In war, the advantages of Depleted Uranium munitions are many. However many people oppose its use.

The United States and its NATO allies maintain that Depleted Uranium dust (a by-product) doesn't cause cancer and birth defects, however, 136 countries are citing other research saying that it does.

Which side do you think is right?


Here is the wikipedia entry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

War is a gray area where the side that is right is usually the side that wins the war.

I think you use everything and anything to your advantage to win without your own warriors dying.  If we (Americans) use it and we save lives, that's fine.  If we don't and more people die, that's too bad.

But if the people creating/handling it get cancer, organ failures or dna mutations does that still constitute a saved life?
Id agree with the rest of the world, its not unusual for the usa to have results that contradict everyone else, i sometimes wonder whether the government manipulates the results.
That being said, i have no idea how radioactive that stuff is, technically everything is radioactive, even grass, it just takes a certain dose for negative effects to occur.
Id imagine this stuff is a good few becquerels though.
The effective dose absorbed would be the deciding factor though, those using it would probably get a decent hit, if they do get too much there could be lawsuits, there are international laws on allowed doses, if its proven the us military has inadvertantly been pushing the threshold anyone thats used the stuff can claim.

There is a fair amount of evidence that suggests DU is hazardus, like the rate of birth defects/deformities that skyrocketed  in Iraq after America left hundreds of tons of it lying around. It is one thing to expose members of the military to depleted uranium but once innocent civilians are exposed to DU it becomes a war crime going against the treaties of the Geneva Conventions.

Here is a quote I pulled from the World Health Organization's website.

"Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used."

The stuff is hazardous. The A-Bomb was effective... doesn't mean it was a good idea to use it.

Honestly, I don't think that we should be using nuclear material of any kind in war. It

Elara : does it stand for something or has the end of your reply dropped off?
And i would generaly agree with both the statements against.

Looks like it dropped off but I will be darned if I can remember what I had typed.