Ukraine Watch...

[UndercoverElephant]

I think Mark's point is that the DU will contaminate Ukraine, not the home country of the aggressor nation.

In which case, is it not Ukraine's decision as to whether or not to use it? They may decide the contamination is a price worth paying to get their country back.

[Mark]

My point is that the DU will contaminate Ukraine for hundred (thousands ?) of years into the future - causing birth defects, increased leukemia rates, affecting the ability to grow foods, etc. etc. etc. DU isn't some 'minor contamination' that can be easily cleaned up...

For the record, I wouldn't want it used on Russia or anybody else either.
Plus, I believe that Russia also has DU capability, so they're bound to respond 'like for like'...

[Mark]

I expect we'll reverse the decision.

I hope your expectations are right, but I suspect not.....

Reading this, we might have already sent the DU shells alongside Challenger 2 tanks....?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65032671

Where is/was the debate on this ????
As I said before - not in my name

[clv101]

Maybe we just see it as a convenient way to dispose of the stuff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Maybe we just see it as a convenient way to dispose of the stuff.

Depleted uranium doesn't pose any huge disposal problems. The radioactivity is not really the problem, because it has had most of the "good" stuff taken out already -- it is just chemically unpleasant, to about the same level as mercury or lead. It will happily sit in a secure facility for the next millenium posing no problem to anybody. It is used because it is very effective at penetrating tanks.

[Mark]

Iraq: War’s legacy of cancer:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013 ... -of-cancer

Saddam is dead and gone....., the DU will be remembered for much longer....

[UndercoverElephant]

Iraq: War’s legacy of cancer:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013 ... -of-cancer

Saddam is dead and gone....., the DU will be remembered for much longer....

That article is so full of weasel words/phrases that it is meaningless.

hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium munitions and other toxic wastes.

How much of the hundred tonnes is DU, and how much is "other toxic wastes". What are these other toxic wastes?

Contamination from Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions and other military-related pollution is suspected

Same problem: "and other military-related pollution" could mean anything, and so could "suspected".

Many prominent doctors and scientists contend that DU contamination is also connected to the recent emergence of diseases that were not previously seen in Iraq, such as new illnesses in the kidney, lungs, and liver,

What does "connected" mean? Why are they "contending" this?

DU contamination may also be connected to the steep rise in leukaemia, renal, and anaemia cases

"may be connected". All sorts of things may be connected to all sorts of other things. This is not telling us anything.

I won't go on. The whole article is written like this. It's useless, sloppy journalism.

[Mark]

Weaponised uranium and adverse health outcomes in Iraq: a systematic review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/

Does this suit you any better UE....?

Spreading DU far and wide is no good for humans or the environment...
We shouldn't be facilitating it...., it's a crime...., the 'ends' do not justify the 'means'....

[UndercoverElephant]

Weaponised uranium and adverse health outcomes in Iraq: a systematic review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903104/

Does this suit you any better UE....?

Yes.

Results

Our searches identified 2601 records, of which 28 met our inclusion criteria. We identified five additional eligible reports from other sources. Two articles reported the results of multiple relevant studies; our final set included 33 articles reporting on 36 eligible studies. Most studies (n=30, 83%) reported a positive association between uranium exposure and adverse health outcomes. However, we found that the reviewed body of evidence suffers from a high risk of bias.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests possible associations between exposure to depleted uranium and adverse health outcomes among the Iraqi population. More primary research and the release of missing data are needed to design meaningful health and policy interventions in Iraq.

"suggests possible associations" is weak. "suffers from a high risk of bias" suggests the evidence may well be misleading. "More primary research and data is needed" means "we don't know."

My position on this is not driven by politics. I like to know what the facts are before making my mind up, and in this case the facts are largely unknown.

Spreading DU far and wide is no good for humans or the environment...
We shouldn't be facilitating it...., it's a crime...., the 'ends' do not justify the 'means'....

Except as your own link demonstrates, we don't actually know what the danger level is. But we do know that DU shells are highly effective at destroying Russian tanks. This is a war.

If I lived in Ukraine, I would prefer the use of DU shells than for the Russian tanks to succeed in their missions. I don't know what gives you the right to decide Ukraine shouldn't have DU shells because it's not in their net interest. That is their choice, not yours or mine or that of the UK government.

[Mark]

If I lived in Ukraine, I would prefer the use of DU shells than for the Russian tanks to succeed in their missions. I don't know what gives you the right to decide Ukraine shouldn't have DU shells because it's not in their net interest. That is their choice, not yours or mine or that of the UK government.

The UK government is very definitely facilitating this by supplying the DU shells.
If the UK didn't supply them, the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to use them - so it's the UK's choice to escalate with DU
I believe I'm correct in saying that the US have refused to supply Ukraine with DU shells, so this move also puts us out on a political limb...

Don't forget, Russia has DU shells as well..., so this is a 2-way street...
If/when Ukraine starts using them, Russia will be firing them back at Ukraine's (our) Challenger 2 tanks...

Using your logic, if Ukraine requested nuclear weapons, we'd be duty bound to supply them.....
Which would be crazy, no ?

[UndercoverElephant]

If I lived in Ukraine, I would prefer the use of DU shells than for the Russian tanks to succeed in their missions. I don't know what gives you the right to decide Ukraine shouldn't have DU shells because it's not in their net interest. That is their choice, not yours or mine or that of the UK government.

The UK government is very definitely facilitating this by supplying the DU shells.

And the Ukrainian government is very definitely free to not use them or ask for them not to be sent.

If the UK didn't supply them, the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to use them

So you know what's best for the Ukrainian people, do you? What gives you (or the UK) the right to decide whether or not Ukraine should have these extremely effective anti-tank munitions?

- so it's the UK's choice to escalate with DU

No. It was the UK's choice to make them available to Ukraine. It was Ukraine's choice to use them, to defend itself from attacks in its own territory. What gives you the right to deny them this choice?

Using your logic, if Ukraine requested nuclear weapons, we'd be duty bound to supply them.....
Which would be crazy, no ?

Why should the same logic apply to nuclear weapons as applies to DU shells? They are obviously very different sorts of weapons.

Again: if I was Ukrainian, I would not be appreciating do-gooders in the UK refusing to send highly effective weapons because they had high and mightily decided in was not in our interest to receive them. What gives you the right to decide what's best for Ukraine?

[BritDownUnder]

I think it is worth sending these weapons to Ukrainians. The tanks shells will be relatively few and used sparingly compared with the DU shells used in Iraq by the automated Gatling gun on the A10 tankbusters. If the Ukrainians don't want to use them they will keep them in stores. They have experience in dealing with Chernobyl so a few knocked out Russian tanks wont be a problem. U238 has a half life of billions of years so is only weakly radioactive, unlike Polonium that the Russians use.

As for giving Ukraine nukes I say why not. They had them in 1991 and agreed to give them to Russia in return for their borders being respected. We all know how well that deal was kept.

I see that President Xi has left without the much vaunted "Peace" deal being announced.

[clv101]

As for giving Ukraine nukes I say why not. They had them in 1991 and agreed to give them to Russia in return for their borders being respected. We all know how well that deal was kept.

I believe they, or at least the fissile material, actually went to the Americans not Russia, all whet through US civilian reactors.

[Vortex2]

As for giving Ukraine nukes I say why not.

Meds not kicked in today?

[Mark]

As for giving Ukraine nukes I say why not.

Meds not kicked in today?

Obviously not.
Machismo and willy waving might be OK in the Outback, but this could lead to MAD (MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION)
NOBODY 'wins' from that.....