Would the environmental damage from all that shelling be as serious as some parts of the WWI battle areas?
As the type of off-topic question likely to distract from the thread, but a very good question, I spun off a new thread. I look forward to the answer myself.
Reuters had an article about this a few days ago and compared it to WWI France. There’s actually a number of issues: mines & shells left in fields making them hazardous to work, chemical poisoning from exploded weapons and destroyed vehicles, and soil compaction and disruption from vehicles, explosions, etc destroying the organisms and structure that make the soil so fertile. The sad answer is that much of Ukraine’s best farmland will range between unrecoverable to recovery taking decades and billions of dollars.
Some of the damage may arguably be worse, as some shells are more poisonous than they were in WWI. For instance anti-tank shells are often made with depleted uranium, that was not the case then. And mines have been laid in civilian environements, they did not do this much in France, but they have done so a lot since in many parts of the world.
Is depleted uranium radioactive? What does “depleted” mean in this context?
“Depleted” means “no U-235”. It’s the U-238 that’s left over when you extract the fissile 235U.
It’s refined natural uranium depleted of most of the nuclear-fuel isotope.
And it is still radioactive, but less so than natural uranium.
From here:
Even as war rages, Ukraine continues to rank among the world’s top exporters of maize, wheat, sunflowers and other grains, as well as poultry. Exports continue through its Black Sea ports under a U.N.-brokered deal allowing safe passage. But, attracted by the abolition of import tariffs, more grain is also heading westward through the EU’s overland “solidarity lanes.”
It seems like farming should be more disrupted by the war. Google tells me the south and east are main crop growing regions. That’s also where a good chunk of the war is happening.
If the environmental damage is so severe, and I think it will be, why would Russia want this area so badly? Same with the leveled cities and infrastructure. Do they think they are going to lose and are just going ahead with the whole scorched earth thing? ISTM Russia was never really interested in a land-grab to acquire something useful as much as maybe creating a toxic buffer between them and the EU (and just to generally trash a neighbor, because they can).
Because they expected to blitz the capital, install a Russian-friendly regime and control the farmland. Now they’re stuck in this slog to try to save face even if it means destroying everything worth taking if they win.
That’s my take as well. There was going to be a victory parade in Kyiv within a week.
When that didn’t happen, well, shelling is what Russia’s army does best.
Thanks. That makes sense.
While the environmental damage is going to be fairly severe, it’s not going to turn major swathes of the Ukraine into uninhabitable toxic wastelands.
People are resilient. They will clean up the rubble. They will repair the damage to the cities. Take a look at cities that were nearly bombed flat in WWII. They cleaned up and rebuilt.
Yes, farmers will occasionally blow themselves up from accidentally plowing over unexploded ordinance or hidden mines, but farms will still exist and will still grow food. And the food might not be the healthiest stuff to eat. But the health repercussions will be long-term, with reduced lifespans in some areas. People aren’t going to keel over and die the first time they eat food from a field contaminated with depleted uranium or other toxins. Even if you imagine the worst, it’s not going to be anything close to a toxic buffer zone.
People will survive.
Agreed.
what’s different between this and the shelling in WWI, that did in fact make areas of land uninhabitable for the past century?
Sounded until partially terrible until here.
In the EU, they are so over-cautious about their food supply as to ban some GMO seeds. I can’t see food that reduces life expectancy being sold in peacetime Ukraine, much less exported.
What areas? I am not aware of any large areas in Europe that were rendered uninhabitable for more than a short period of time.
See the Zone Rouge link in the OP.
See also this National Geographic story, which estimates the current uninhabitable area as 42,000 acres.
Russia believes Ukraine has always been a part of Russia, and absolutely hates Ukraine because they want no part of Russia. They would like to take its cities and resources, but if they can’t have it, they’ll destroy it as revenge (and a warning to others). See Aleppo, Grozny, etc.
That’s before you add into the mix a dictator who knows he’ll end up at the end of the rope if he ends this with nothing to show for it.
In WWI, they used a lot of poison gas shells. I haven’t heard of that in Ukraine (or in WWII, for that matter). So that may be part of the reason.
WWI also used a lot of heavy metals, though. The links given speak of arsenic contamination. So not just a problem with poison gas contamination.
Are depleted uranium shells only used for specific types of targets (eg anti-tank), or would they be used in regular artillery shelling?