http://janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/idr/idr010509_1_n.shtml
Depleted Uranium ammuntion is known for its lethal piercing property through any category of armour. It is one and a half times denser than lead.
[This message has been edited by Abdullah k (edited May 17, 2001).]
Abay, tameez nahi hai kiya? Tasweer post nahi karna aati? hamara time khamkhawa meiN zaya karna hota hai?
Seems like I have spent out my brain in hacking..can't even post teh darn picture.
abay meree jaan sabar..
Depleted uranium (DU) was utilized in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq. In collaboration with Iraq’s Ministry of Health department, the World Health Organization has embarked upon a comprehensive study to assess the effects of DU upon civilian populations.
During the 1991 ‘Gulf War’, U.S. and British planes shot 320 tons of ammunition made with DU (~900,000 rounds), in both Iraq and Kuwait.
DU - which remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years (refer to sources at the end of post) - does not discriminate between tanks and children. DU dust can be carried thousands of miles in any direction via the atmosphere.
It is sad indeed that, in this article, not one mention is made of the consequences of DU upon human beings. But it is even more sadder that Pakistan has decided to produce this substance which is claiming the lives of literally millions of innocent children in Iraq, Kuwait, and Kosovo, and will most certainly affect future generations of completely innocent civilians. The fact that the Pakistani National Development Complex is developing such a weapon should be cause of the deepest concern and shame for us Pakistanis.
Sources:
“Global spread of DU reaches food chain”, Sunday Herald, 18 May 2001 http://www.sundayherald.com/news/newsi.hts?section=News&story_id=15480
“After Desert Storm: Cancer In The Garden Of Eden”, Hartford Courant, 23 October 2000 http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?bfromind=1951&eeid=3303357&eetype=article&render=y&ck=&ver=2.8
If world was a perfect place, then we wouldn't have to adopt these measures. Unfortunately, it's not. Our national security outweighs any harmful effects which might be caused by DU. Same principle applies to nuclear weapons.
Abdullah K said
Our national security outweighs any harmful effects which might be caused by DU.
This bro, I dont agree with. Our national security is a prime issue, yes, but cannot come at the cost havoc being played with the lives of civilians. This is an MO used by some of the most barbaric countries of the world, i-e USA, Israel and UK, where they have repeatedly used DU weapons and poisonous gases on civilian populations. We dont want to join their ranks.
However, I dont disagree with Pakistan manufacturing this weapon.
For Nadia_H
The main issue is, proper usage. If a weapon is used properly, it will do only what it is supposed to do. If used improperly, even a small rifle will do more harm than good. Look at whats happening in Israel. The Israelis have used M-15 rifles to kill 400+ adults and kids in the last 8 months. And a rifle is nothing compared to a nuclear weapon.
On the same note, nuclear weapons, when used properly, at the right places,(military targets, rather than in the middle of cities), will not affect civilian population. If civilian population ventures out into military areas and interacts with such weapons, thats a mistake on their part. Fact is, we encounter more radiation through our microwave ovens, tv screens and computer monitors on a daily basis that we should expect to from DU weapons fired in military areas. The problem with the Kosovo war was that the british and american allies fired DU weapons right into civilian populations. Same with Iraq.
With weapons comes responsibility. And not every army is a responsible one in this world.
If world was a perfect place, then we wouldn’t have to adopt these measures. …Our national security outweighs any harmful effects which might be caused by DU.
Abdullah - I am truly sorry for stating this, but the first sentence in particular appears more a cop-out than anything else. Developing DU weapons has nothing whatsoever to do with our “national security” concerns and everything to do with deriving lucrative financial contracts with other countries. This “national security” concern argument sounds frighteningly similar to statements regularly spewed out by the US State Department to defend its genocidal policies against Iraq.
If a weapon is used properly, it will do only what it is supposed to do.
Akif - What is the ‘proper’ way to use a DU weapon? There is no feasible manner in which DU will not adversely affect civilian populations. The DU that was used in Iraq by the US and its coalition approximately ten years ago is carried in the air throughout the country; as Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, an Iraqi cancer specialist and member of Britain’s Royal College of Physicians, has stated, “The dust carries death”. Even according to NATO itself, the “Inhalation of insoluble depleted uranium dust particles has been associated with long-term health effects including cancers and birth defects”, (source at end of post).
…nuclear weapons, when used properly, at the right places,(military targets, rather than in the middle of cities), will not affect civilian population.
In Iraq, some (but not all) military facilities are located in the desert region; these regions are not uninhabited: bedouin and shepherd families do reside in these areas.
Furthermore, the nature of DU is such that it is capable of travelling through the air for literally thousands of miles. Yes it would be ideal if ALL military targets were located in truly isolated spots, but this is not always the case (and certainly not in Iraq). It is always the innocents who pay the ultimate price for the murderous policies of their governments.
If civilian population ventures out into military areas and interacts with such weapons, thats a mistake on their part.
Unless someone is suicidal, I seriously doubt any civilian intentionally visits a military area that is known to be a DU-contaminated region. Also, many children in Kosovo and Iraq have been known to pick up DU-contaminated debris that they find lying around their residences. Children being children, it is extremely difficult to monitor all their activities on a 24-hour basis.
The problem with the Kosovo war was that the british and american allies fired DU weapons right into civilian populations. Same with Iraq. With weapons comes responsibility.
In my opinion despite the fact that the US and UK administrations are the ones who actually utilized DU in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq, that does not in anyway absolve DU-producing countries because these countries know full well what consequences their weaponry is going to have. Particularly tragic when one considers that an Islamic country, Pakistan, is developing a weapon that is claiming the lives of its Muslim brothers and sisters in other Islamic countries.
And not every army is a responsible one in this world.
Precisely. Pakistan should admit to itself that the most enthusiastic purchaser of its DU weapons will be none other than the country with the most irresponsible and murderous army in the world today: the US. Despite fully realizing this, if we choose to still produce DU weapons, then that makes us horrendously guilty as well.
Responsibility lies on all sides: those who produce (Pakistan) and those who use (UK and US).
Source: New Statesman, “Iraq: the great cover up”, John Pilger, 22 January 2001, http://www.consider.net/library.php3?Action=Record&searchStart=1&searchRange=10&
searchWriter=&searchContent=John+Pilger&sear
chSection=&searchDayFrom=&searchMonthFrom=&s
earchYearFrom=&searchDayTo=&searchMonthTo=&
searchYearTo=&URN=200101220006
[This message has been edited by Nadia_H (edited May 18, 2001).]
Akif - What is the 'proper' way to use a DU weapon? There is no feasible manner in which DU will not adversely affect civilian populations. The DU that was used in Iraq by the US and its coalition approximately ten years ago is carried in the air throughout the country;
I answered this question in my previous post as well...that is because the US bombed Iraqi civilian targets. The purpose of the US was not to dislodge the Iraqi army. Their purpose was to mesmerize their economy. Which is why they bombed civilian targets as opposed to military targets. Take a look at Kosovo, and the same MO was repeated. Of the thousands of cruise missiles that were fired, only a handful hit proper military targets.
In Iraq, some (but not all) military targets are located in the desert region; these regions are not uninhabited: bedouin and shepherd families do reside in these areas.
My point exactly.....the civilian population was targeted...and Saddam was barbaric enough to have intentionally positioned his military hardware in close proximity to civilian population.
Yes it would be ideal if military targets were located in truly isolated spots, but this is not always the case (and certainly not in Iraq).
Right...and in such a situation, where military targets are not located in truly isolated spots, would simple rifles and machine guns and tank shells do just as much harm to civilian population as would DU? If civilians are in cross fire, they will be affected, whether they are being shot with DU weapons, or rifles.
Also, many children in Kosovo and Iraq have been known to pick up DU-contaminated debris that they find lying around their residences. Children being children, it is extremely difficult to monitor all their activities on a 24-hour basis.
True...but again, thats directly because the shells were right there in the middle of civilization, and that was more a fault of the NATO shooters than anyone else.
In my opinion despite the fact that the US and UK administrations utilized DU in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq, that does not in anyway absolve DU-producing countries because these countries know full well what consequences their weaponry is going to have. Particularly tragic when one considers that Pakistan, an Islamic country, is developing a weapon that is claiming the lives of its Muslim brothers and sisters in other Islamic countries.
I dont see any comparison of Pakistan to US and UK. First, the reasons are entirely different. US and UK go for more weapons for offense and control. Pakistan is going for it for defence and stability. The motives are entirely different, so its unfair to compare the two. Besides, why would you automatically assume that Pakistan is going to sell it to someone who is going to use it against the Muslims of the world? Whyd u think US, of all countries in the world, would be buying DU weapons from Pakistan?
As far as destruction of life and property is concerned, it happens with guns just as much as it does with DU. Its the responsible use of a weapon that differentiates between professionalism and barbarianism.
There is no concrete scientific proof that DU emmeits enough radiation to cause cancer. Mind you that the DU projectile does not explode upon impact while disintegrating desired target. It's only a penetrator because of its high density. The resulting fragments from an impact ignites the armour vehicle almost destroying it immediately.
Whether the weapon should be used for self-defence or sold to allied countries, it's a whole different issue. I think there is no co-relation between the sufferings of Iraqi people and Pakistan developing weapons which involve DU technology. The tragic circumstances were certainly not the result of Pakistan origin ammunition.
The fact remains that military strategy in Pakistan should always revolve around neutralizing evil mannouvers of the enemy. Tactical advantage can only be achieved by developing sophisticated weapons which will not only enhance war readiness but also repel enemy from engaging into direct confrontation.
Nadia,
I am afraid you are approaching this from an essentially non-islamic point of view. While I understand where you are coming from and also I appreciate the situation involving Iraq and other places and hence the work of those engaged in helping those place in all ways and believe me also the anti-arms stand, I am afraid it still is a bit flawed viewpoint from an Islamic point of view.
Personally I think that although most of us would have mixed feelings about peaceful and anti-arms standpoints especailly when we consider our national needs, it is quite possible to adjust those ideals according to islamic teachings and continue pursuing them from that perspective.
I am sure you are aware of Islam’s view in such matters.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
I hope this made some sense.
This is just another example which poses the billion dollar question. Does acquiring/prodcuing such weapons of mass distruction make Pakistan a more secure place?
The essential question is of deterrance and safety of civilians.
Will having this weapon mean we won't be attacked?
Will the present command-and-operation infrastructure ensure that Pakistan will be able to avoid any 'accidents' due to this weapon?
If all these questions are answered satisfactorily, then the last question is: Should Pakistan go ahead and start selling this technology to friendly countries to make money and to provide a good source of deterrence to our friends?
Abdullah - Some points re your post (many apologies in advance for the length of this post, but you raise very serious issues re whether or not DU actually emits sufficient radiation to cause cancer; I wanted to address your comments in-depth):
Professor Doug Rokke (during the ‘Gulf War’, worked as the 12th Preventive Medicine Command health physicist; was a member of Bauer’s Raider’s, the 3rd US Army Medical Command Theatre nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare special operations planning and teaching team; between 1994-1995 served as the Depleted Uranium Project Director in the US Army): “What we found [in Iraq] can be explained in three words: ‘Oh my God’…The possible hazards [of DU munitions] were known before the…Gulf War. In 1943, a letter from the Manhattan Project to Brigadier General Groves who was in charge of the project discusses the use of DU as a…gas warfare instrument for inhalation and ingestion…In 1943 they knew explicity that the deliberate release of uranium dust would cause respiratory problems within days of anybody exposed and permanent lung damage…I’m here to confirm it 100%…My team members are dead…Iraqis are dead, British [military personnel] are dying, children are dying…Let’s make something clear. The [Gulf] war was a complete toxic battlefield.”<1> Professor Doug Rokke now has 5000 times the permissible level of radiation in his body.<2>
Dr. Huda S. Ammash (obtained her PhD from the Univ. of Missouri; currently a professor at Baghdad University): “Upon impact, DU penetrators oxidize rapidly, spreading toxic uranium oxide dust particles. If a person inhales or ingests DU, it enters into the bloodstream and then can circulate throughout the whole body. Prolonged internal exposure to radiation may cause severe health problems, including cancers (mainly leukemia and lung and bone cancer); pulmonary and lymph node fibrosis; pneumoconiosis; inhibition of reproductive activities; chromosomal changes; depletion of the body’s immune system; and finally death.”<3>
According to Emmy-award winning journalist and filmmaker, John Pilger, in 1993 the UK’s Ministry of Defence admitted that it was “aware of the hazards of depleted uranium”, and, “with the US Defence Department, made videotapes for training British and American troops. These [tapes] left little doubt of the risks, but were never released.”<4>
According to Pilger (again), Iraqi children are “suffering from leukaemia on a scale equal to that of Hiroshima - the consequence of the use of depleted uranium shells by the Americans and British in 1991”<5>; “…Professor Hari Sharma, a world authority on depleted uranium, says: ‘The danger is equal to that of a long-term weapon of mass destruction. The inhalation of even the smallest dust particle may cause irreparable cell damage in unprotected people, resulting in a cancer epidemic that over time could kill thousands of of the exposed.’”<6>
According to a UK-based newspaper, 500,000 Iraqi children have contracted cancer since 1991.<7>
According to a Connecticut-based newspaper, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified DU as an “internal radiation hazard” that may cause cancer and hereditary effects; DU’s use at a firing range in Scotland has been linked to the “highest rate of childhood leukemia” in the UK; when DU is “fired as ammunition at a hard target, some scientists say, it creates a fine ceramic aerosol that can travel for miles and, if taken into the body, may stay indefinitely”; a 1990 report by the US Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command suggested “a potential link with cancer”; in Kosovo in 1999, a United Nations Environment Programme task force recommended “blocking public access to areas where depleted uranium ammunition was fired and warning local populations of possible risks and safety precautions.”<8>
Dr. Asaf Durakovic (nuclear medicine professor at Washington’s Georgetown University): when fired, DU becomes “part of atmospheric dust…some of those particles were inhaled and stayed in the lungs, where they can cause cancer, and some entered into the bloodstream and affected kidneys and bones”; his team of American and Canadian scientists “are still finding life-threatening levels of depleted uranium in Gulf War veterans”; the uranium can “destroy proteins, enzymes and DNA, damage lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs and kidneys, and cause cancer - as well as massive problems for fetuses”.<9>
In 1999, the UK-based Guardian newspaper conducted its own investigation into DU, which “involved talking to doctors all over central and southern Iraq - inspecting maternity logs, birth defect registers and personal records taken by midwives and paediatricians.” They describe their results as follows: “…a terrifying pattern has emerged. There has been a clear increase in birth defects, ranging from thalidomide-type deformities to entire villages where the children of different families are being born blind or with internal congenital defects in the heart and lungs.”<10>
Sources:
"Saddam was barbaric enough to have intentionally positioned his military hardware in close proximity to civilian population."
Akif - Lawlessness of one kind never justifies lawlessness of another.
...where military targets are not located in truly isolated spots, would simple rifles and machine guns and tank shells do just as much harm to civilian population as would DU? If civilians are in cross fire, they will be affected, whether they are being shot with DU weapons, or rifles.
Yes, you are right, to some extent. However, I am very uncomfortable with comparing rifles, machine guns, or tank shells to DU weapons. The latter is a weapon that goes on killing well past the time all the military personnel have left, well past the time when the last bullet has been fired. In a reply to Abdullah (above), I have discussed at length some of the long-term, genetic consequences of using DU - these weapons are much, much more deadlier in their consequences than rifles and tanks combined.
I dont see any comparison of Pakistan to US and UK. First, the reasons are entirely different. US and UK go for more weapons for offense and control. Pakistan is going for it for defence and stability. The motives are entirely different, so its unfair to compare the two.
In my opinion, there is still absolutely no need for Pakistan (or any other country for that matter) to produce weapons of a devastating nature such as DU weapons. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the DU weapons that Pakistan is developing will never be utilized against a Muslim population. Fine. That doesn't make it any less wrong; children are children everywhere, whether they be Pakistani or Indian. The effects of DU weapons are horrendous, and it is the civilians who will pay the worst price. This may sound like 'blasphemy' to some, but I don't support Pakistan producing DU weapons even if it is to 'protect' itself from India. Future generations of completely innocent Indian children would then be born with unspeakable birth defects and abnormalities -in my opinion, nothing justifies this.
As far as destruction of life and property is concerned, it happens with guns just as much as it does with DU.
Again if you have time, please refer to my reply to Abdullah (above), because it discusses some of the effects of DU. DU causes much more destruction of life than guns do.
Its the responsible use of a weapon that differentiates between professionalism and barbarianism.
I am really trying to understand where you're coming from, Akif, but I still cannot condone the production of any DU weapon. If someone knows that something they are going to create is, without a doubt, going to be responsible for causing cancers, nightmare-like birth defects, etc., and (s)he still goes ahead and produces such a weapon - in my books that makes this person just as guilty as the one who actually does utilize the weapon. DU is not just any other weapon - in a sense, it goes on killing long after the war is officially 'over'. It wreaks unthinkable havoc in the lives of people who have yet to be born, and thus are completely innocent. Pakistan should not be producing such a weapon, regardless of whatever justification the Pakistani government may give.
Ahmed - Firstly, thank you very much, I do appreciate your (kind) attempt at bringing Islam into this. I think this is absolutely critical.
I don't know how (ir)relevant this is to our discussion, and I'm not saying that this is necessarily true about yourself, but I think many people in this forum and the World Affairs Forum think I must have personal connections to Iraq which would explain why I keep harping about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. I know I have no way of proving this, but the truth is that my reasons for opposing DU have nothing whatsoever to do with any personal connections to Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, none of my relatives are married to any Arabs. And since I have lived in an Arab country for a little less than twelve years, I have had first-hand experience of the degrading manner in which many Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Phillipinos, Sri Lankans, etc. etc. are treated in some Arab countries. So what is my point in saying all this? My point is that I am not bringing any personal biases into this issue that would make me favour the people of Iraq, and/or oppose the production of DU weapons because they were used in Iraq. I just wanted to state this for the record and get it straight.
As you know, Islam, in times of war, instructs fighting in self-defense: "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors." (Quran 2:190). As I know you are also aware, Islam has laid down strict rules of combat that include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees and livestock.
Now my opposition against anything that is DU-related only derived after I came to realize the consequences of what DU is capable of. (In an earlier post to Abdullah K, I have discussed DU consequences in some detail). Once a DU weapon has been used, it's not like that's the end of the story - DU continues to adversely affect future generations of innocent civilians for literally thousands (if not millions) of years. Unless a war is occuring on an uninhabited island in the middle of an ocean, civilians WILL be affected by the use of DU weapons. This is not escapable, it is inevitable. Islam prohibits the harming of civilians in times of war. For the purposes of this particular issue, I am not interested in who Pakistan is defending itself against - in so far as civilians are going to be slaughtered, I find endorsing that incompatible with my being a Muslim.
I have been contemplating your post for some time (which is why it has taken me longer than usual to respond) - in all honesty, I fail to see how my perspectives are un-Islamic. Once one becomes familiar with how innocent Iraqi children, and other civilians in Iraq, are suffering due to DU, it is very difficult to endorse the production of such a weapon.
As cliche-ish as this sounds, I think that if you were able to see the nightmare-like conditions that DU is causing in Iraq and see the pain and disbelief in parents' eyes as they are told that their newborn child has an unknown birth defect, I don't think you would call my perspectives unIslamic. I really sometimes wish I had never learned what is happening in Iraq (the effects of DU and so on), because now I have to come to terms with my silence and inaction in the face of one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in our history. Islam has everything to do with why I am opposed to DU: to know what DU is capable of, the endless pain that it costs to both present and future generations of civilians, to realize that my own country, Pakistan, is producing this weapon, and not to speak out against it - I think that is truly unIslamic.
Just like yourself, I don't treat this issue lightly - I have really thought about it a great deal from diverse angles. In all honesty, I do not believe that I am being unIslamic for not encouraging the production of a weapon that causes such suffering - children being born with truly horrific birth defects, entire societies (Iraq and Kosovo) that are now poisoned thanks to DU, parents having to accept the fact that their newborn baby has been born with some organs missing or limbs located where they shouldn't be. I am very proud to identify myself as a Muslim, Ahmed, but I don't want to be a Muslim by name only - Islam places a direct obligation upon me to speak out against all injustices, and from my perspective, the production and utilization of DU is a true crime against innocent populations.
Nadia,
I am sorry for replying so late. Did I mention I was having exams in the past week?
Actually I appreciate a considered reply. I mind hasty imperfect ones.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
**
I wasn’t referring when I said that only to DU but to the general anti-arms stance of your posts. Of course regarding DU I did read the stuff you posted in other replies and I know about it from my own knowledge aswell.
This however was about pakistan’s employing these. The argument that this world is an imperfect place may sound old and weather beaten but it is true and cannot be ignored. Especially in case of Pakistan and the muslim world at large.
I mentioned Islam because it requires us to be prepared always to face the enemies in battlefield. Nadia in the arms trade the muslim world is no where. Weapons produced here are not exported that much if at all.
But that is besides the point, the world as it stands is armed to the teeth. If you were to think about it you’d see that the self defence that you were talking about justifies a lot more armament on the muslim side than the current levels.
Peace is more often won by the presence of a balance, that is an inescapable argument.
Coming back to the topic of dangers to the civilians, in any war those dangers are caused by a lot of stuff and are ever present in the modern battle field. Land-mines can cause this, un-exploded shells from any massive bombardment, tank or artillery barrage can cause loss of life or other damage long after the battle. These are sure to be there in any massive war.
Similarly the weaponry dropped by aircraft from the air can leave loads of un-exploded missiles and bombs all over the place and in unpredictable locations. Once again causing damage to civilians after a battle is over.
Nadia, I am sure you would have heard all this actually taking place in all of the recent wars the world has seen. In Africa,in Europe and in Asia. DU doesn’t even enter this scene. Yes, birth defects are serious, but cancer? Even smoking causes that. Would fumes of other weaponry not?
Briefly put, the spoils of war in the 21st century (indeed 20th)are great and bound to involve civilians, and in no small way either. The battle field in the 20th century has changed entirely, no muslim or 3rd world country has had anything to do with it.
The way wars are fought have been dictated by the west and for muslim countries, especially those faced with great threats to not prepare for such wars is to be left behind, is to be not prepared and perhaps to be annihilated.
And as we have seen in the 20th century, the spoils of war in the 21st century are bound to involve civilian populations in an even greater way. This will not be avoided, and we will have to prepare for it. It was never our choice, but we will have to prepare for it.
We can try to minimize those risks and those eventualities but by how much? We certainly cannot avoid them.
I hope this explains to some extent my viewpoint, but there remains a lot to be said yet.
For example, the effects of DU itself regarding India/Pakistan. I am not sure if you are aware of this but the place where they are likely to be used are border areas of IndoPak border, dominated by desert areas.
Secondly the usage of DU shells in Pakistan army is very limited, infact only the T-80 tanks can use them of which there are only 300+. And DU is only one of many ammunitions used by these. DU will obviously be employed in special circumstances as dictated by their value.
Only last week I watched a TV programme on british usage of these. It did raise my awareness about the problem but one interesting part was this, After complaints by british soldiers of adverse effects of DU the british government decided to limit use of DU to anti-tank situations only.
In pakistan it is already limited to that.
My point being that in the western armies firstly the number of Tanks/artillery/AFVs which use this armament is enormous compared to Pakistan and secondly the tasks these shells are used for are also extensive as highlighted by the british report.
This massive usage will certainly result in the terrible results that we see.
But with a very limited employment in south asia would it be the same?
[This message has been edited by Ahmed (edited May 24, 2001).]