Originally posted by JesseJames
I didn't realize pseudobrit was a munitions expert. 
There just might be a few individuals who read this newsgroup who actually are.
I've read through this thread and rolled my eyes -- a lot of these arguements have come up before, and have been debunked. Others are simply rediculously ignorant.
For example, from the original URL:
>Rokke told the Sunday Herald: 'A nation's military personnel
>cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to
> persons and the environment and then ignore the
> consequences of their actions.
>
>'To do so is a crime against humanity.
> ...
>He called on the US and UK to 'recognize the immoral
> consequences of their actions and assume responsibility
>for medical care and thorough environmental remediation'.
>
>He added: 'We can't just use munitions which leave a toxic
> wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately.
>
>'It is equivalent to a war crime.'
Now if we interpret this literally, it means that we are obligated to ban
all heavy metals - not just DU - and the implication is that this would include both Tungsten and Lead, which includes virutally all pistol & rifle bullets made in all of the countries of the world for the past 200-500 years.
Similarly, if we interpret this along the lines of what the EPA says, then we must cease all NOx emissions (see DOT nasty tailpipe emissions from automobiles), which means that you now have to ban all vehicles from the battlefield, as well as all of the single, double, and triple based propellants, and High Explosives.
This pretty much leaves you with bayonettes, sticks and rocks to fight with...oh, and the Bow & Arrow. Now do we really honestly think that will happen?
Particularly since the Hague and Geneva conventions haven't had a Law of War problem with using these now-known carcinogens for the past century?
Moving on, the question of DU has been studied as per its suitability under the Law of War for years, including environmental effects in the Kosovo conflict. Despite these years of legal reviews, it still has not been declared illegal, despite any claims to the contrary from some uknown quack website.
Finally, if we look at the issue from an objective and scientific standpoint, we know that your personal greatest risk of cancer due to radiation stems from your environmental exposure to Potasium, specifically K-40. The average person incurs an average dose of ~18 mrem a year from K-40, which is roughly half of their annual radiation dose.
Now here's an interesting one: this average dose increases if you're married and sleep next to your spouse, because just like you, they're slightly radioactive too!
And yet we also know that statistically, married men live several years longer than unmarried men, which either infers that "radiation is good for you", or that the cancer risk from this level of radiation is far, far, far outweighed by lifestyle choice.
Now if we get down into the science of the DU risk, sure there's one. And pragmatically, there is a real concern of possible health effects from vaporized DU from its impact on armor. However, the first thing that we have to take into account is that the potential "victim" of this long term cancer risk is the enemy soldier inside of that tank, and we're not trying to give him a 1% higher chance of cancer 20 years from now, but we're trying to kill him outright, right now.
We have to understand that much of the Law of War specifically focuses on the concept of "Unnecessary Suffering" in the employment of force.
The legally determined inference of this statement is that some suffering is necessary and thus, allowed. As such, even potentially long term adverse health effects can be considered to be acceptable, if they were otherwise unintended, within the context that the soldier was at least fortunate enough the initial attack that was trying to kill him outright.
Now as a responsible country, we do need to determine if there is any reasonably significant health & environmental impact on Joe Farmer who comes along 2-10 years after that battle. However, it is already been determined that that "innocent civilian"s wellbeing is much strongly affected by the presence of UXO (Unexploded Ordinance) than it is by the health effects of farming on DU contaminated land.
BTW, in case you're wondering why DU is used in the first place, its not because the military likes to use more expensive materials. It is because it has some very unique material properties in its shear stresses that effectively makes it
"self-sharpening", which lets it penetrate more armor. This characteristic is provides the military need, which is what supports its legal use from a Law of War standpoint: greater effectiveness is justified through the friendly lives it saves.
Overall, my friendly recommendation is to never trust any oversimplistic claims on issues in general, and especially this one. DU has been a hot button issue that's creates a lot more obscuring smoke than actual clarity on the issue, often because it is really a smoke screen of convenience that's being exploited as part of a different political agenda. Be wary of those who hide their real agendas behind emotionally charged issues.
-hh
