU ammunition has been accredited during and after the Gulf War as one of the main reasons why the Allied military had such a swift victory over Iraqi military forces.1,9 DU allowed our tanks to penetrate enemy armor easily and at far greater distances. Allied tanks could directly engage enemy tanks while in the enemy’s line-of-sight with little worry from retaliatory fire. This means that Allied tanks could hit their Iraqi tanks while Iraqi tanks couldn’t hit Allied tanks. Also due to DU armor, not a single US tank was penetrated from enemy fire. US tanks took many close direct hits from Iraqi Soviet-made T-72 tanks (as close as 400m!), but enemy rounds were simply not able to penetrate the DU armor! 14f DU ammunition was such a successful and popular weapon that US tank crews have dubbed DU ammo as the “Silver Bullet.”9 (Partially because DU rounds have a silver-like luster due to the aluminum coating.) An important thing to consider was how much DU was actually dumped onto Iraqi territory. Around 9,640 tanks shells and 850,000 aircraft 30mm rounds were used. 14f This translates to nearly 650,000 pounds of actual DU deposited on Iraqi soil!14f That’s a lot of nuclear waste!
Due to the extensive use of DU weaponry in the Gulf War, one has to consider the chemical, biological, environmental, and radiological effects that resulted. Analysis of DU can be achieved from investigating incidents of friendly fire. Over 200 vehicles that were hit by friendly fire were analyzed by the US military. 14f Over 29 vehicles were found with abnormally high radioactive levels. 12 vehicles (including 6 Bradleys) were buried in Saudi Arabia due to substantial radioactive levels.14f Numerous soldiers were also rumored to have been affected by DU. British SAS and US special forces, cleanup crews, and a wide variety of other military personnel who were constantly in the presence of DU contaminated sites were analyzed and in many cases shown to have contained abnormally high levels of uranium and radiation poisoning. Many veterans (not just those suffering from friendly fire) continue to have persistent medical problems. During the Gulf War, over 85% of military soldiers have wandered through at least some DU contaminated sites (e.g. destroyed Iraqi vehicles, bunkers, etc.) 14i. Veteran groups estimate that +400,000 Gulf personnel have inhaled some amount of DU dust. By 1996, As a result of NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare), nearly +187,000 veterans have sought serious medical help and 18,200 were hospitalized. 14i However in 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has done medical testing on soldiers who still have retained DU shrapnel within their bodies.16 Interestingly, their claims indicate no direct threat from DU.
There are also serious long-term effects of DU that still exist today in Iraq. In regions heavily hit by DU, studies have shown that numerous civilians have extensive problems with their immune systems, malignant cancers (such as ludicrously high leukemia rates), heart problems, and bizarre abnormal birth defects (such as children born without eyes, ears, tongue, etc.).2 In some regions, Leukemia has become one of the main forms of cancer-related death. There has been a 4x increase in cancer among children (+130,000 in 1997).14i Contaminated agriculture and water supplies help spread the DU dust which continues to hurt people in different regions where DU ammo was not used. However, one should note that even before the Gulf War, much of Iraqi soil was already highly contaminated from previous conflicts (e.g. chemical and biological warfare against Iran, Iraqi Kurds).
“When we climbed into vehicles after they’d been hit, no matter what time or day or night it was, you couldn’t see three feet in front of you. You breathed in that dust.” – Dr. Doug Rokke, Gulf War veteran, US Army clean up crew. 6
CASE 2: THE BALKANS (BOSNIA AND THE KOSOVO CONFLICT)
A more recent case of DU ammunition use was during the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia. An interesting thing to note is that no major chemical or biological weaponry was used or numerous NBC sites bombed during both conflicts. Even though Yugoslavia has done extensive research into chemical weaponry, no significant amount was used in both conflicts. Hence, the only potentially hazardous device used was DU ammunition. At first, NATO claimed that DU ammunition was not being used at all. No mention was made until a small group of NATO soldiers started dying from blood/renal/rectal related cancers in a very short period of time and the term “Balkan War Syndrome” came into full force.14f New Tomahawk cruise missiles armed with a 3kg DU warhead core were first used in Bosnia and later in Kosovo.14f Over 31,000 A-10 30mm rounds were fired and over 1,500 cruise missiles (armed with DU) were used. Some regions in Bosnia and especially Kosovo (a region that NATO HEAVILY bombed for 3 months) are so contaminated with DU that the soil there is permanently destroyed. NATO soldiers are constantly told not to eat local foods or drink from local water supplies (since ingestion of DU dust is very common by eating foods or drinking water contaminated with DU dust).17 Soldiers were also told to stay away from military sites hit by DU and not to pick up any possible DU fragments.17 This concludes the basic facts of DU ammunition and the specific conflicts in which DU ammo was used.
V. ETHICAL ANALYSIS:
PRO’S AND CON’S OF DU AMMUNITION:
When first analyzing the ethical dilemmas of DU ammo, a statement of the most relevant facts, such as the pros and cons, are necessary. For example, there are crucial benefits of DU ammo. It is a highly effective armor-piercing device. The purpose of ammunition is to take out enemy targets efficiently by inflicting as much damage as you can to the enemy. DU is very effective and is a very lethal and efficient killing device. It doesn’t just damage an enemy tank, it pulverizes it and easily annihilates the crew as well! There are alternative forms of advanced ammo but DU fares the best of them all! Alternative forms of ammunition are around 20% less effective than DU and generally more expensive (such as using Tungsten kinetic penetrators). 1,10 Alternative tank rounds do not always penetrate armor as effectively as DU. Most non-DU rounds tend to “mushroom” (which is how the round looks after contact with enemy armor) as they hit their targets. However, as DU contacts enemy armor, it get extremely hot and “self-sharpens” as it enters the armor, just like a hot knife through butter.10,11 The bottom line is that DU is simply too good for any military not to use in the battlefield! Another crucial benefit of DU is that it increases the effectiveness of military weapons at even greater distances, oftentimes putting your enemy at a huge disadvantage. Another benefit DU proved during the Gulf War was using DU as tank armor. 645 out of 2058 US tanks used in the Gulf were fitted with DU armor.14f Iraqi tank rounds directly struck US tanks but there was no puncture of the DU armor! Hence DU used as ammunition and armor are important ways of protecting our soldiers in combat. Unfortunately, another significant characteristic of DU was also discovered during the Gulf War, that DU ammo can easily puncture DU armor (as was found out by US tanks hit by friendly fire)! 14f A final benefit of DU ammunition is that by using DU rounds in huge military campaigns, one can get rid of tons of nuclear waste. A lot of waste dumped all over Kosovo and Iraq. This is basically dumping nuclear waste through the use of deadly weapons.11
What are the consequences of DU ammunition? Even though there are very few government reports that suggest that DU contains harmful side effects, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that clearly points out that DU and DU ammo causes extensive radiological, environmental, chemical, and biological effects. DU ammo can easily be shown to cause severe environmental damage. For example, numerous anti-tank rounds were fired in Ethan Allen Firing Range (a US based testing site for DU weapons). The soil surrounding the site was so contaminated wih radiation and toxin from DU that 4 inches of topsoil, over a few mile radius, was scooped up and later stored away as nuclear waste. 14e DU dust results from the use of DU ammo (which forms as it pierces the armor) and can easily spread far away from the target. There was one tested case in the Gulf War where DU dust spread up to 42 km from an enemy target site pulverized with DU rounds!14e Just recently, the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) stated that they still found traces of DU dust in the air two years after the end of the bombing of Kosovo.18 Remember that DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years. That means that local environments contaminated with poisonous DU dust will remain that way for a very long time and will continue to spread.
“There has been, and continues to be, a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. If no one makes the case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefields, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and be deleted from the arsenal.” – Colonel Ziehman of Los Alamos National Laboratory. 11
DU ammo can also cause extreme biological effects to those exposed to it. DU dust commonly is inhaled and digested through simple inhalation of air and consumption of food. Insoluble and Soluble uranium oxide enters the body and eventually enters the bloodstream.2 Soluble uranium is expelled through urination, but insoluble uranium (around 50% of DU) stays in the body and travels from the bloodstream and settles in bone and organ tissue.2 Veterans and civilians exposed to DU have experienced extensive irreversible damage to kidney and partial kidney failure. Cancers related to one’s blood, bone, and immune system become common.14h There are also various other biological effects claimed from DU, such as chronic fatigue, respiratory problems, heart problems, digestive organ damage (e.g. liver failure and severe rectal bleeding), etc.2
Finally DU ammo can be shown to have radiological effects. On the outside DU is quite harmless. It is a low-level alpha particle emitter. Fortunately, alpha particles can easily be stopped by a piece of paper! Hence, a soldier can be in contact with a DU-armored tank for years and not see any effects at all! However, DU dust that enters the body can be quite harmful, depending on the amount of exposure. When DU enters the body, alpha particles directly bombard one’s cell tissue. On average 1 in 70,000 human cells that are bombarded from alpha particles emitted from DU turn into cancer cells.14h Hence depending on length of exposure and concentration any person exposed to large amounts of DU would most likely suffer long-term cancer-related effects. Also, remember that DU is very similar to natural uranium (around 99% similar), which is dug up as an ore using conventional mining techniques. It is well known that uranium miners suffer significantly higher levels of cancer related illnesses, respiratory, and digestives related problems from natural uranium dust and radiation.5 Hence it would make much sense that DU exhibit similar characteristics and side effects.
“If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological. Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures.” - Statement by US Army Environmental Policy Institute (statement made after Gulf but not before Kosovo). 11
“The ingestion of small amounts of radioactive dust …will cause a building up of radioactive material in the body, which eventually may have serious consequences…Lung cancer, bone necrosis, and rapid anaemia are possible diseases due to the deposition of radioactive substances in the cell tissue or bone structure of the body…” – Warning by the Canadian Department of Mines on uranium ore. 5
Military technology has always brought up large professional issues. The research, military application, use, and capitalization on DU ammo and weaponry contain similar professional issues as the military use of smart bombs, cruise missiles, or any form of military technology. Military defense is a big industry throughout the world and DU is just a part of it. However, on a professional level, such military weapons can produce dramatic political and international ramifications, such as seen by expanding nuclear weapons. Another professional issue deals with the relationship between the military command and their soldiers. Commanders are obligated to ensure the safety of their soldiers under all conditions. But when your own soldiers start to die off from their own ammunition, then serious questions are raised about the professionalism of one’s army.
The legal and policy issues of DU can be analyzed with respect to other special weapons, such as those that pertain to land mines, cluster bombs, napalm, white phosphorous, agent orange, anthrax, etc. It is difficult to determine whether or not DU possesses any international legal infringement. However, if proper research were to dictate that DU was unsafe and causes numerous long-term side effects, then it would be quite simple to proclaim that DU is illegal in combat. The UN already considers DU to be illegal and many lawyers are currently pushing for international legislation banning all forms of DU weaponry. A UN resolution was written in 1996 stating that “all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb production and spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry, and weaponry containing depleted uranium.” 14j In addition, the UNCHR (UN Commission on Human Rights) recently passed a resolution categorizing DU ammo alongside nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as “weapon of indiscriminate effect.” 13. Hence it could be argued that if DU weapons are indiscriminate and cause unnecessary suffering, then that itself would be a violation of the US military field manual on The Law of Land Warfare: “It is especially forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).) …Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.” 4 It would seem that one could make a strong point against the illegality of DU ammunition!
Ethical issues arise primarily when comparing the harmful effects of DU versus their military combat benefits. There are many different perspectives that could be used to analyze this situation. From the Utilitarian perspective (the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest benefit overall to those directly affected), using DU is unethical for it presents too many horrible long-term side effects that would in turn cause excessive amounts of suffering to large groups of people (mostly innocent civilians). The environment is ruined for many future generations! Future generations will suffer for political actions they were not responsible for. Chemical, biological, and radiological effects will continue to plague many innocent people and many lives will be lost to poisonous DU contamination. The only elated victors here are the military commanders, politicians, and ammo manufacturers.
From the Kantian perspective (a philosophic perspective similar to the Golden Rule, “do unto others as they would do onto you”), the use of DU ammunition is somewhat difficult to analyze. The Kantian perspective is difficult to apply to military situations. From one perspective, you wouldn’t want the enemy to use powerful DU-armed weapons against your army, but that is sort of awkward. On the battlefield, soldiers most likely are aware that they will often be facing an enemy who is researching means of improving military weapons and vice versa. Hence there is some sort of indirect consideration and understanding that both sides are constantly enhancing their own weapons. Hence the use of DU is currently a military advancement that only a few countries have benefited from, but when you are on the battlefield in the near future, you still are aware that the enemy could also possess DU ammo and can use it against you. There is some sort of mutual acceptance on the rules of warfare in terms of technological advancement between both sides. Hence on a slight level and strictly concerning military combat, the Kantian perspective could somewhat promote the ethical use of DU weapons.
Concerning the Rights perspective (an action is ethical if it obeys fundamental rights that relate to human dignity and autonomy), the use of DU is unethical for it violates the personal rights of all civilians and soldiers who are directly affected from DU (especially your own soldiers). Nuclear, biological, and chemical effects violate and will continue to violate numerous civilians’ rights to live a normal life. Future generations will continue to be punished for conflicts they had no part in. The personal rights of soldiers are also affected. As mentioned before, there is also violation of military-soldier contract/obligation concerning the knowledge of DU contamination. In addition, if DU is harmful in combat, then there is an obligation to warn your own soldiers of the negative side effects and hence make the necessary precautions to protect them.
The Fairness/Justice perspective (treating people differently based on crucial moral differences) would question whether or not DU ammunition is fair on the battlefield and whether or not it is fair to the innocent civilians who suffer the consequences of DU contamination? It is not fair towards the soldiers when they get sick form their own bullets. It is not fair towards civilians and society as well. However it could be debated as being fair on the battlefield. War is tough and technology is a way of getting a slight upper hand during combat. This reaffirms the previous concept of the mutual rules of engagement on the battlefield versus military technological research and advancement.
From the Common Good perspective (an ethical action is one that promotes the most common good for the society overall), it is unethical to use DU. It is simply too destructive and poses too many side effects towards the community for many generations. DU will not only affect the community of our military opponents but might also eventually affect our communities as well. DU takes warfare to the extreme since armies who use it consider only the short-term tactical benefits with no regard for the aftermath.
From the Virtue perspective (an ethical action is one that promotes the most individual and social moral virtues), DU ammunition is unethical for we will demean ourselves as a civilized society. DU weaponry is clearly not necessary to conduct warfare on a sophisticated level. DU ammo is not a necessity. As mentioned, it is amazing how far our military will go to win the war despite horrific future side effects.
A final perspective is a perspective on warfare ethics. Is it right to use weapons that exercise “overkill” on the battlefield? As previously mentioned, a 120 mm DU projectile not only destroys a tank, it pulverizes it! When the DU anti-tank round punctures a tank, parts of the tank’s armor and projectile get so hot that they both literally vaporize.1 The tank heats up to such a high temperature that it often times causes parts of the tank to melt and catch on fire. As the projectile enters the tank, it splinters into many pieces, often times bursting into flames. The tank ammo and fuel blow up( due to the ignition of fuel fumes) and the tank that’s leftover is barely recognizable.1 There are numerous other weapons that are quite efficient at destroying a tank but doesn’t require the use of DU ammo. Tactile weapons from conventional Apache hellfire missiles to 1970’s short-range Soviet Sagger rockets can easily destroy any tank, especially at close range. A wide variety of weapons can pulverize even the most sophisticated tanks at ambush range19 (e.g. Palestinian homemade explosives have proven destructive against advanced Israeli Sabre and Merkava tanks). Hence, DU doesn’t have to be a military necessity in terms of destroying armored vehicles.
Who are the stakeholders in this situation? NATO/UN troops are at direct risk of DU. DU ammo is usually used in initial stages of war and conflict. Aircraft (such as A-10 anti-personnel aircraft), artillery, smart bombs, etc. are first used in initial bombardment of enemy targets. Crucial targets (e.g. radar, air defense, armored divisions, etc.) are taken out and your soldiers eventual move in. By using DU, you are directly putting the lives of your troops in great danger! Is this justifiable? Is it necessary? Not only that, but should we send troops without telling them the full dangers of DU? If it is dangerous, shouldn’t we better protect our soldiers? Would a conflict we engage in then be politically correct? The DoD and MoD finally admit that DU ammo could have serious consequences.14i, 15 No wonder we kept DU use in Kosovo a secret for a while. In addition, enemy troops are direct stakeholders for they receive the full and direct threat of DU ammo.
Civilians and collateral damage is another issue that should be strongly considered. Civilians are the unfortunate stakeholders of DU ammo use. As previously mentioned DU decay is long and the lives of future civilians will be greatly affected. DU storage has known to cause contamination to sewers, soil, groundwater, and water supplies. Cleanup easily costs hundreds of million of dollars and is an extremely difficult process.14d Leaving behind DU ammo is just like leaving behind landmines. DU litters the land and has the potential to kill innocent people of future generations!
Every military in the world are also stakeholders of DU ammo use. Since DU ammo can be easily constructed, it will be very likely that in the future many countries will arm their current weapon systems with DU ammunition. As previously mentioned, a very important fact that one should consider is that since DU can easily be created from natural uranium ore, non-nuclear power countries can easily produce DU ammunition. The final stakeholders are companies that produce DU ammo (e.g. US ammo companies are given DU for free by the US government and given lucrative contracts to produce DU ammo to arm common military land, sea and air base weapon systems.)9,10
VI. POSSIBLE ACTIONS:
There are a few possible actions that can be carried out to answer the ethical question concerning DU ammo usage. We can allow the widespread promotion of DU ammo or ban DU ammo completely and consider it illegal in combat. We can also permit limited use of DU ammo (e.g., halt DU use pending extensive research on DU side effects).
POSSIBLE ACTION #1: PERMIT THE FULL USE OF DU AMMUNITION:
If we allow the widespread promotion of DU ammo, then the consequences of that could be devastating. Eventually everyone might have it! Russia and China could become mass producers and distributors of DU weapons (even though Russia currently claims that their armed forces are not using DU ammo20, it is still a possibility). Terrorists will have it as well. By having a few countries use DU weapons now will only provoke an arms race that will emphasize that a modern military needs DU ammo for its weapons! Remember, DU ammo can penetrate DU armor! When every major country eventually equips their military with DU ammo, then the benefit of only you having DU on the battlefield is eliminated! You are hence fighting the same battle fought before, just at greater distances. You are back to the previous scenario. And let’s not forget the contamination that will result from this. With this decision we will continue to violate the rights of our soldiers, society, and future generations. DU will persist to inflict collateral damage on all societies throughout the world. Hence the common good out of this situation is absolutely nothing! Certain government armies will get more power for a brief moment, only until all modern armies are equipped with DU ammunition.
POSSIBLE ACTION #2: BAN THE USE OF DU AMMUNITION
The second alternative is to ban DU ammunition completely. Countries will be penalized for the use of DU ammo. This follows similarly to the rules of military engagement when using advanced weapons such as biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. There is enough mutual respect and consideration that such weapons are not to be used on the battlefield. The fear of mutual reciprocity is enough to indicate that such negative side effects are not desirable to both sides. However, there is no guarantee that such a rule would be enforced. For example, the US still continues to use horrific “overkill” weapons such as napalm, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, autonomous landmine systems, etc. These are weapons that are not necessary at getting the job done. However, if we do ban DU weapons we will stop the spread of DU contamination and hence stop the collateral damage that occurs due to the use of DU ammo. The common good here is probably the best one in that we begin to limit the negative effects of DU for our society and future generations.
POSSIBLE ACTION #3: LIMIT THE USE OF DU AMMO OR HALT DU AMMO USAGE PENDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION/RESEARCH.
The third alternative is to limit the use of DU ammo or to halt DU usage pending research on the full side effects of DU and DU weapons. There simply isn’t enough research going on into this area of technology. More research has to be done to determine all the side effects in greater detail. If tests do show negative consequences of DU ammo use, then that information needs to be made public and DU proliferation should be stopped! However, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly obvious that DU causes horrific side effects, however the notion for publication of such consequences needs to be made! Individual rights are somewhat respected in that by limiting DU we limit the collateral damage associated with DU usage. The common good is simply that we limit the effects of DU (pending on what research indicates).
VII. FINAL DECISION AND CONCLUSION:
“I don’t think the government actually realizes how many lives they are ruining, and they need to …they’re just killing the veterans, and killing their families along with them, with all the worry – and it’s not fair.” – Mandy Duncan, wife of Kenny Duncan, US Army driver during the Gulf War.8
The final decision is to ban DU ammunition completely. DU ammunition is extremely unethical. To use such tactical weapons for a war without considering its horrible side effects or ramifications for future generations is unacceptable! DU ammo is not the ultimate alterative in the battlefield. It is an overkill technology and not necessary at all for victory in battle. DU ammo use would most likely produce an arms race that would require all modern militaries to arm themselves with DU ammunition. The only time an army has any tactical advantage with DU ammunition is if your enemy doesn’t have it, but due to the ease of constructing DU ammo, it is obvious that it won’t be long before every major military has armed themselves with DU ammunition. Hence, in the long run DU will become obsolete. It is better to put more research into defensive/offensive tactics rather than destructive weaponry.
In conclusion, war is a last alternative and its side effects should be limited as much as possible, especially for the innocent civilians. However, regardless of what the international community does to stop the use of DU ammo, the research into harmful military technologies will only continue to increase! There is simply too much money, power, and politics involved! It is up to the people to obligate themselves in becoming more aware of such actions by higher authorities. It is up to the people to exercise their democratic powers so as to keep their governments and their affiliated branches in check.
1. “120mm Ammunition.” FAS (Federation of American Scientists): Military Analysis Network. 3/8/2002.
2. Bertell, Rosalie. “Gulf War Veterans and Depleted Uranium.” Hague Peace Conference. [May 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://ccnr.org/du_hague.html>
3. “Bullets for Beginners.” FAS (Federation of American Scientists): Military Analysis Network. 3/8/2002.
4. Department of the [US] Army. “Chapter 2 – Hostilities.” U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare. [15 July, 1976]. 3/5/2002. <http://nile.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm>
5. Edwards, Gordon and Chenier, Marc. “Wanted: An Ethical Stance Against Depleted Uranium Weapons.” The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. 2/27/2002. <http://www.ccnr.org/du_ethics.html>
6. Kirby, Alex. “A Soldier’s Experience.” BBC News. [10 June, 1999]. 2/22/2002.
7. Kirby, Alex. “Depleted Uranium: The Lingering Poison.” BBC News. [7 June, 1999]. 2/22/2002.
8. Kirby, Alex. “Depleted Uranium: The Next Generation.” BBC News. [18, January, 2001]. 2/22/2002. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1122000/1122566.stm>
9. “M829 120mm, APFSDS – T.” FAS (Federation of American Scientists): Military Analysis Network. 3/6/2002.
10. “M919 Cartridge 25mm, Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot, with Tracer (APFSDS – T).” FAS (Federation of American Scientists): Military Analysis Network. 3/6/2002.
11. “Should NATO’s Uranium Weapons be Banned?” BBC News. [16 January, 2001]. 2/22/2002.
12. “The Military Uses of DU.” BBC News. 2/22/2002. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsod_1108000/1108058.stm>
13. “What is Depleted Uranium?” 2/27/2002. <http://cadu.members.gn.apc.org/whatisdu.htm>
14. Zajic, Vladimir S. “Review of Radioactivity, Military Use, and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://vzajic.tripod.com>
14a) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 1 – Radioactivity.” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://vzajic.tripod.com/1stchapter.html#top>
14b) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 2 – Origins” [1 August, 1999].
14c) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 3 – Applications” [1 August, 1999].
14d) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 4 – Manufacturers” [1 August, 1999].
14e) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 5 – Ammunition Testing” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://vzajic.tripod.com/5thchapter.html#top>
14f) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 6 – Combat and Accidents” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://vzajic.tripod.com/6thchapter.html#top>
14g) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 7 – Radiological Effects” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://vzajic.tripod.com/7thchapter.html#top>
14h) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 8 – Chemical Toxicity” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. <http://vzajic.tripod.com/8thchapter.html#top>
14i) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 9 – Gulf War Illness” [1 August, 1999].
14j) Zajic, Vladimir S. “Chapter 10 – Conclusion” [1 August, 1999].
15. “Depleted Uranium Legacy.” Right Livelihood Foundation. Earth Island Journal. v16 i4 (2001): 22
16. “What is [depleted] uranium.” 2/27/2002. <http://www.balkansyndrome.com/depleteduranium.html>
17. Kirby, Alex. “Q&A: Depleted Uranium Weapons.” BBC News. 2/22/2002. <http://news.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1101000/1101447.stm>
18. Koppel, Naomi. “UN Scientists: Yugoslavia still contaminated by depleted uranium three years after NATO bombing.” Associated Press. March 27, 2002.
19. Arkin, William M. “Still Glowing.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. V53 n5 (1997): 64.
20. “No ammunition with depleted uranium in Russia army – official.” ITAR/TASS News Agency. January 11, 2001.