Title: Depleted uranium shells: Why are they used and are they harmful? - BBC News
I’m not current on “tactical news” of the U.S. “Eastern Front” (east of D.C., with the “Western Front,” west of D.C., the China Campaign) so perhaps someone can tell me if these weapons from our nuclear arsenal are in use yet in Ukraine? Of course they’re “legal” weapons; the US/UK developed them and are responsible for the "well established” principle that killing people by nuclear contamination preceded by "small explosions” is different from killing people by nuclear contamination preceded by somewhat larger explosions. So of course they’re “legal.” Then there is this “legalistic wordplay” from the UK fully "legalizing” them:
"Depleted uranium shells are not considered to be nuclear weapons," says Dr Marina Miron, from Kings College London.
"They are not meant to poison people. They are used because of their capability to pierce armour.” (So we shower them on civilians without cover?)
However, some would argue that “weapons with a nuclear component” are “nuclear weapons,” like I do (before I read what Putin had to say; does that make me a Putinist? Or Putin a “Piercist?” :-)
"President Vladimir Putin has warned that if the UK does send depleted uranium shells to Ukraine, "Russia will have to respond accordingly, given that the West collectively is already beginning to use weapons with a nuclear component".
But that’s so self-evidently Russian disinformation that it barely merits comment such as this:
"The MoD replied in a statement: "The British Army has used depleted uranium in its armour-piercing shells for decades. Russia knows this, but is deliberately trying to disinform.”
There you have it; used for decades by the British Army (and the US), with casualties now to some degree in the millions. How much more “legal” can they be? At least until Russia, China, or Iran uses them, on “Us,” with some legalistic contortion then made to distinguish their use by “Them,” as “illegal,” as compared to their use by “Us,” as “legal.” That “principle” is firmly established as “binding precedent” by Us.
Or can it be more correctly said that our “First Use” (again) of nuclear weapons has transformed the War on Russia into a Nuclear War, and not the first in the post-Cold War era (see Kosovo, Iraq, I and II)? Of course these guys are never far behind us, when not ahead of us:
Depleted uranium shells: Why are they used and are they harmful?
Getty Images
The US used depleted uranium weapons during the 2003 Iraq War
Russia has warned the UK not to provide depleted uranium shells as ammunition for the tanks it is sending to Ukraine, saying they contain a "nuclear component".
Depleted uranium makes weapons more powerful, but it is feared those weapons could be a threat to people in areas where they are used.
What is depleted uranium?
Depleted uranium is naturally-occurring uranium, which has been stripped of much - but not all - of its radioactive matter.
It is a waste product from the process through which uranium is enriched for use in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.
Why do some weapons use depleted uranium?
Uranium is a very dense metal, so depleted uranium can be used to reinforce the armour-plating on tanks.
It can also be put on the tips of bullets, mortar rounds and tank shells, to penetrate conventional tank armour.
Depleted uranium shells sharpen on impact, which further increases their ability to bore through armour, and they ignite after contact.
Where have depleted uranium weapons been used?
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) says depleted uranium missiles were developed by the US and UK in the 1970s.
They were first used in the Gulf War in 1991, and then in Kosovo in 1999, and during the Iraq War in 2003.
Getty Images
Kosovo residents were warned of depleted uranium risks after the 1999 war
Which depleted uranium weapons are being sent to Ukraine?
"The fear is that if depleted uranium shells land on the ground, they may contaminate the soil," says Dr Miron. "That is why the US and its Nato allies sparked controversy when they used them in Kosovo."
The UN General Assembly ordered a review into the health effects of depleted uranium weapons in 2007, and international bodies have carried out several further reviews.
Fragments of depleted uranium shells used in the 2003 Iraq War
However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says there could be a risk of radiation to individuals who handle fragments of depleted uranium rounds.
Another concern, says the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, is that "in a post-conflict environment, the presence of depleted uranium residues can further increase the anxiety of local populations".
A 2022 UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report said it was concerned about possible depleted uranium use in Ukraine, warning it can cause "skin irritation, kidney failure and increase the risks of cancer".
"The chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is considered a more significant issue than the possible impacts of its radioactivity," it says. residues can further increase the anxiety of local populations".
President Vladimir Putin has warned that if the UK does send depleted uranium shells to Ukraine, "Russia will have to respond accordingly, given that the West collectively is already beginning to use weapons with a nuclear component".
The MoD replied in a statement: "The British Army has used depleted uranium in its armour-piercing shells for decades. Russia knows this, but is deliberately trying to disinform."
However, Dr Miron says sending depleted uranium shells may backfire on Ukraine and its allies:
"Using them allows Russia to sabre-rattle with its nuclear arsenal, and threaten to use something from it," she says.
