Depleted Uranium ... shouldn't this violate some sort of treaty?

Factual Questions
1

The U.S. miltary began employing armor-piercing rounds (and tank armor) made with depleted uranium (U-238) in combat during the Gulf War. The reason for its use–it’s just about the densest metal on earth, and can slice through most tank armor like butter (which is why they also armored our tanks with it). Here’s a link for some background:

http://www.TheNation.com/issue/970526/0526mesl.htm

Now, the stuff is radioactive. While it sits in unexploded rounds or intact tank armor, it’s not dangerous. But as soon as it hits something, shrapnel, dust, etc., goes everywhere. The upshot is that a conventional weapon becomes a radiologic one with long-term effects.

I’m sure we’d catch hell if we dusted an enemy army/city with radioactive fallout. Why doesn’t anyone complain about the DU bullets, whose bits and pieces linger in soil and flesh for years?

2

DU does violate just about every nuclear treaty ever made. I believe France had bitched about it, as well as Iraq and Serbia, but noone’s tried to make the U.S. stop using the stuff. Incidentally, DU is dangerous to people on both ends of it. The guys who work in A1 Abrams tanks (which use DU armor), and the A10 Thunderbolt pilots (who fire DU bullets) have some hideously high rate of cancer and lukemia from sitting around next to all this mildly radioactive stuff. DU ammo has probably killed more pilots and muntion handlers than enemy troops, and DU armor has probably killed more tank crews than it has saved.

Also, the cluster bombs that we used in Kosovo are supposed to be outlawed as well, because something like 10% of the bomblets don’t explode on impact. You can imagine what happens when children find the brightly colered capsules lying around.

3

Depleted Uranium (DU) is radioactive but not very much. Perhaps strapping several DU bullets to your teticles for a few months may make you sterile but I’m not even sure about that.

According to the link below the hazard in DU lays in inhaling Uranium ‘dust’ created by the vaporization of the bullet when it impacts a target. Uranium is a heavy metal and pretty toxic but then again so is lead and bullets have been made out of lead for years.

4

Diceman–Do you have any cites for that statement? While I am able to believe the US government is capable of many dastardly deeds it’s not in the government’s interest to kill its own soldiers this way. If not for humanitarian reason then that it’s expensive to train troops.

In addition, it should be insanely easy for a statistician to take a quick look at anyone involved with Abrams tanks and see that most of them drop dead (or get very sick) shortly after leaving the service. I just don’t see how even the government trying some big cover-up could keep a lid on this if what you say is true.

5

I looked at Toadspittle’s link. Perhaps I exagerated the dangers, but check out this site:
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/bertell_book.html.
Apparently, some doctors think that DU may be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome, or one of the causes. Supporting this belief are the facts that

(1)The Gulf War is the first war where DU was used in any capacity,
(2)Nothing like Gulf War Syndrome has ever been seen in any previous war,
(3)GWS seems to be a mostly US problem,
(4)The US is the only country that uses DU, and
(5)The US gov’t is blocking all attempts by the UN to study the health effects of DU.

I’ll admit it’s not conclusive evidence, but there is a strong circumstantial case for not wanting to be on either end of a DU bullet. The cellphones-cause-cancer and secondhand-smoke-causes-cancer crowds would kill for a connection like this (figuratively speaking). I’d be interested to hear from anyone who’s heard of any Kosovo War vets experiencing GWS-like problems. That’s the only war besides the Gulf War where DU ammo was used.

6

So DU causes cancer, and/or Gulf Lore Syndrome? Were you aware that the incidence of cancer in troops deployed in the Persian Gulf during the war is far below that of the comparable civilian population (according to studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine, not on some guy’s web site)?

How about the fact that the largest study (over one million Gulf vets) published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found them to be healthier than the comparable population. This is just one in a long series of studies which found that Gulf War vets have no exceptional rates of illness or death.

So if DU is responsible for the state of health of Gulf vets, where can I get some?

7

The Gulf War may have been the first war that DU rounds were used, but the US has had said rounds in the arsenal for a few years before that. Why did the said symptoms not begin to surface before the war?

8

Look at any website run be a veteran’s group. They will disagree with you very strongly, and most list studies that contradict the study you site. Strangly, these studies are not funded by the government :confused:.

As for vets being healthier than normal people: NO DUH, SHERLOCK! Noone’s saying that most Gulf War vets have GWS. But several thousand have developed chronic fatigue, muscle pain, memory loss, and other chronic symptoms since the war. There are quite a few guys that went from healthy and active to weak and sickly during the war or very shortly after.

The issue isn’t massive, Hiroshima-style nuclear irradiation, but rather long-term exposure to lower-level radiation. The US military had DU for a few years before the Gulf War. It has half the radiation of the stuff you find in a nuclear reactor, and I seriously doubt that a thin layer of steel will completely block the radiation from it. The Gulf War was the first time DU bullets were actually fired in large numbers, and it occurred around the time that you might begin to see the effects of spending years sitting next to mildly radioactive stuff. The issue hasn’t been proven, but please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting that is on the same level as believing in flying saucers.

9

“How about the fact that the largest study (over one million Gulf vets) published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found them to be healthier than the comparable population. This is just one in a long series of studies which found that Gulf War vets have no exceptional rates of illness or death.” - CurtC

“Look at any website run be a veteran’s group.” - Diceman

“…please don’t insult my intelligence…” - Diceman

That would be hard to do.

10

Oh, I’m insulted. I think I’ll go postal now…

Go to the BBQ Pit, asshole.

11

Ummmm On my mantle I have several dozen scrap pieces of DU about the size of a Hershey Kiss as well as a big chunk the size of my forearm. Geigered it the day after it was “used” and there was nary a blip. Been six years and I have no tail, third eye, etc.

12

First, it’s no surprise that there are quite a few guys who went from healthy to sick during and after the deployment. There were well over a million servicemen there, and in any population that size there will be many people who get very sick.

You’re right that there are more Gulf vets suffering from these symptoms than the general population. However, these are not generally associated with any specific disease, but all are symptoms associated with stress (in other words, psychosomatic ones). Every military conflict has returning soldiers struggling with stress - after WWII, we called it “shell shock”. After Vietnam, it was “post traumatic stress disorder”.

The difference with Gulf vets is the reluctance to lay the blame on stress, but to point to some chemical or radiation as the source. And the stress isn’t over - the popular media is still contributing to their stress by telling healthy vets that they have something serious to worry about.

13

Grendel: What unit were you in? Do you know anyone who thinks they have Gulf War Syndrome? Have you heard of any pattern in GWS victims (ie, branch of service, type of unit, where they saw action)?

I’ll admit that my cancer/leukemia comments were basically old memories and rumors I’d heard, but after reading arguments from both sides, I think that the DU/GWS syndrome connection is unproven, but more reasonable than the military brass would like people to believe. Remember, it is in the government’s interest to deny any and all connections, because if one is proven it’ll be lawsuit city and be impossible to find people willing to work with DU.

Do I think the military would expose it’s soldiers to long-term harm? Hell yes. The guys who worked on the B-2 bombers at Groom Lake (aka Area 51) are now suing the Air Force because noone told them how toxic the chemicals used in the plane’s maintenence are. Alot of the early workers have chronic and acute toxic exposure, and their health is destroyed. For years the government denied any connection between their health problems and their work, but they’ve since admitted that they knew about the connection all along. (In case you’re wondering how I know this, I took classes from a professor who helped design the stealth material. He admitted that the B-2’s potential was drastically exaggerated to get Congress to cough up the money for them.)

14

DU armor and shells have lower radiation levels than the radiation from high performance computer processors. You have a higher risk of getting cancer from constant exposure to radiation waves from your processor than from DU. If you’re so concerned about the health hazards of radiation, turn off your computer, stay away from your TV, avoid microwave ovens, and don’t go outside.

And are you sure the A-10 is designated “Thunderbolt” and not “Warthog”? Or were there different versions with different designations? Or is it both?

15

[pointless nitpick]

Monster 104 - the A-10’s designation is “Thunderbolt II”. “Warthog” is just a nickname.

Diceman, are you sure the M-1 uses DU armour? I thought DU was only used in the sabot shells carried as ammunition?

[/pointless nitpick]

16

Since you brought up funding sources, most of the studies I’m aware of which report something concrete associated with GWS are funded by that 33rd-degree conspiracy nut, Ross Perot. I’m here in the Dallas area and have to hear about it all the time.

17

Diceman, are you sure the M-1 uses DU armour? I thought DU was only used in the sabot shells carried as ammunition?
Here’s a link that mentions its uses in armor:

http://www.rama-usa.org/du01.htm#exposures

“Several friendly fire incidents involving M1A1 tanks proved that DU rounds can also pierce depleted uranium armor. But due, in part, to the fact that the Iraqis did not have depleted uranium penetrators in their arsenal, not one U.S. tank was destroyed by Iraqi tank fire.”
A report with an agenda, of course, but I think it’s probably reliable enough on this point (DU armor vs. no DU armor).

18

Nope, simply a civvie :slight_smile:

19

Dang. Whoa. Heavens. I have been really out of the loop on armored fighting vehicle design. I would never have imagined anyone would use uranium as armor, since I figured strength, not weight, was the key with armor (hence all the titanium and ceramic armors). But maybe uranium is fairly strong too (this would explain why lead is never used as armor).

One question: what is depleted uranium? I have the laymen’s definition of it, but I’m wondering, is it an isotope, or a mixture, or what? What’s the difference between depleted uranium and the stuff you get out of a uranium mine? I had thought the ore was enriched before it was used as a power source, and then “unenriched” itself over time. So, is depleted uranium just the same thing, more or less, that you’d find in the ground? Which one is U238? Which one is U235?

My personal opinion is, it’s just not worth it. Maybe with a naval close-in weapon, where the ammunition can be stored away from humans, and the projectile fragments are diluted by an ocean, it could be worth it. Even then, though, it seems like naval cannon have relatively easy tasks, in terms of penetration. So I guess you’d have to compare the difficult of a 20mm penetrating a cruise missile skin, with the difficulty of a 120mm penetrating a tank.

Sure, DU has its advantages. One set of estimates (admittedly, it’s older than the hills - 1983) put the penetration of a 120mm APFSDM round as one inch more than a 120mm APFSDS round at most ranges. (I suppose DM stands for “discarding sabot depleted uranium core”, which I can’t blame them for abbreviating.) Maybe newer studies estimate the penetration difference as greater. In any case, I’d think that with modern materials (tungsten), shaped charges, and squash-head rounds would be enough armor-defeating options for even a major power.

toadspittle, I don’t even know how many U.S. tanks were hit by enemy tank fire. Does the report say how many? I kinda thought the answer was about zero, given superior fire control, higher velocity rounds, and better training on the Allied side.

20

I think my “what is uranium” question comes off a little stupider than it should. Obviously, uranium ore would have impurities in it (tin, silicon, styrofoam packing kernels from Pre-Cambrian civilizations, etc.) I meant, what’s the difference between spent U and the purified stuff you get out of the ground.