Is Depleted Uranium a Chemical weapon?

[sweetheart]

I have read that it can be dangerous to touch a Depleted Uranium bullet.

Many American soldiers and veterans are sick from the DU radiation
poisoning.

I can't help but wonder, that we're using chemical weapons?

Isn't a 2000 pound conventional explosive a WMD? Come on.

It strikes me that all these munitions are chemical weapons WMD's.


DO you think that D-U is a chemical WMD?

DO you think we should be using these Uranium 238 bullets?

Do you know anyone, or are you yourself affected by D-U?

[SanchoPanza]

1. Facts and Legalities

Are DU penetrators munitions that have dangerous properties similar to chemical weapons? Yes. Could DU munitions be considered such under the current language of international law? No.

The primary function of DU penetrators revolves around its anti-tank capabilities. Being much heavier than normal rounds, DU projectiles have incredible armor-piercing properties and are mainly used against enemy armor. However the residual particles of DU rounds, if inhaled or ingested, can cause signicant bodily harm. Also coming into contact with intact DU penetrators that did not explode can pose health risks if they come into physical contact with a person lacking the necessary protective gear, as the beta-particles emitted by DU munitions can penetrate naked skin. The standard service uniform can protect soldier's from exposure, and they are trained not to handle any unexploded DU penetrators, but civilians who happen to find a penetrator on a battlefield and think it might make a neat souvenir are not.

However under international law a weapon can only be banned under NBC provisions if and only if its primary function is to inflict bodily harm through radiological, bacteriological, viral, or toxic effects. Which is why other kinds of chemical weapons, such as White Phosphorous grenades (used primarily as signals but can be extremely toxic if inhaled/ingested) are allowed under the Geneva Conventions. The rules concerning NBC warfare are rather lax in this regard.

[sweetheart]

2. Does that not strike you as weak?

If its not the "primary" effect, and rather a "secondary" effect that
each bullet as it explodes creates a cloud of dirty-bomb-like airbourne particles, that not cleaned up leads to 1000's of deaths.

Because it is not a "primary" impact, it is said not to be a chemical
munition. I find that utterly banal, that the law can be itself so
deceived... not you sanchopanza. I'm sorry for being grossly ignorant on this.

Just i was reading says 30% of gulf war 1 veterans are suffering from
the toxic radiationn of these munitions. It disturbs me, that we
glibly re-order natural law.

The secondary effect is the primary effect. These munitions are
against the law.

[SanchoPanza]

3. If you are referring to Gulf War Syndrome

The mysterious ailment that has plagued many veterans of the first Gulf War since that conflict ended, there isnt really enough evidence to pinpoint DU penetrators as a cause. Some think it is, and there is some evidence to that claim, however the widespread occurences of GWS, even within units that did not use DU penetrators or were not exposed to residual particles, in my view points to a different and perhaps unknown (at least in the public) culprit.

There are many reasons for banning DU penetrators (the increased risk of birth defects and cancer rates among children in cities like Basra where DU penetrators were extensively used in GW1, etc). Gulf War Syndrome isn't one of them.

As to the legal definition of chemical weapons, it does exist for a reason. Its a rather simplified way of saying that a device that simply CAN as a chemical weapon (and that loose definition can apply to many things, including car batteries), does not necessarily make it a chemical weapon. However the language of the conventions should be strengthened to include any weapon or munition that causes an "unintentional" toxic effect as a result of its primary use.