Todays use of modern "invisible" nuclear weapons
rightondude
Posts: 745
How wonderful is this? Sorry, I didnt' include sources however, Google it, and you will find out the same.
The Use of Depleted Uranium in Bombs, Missiles and Bullets
DU: Depleted Uranium is used to "tip" or "coat" US manufactured munitions so that they are more effective at killing. Left over after natural uranium has been enriched, DU is 1.7 times denser than lead — effective in penetrating armoured objects such as tanks.
After a DU-coated shell strikes, it goes straight through before exploding into a burning vapour which then turns to dust.
"Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come. This is what I call terrorism," says Dr Ahmad Hardan.
Between 300 and 800 tons of DU munitions were blasted into Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by U.S. forces in 1991.(3) The Pentagon says the U.S. fired about 10,800 DU rounds -- close to three tons -- into Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. More than 31,000 rounds, about 10 tons, were shot into Kosovo in 1999 according to NATO.(4)
Now vast regions around our world, as well as our atmosphere, are contaminated with the depleted uranium. Because they’ve used so much.
"400,000 Nagasaki bombs"
It’s the equivalent number of atoms, as the Japanese professor calculated it, to over 400,000 Nagasaki bombs that has been released into the atmosphere. That’s really an underestimate.
The Price of Truth
That the evidence from Iraq and from our troops, and the research findings of such experts, have been ignored may be no accident. A US report, leaked in late 1995, allegedly says, 'The potential for health effects from DU exposure is real; however it must be viewed in perspective... the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive.'3
Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in Iraq and at least a quarter of a million UK and US troops seriously ill, huge disability claims might be made not only against the governments of Britain and America if the harm done by DU were acknowledged. There might also be huge claims against companies making DU weapons and some of their directors are said to be extremely close to the White House.
A Culture of Denial
In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as 'weapons of mass destruction' 'incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law'. Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.
Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, 'The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.' He concluded, 'uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.' Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.
During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities have abolished military hospitals, where there could have been specialized research on the effects of DU and where expertise in treating DU victims could have built up. And, not content with the insult of suggesting the gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans are imaginary they have refused full pensions to many. For, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the current House of Commons briefing paper on DU hazards says 'it is judged that any radiation effects from possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by some Gulf war veterans.' Note how over a quarter of a million sick and dying US and UK vets are called 'some'.
The Way Ahead
Britain and America not only used DU in this year's Iraq war, they dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the previous war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time the use of DU wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities. This means that Iraq's cities have been blanketed in lethal particles-any one of which can cause cancer or deform a child. In addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the deadly particles higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that billions of deadly particles have been carried high into the air-again and again and again as the bombs rained down-ready to be swept worldwide by the winds.
"In Basra, it took us two years to obtain conclusive proof of what DU does, but we now know what to look for and the results are terrifying."
Leukaemia has already become the most common type of cancer in Iraq among all age groups, but is most prevalent in the under-15 category. It has increased way above the percentage of population growth in every single province of Iraq without exception.
In Iraq:
- Depleted uranium has caused severe deformities in babies
-Women as young as 35 are developing breast cancer.
- Sterility among men has increased tenfold.
Barely human
But by far the most devastating effect is on unborn children. Nothing can prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved foetuses barely human in appearance.
There is no doubt that DU is to blame.
The Royal Society has suggested the solution is massive decontamination in Iraq. That could only scratch the surface. For decontamination is hugely expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of the worst areas, it cannot fully remove them. For DU is too widespread on land and water. How do you clean up every nook and cranny of a city the size of Baghdad? How can they decontaminate a whole country in which microscopic particles, which cannot be detected with a normal geiger counter, are spread from border to border? And how can they clean up all the countries downwind of Iraq-and, indeed, the world?
Unfortunately it's already too late the damage is done...
The Use of Depleted Uranium in Bombs, Missiles and Bullets
DU: Depleted Uranium is used to "tip" or "coat" US manufactured munitions so that they are more effective at killing. Left over after natural uranium has been enriched, DU is 1.7 times denser than lead — effective in penetrating armoured objects such as tanks.
After a DU-coated shell strikes, it goes straight through before exploding into a burning vapour which then turns to dust.
"Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come. This is what I call terrorism," says Dr Ahmad Hardan.
Between 300 and 800 tons of DU munitions were blasted into Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by U.S. forces in 1991.(3) The Pentagon says the U.S. fired about 10,800 DU rounds -- close to three tons -- into Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. More than 31,000 rounds, about 10 tons, were shot into Kosovo in 1999 according to NATO.(4)
Now vast regions around our world, as well as our atmosphere, are contaminated with the depleted uranium. Because they’ve used so much.
"400,000 Nagasaki bombs"
It’s the equivalent number of atoms, as the Japanese professor calculated it, to over 400,000 Nagasaki bombs that has been released into the atmosphere. That’s really an underestimate.
The Price of Truth
That the evidence from Iraq and from our troops, and the research findings of such experts, have been ignored may be no accident. A US report, leaked in late 1995, allegedly says, 'The potential for health effects from DU exposure is real; however it must be viewed in perspective... the financial implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be excessive.'3
Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in Iraq and at least a quarter of a million UK and US troops seriously ill, huge disability claims might be made not only against the governments of Britain and America if the harm done by DU were acknowledged. There might also be huge claims against companies making DU weapons and some of their directors are said to be extremely close to the White House.
A Culture of Denial
In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as 'weapons of mass destruction' 'incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law'. Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice called for DU weapons to be banned.
Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was quoted as saying, 'The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human body.' He concluded, 'uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all generations who follow.' Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his research was suddenly blocked.
During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities have abolished military hospitals, where there could have been specialized research on the effects of DU and where expertise in treating DU victims could have built up. And, not content with the insult of suggesting the gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans are imaginary they have refused full pensions to many. For, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the current House of Commons briefing paper on DU hazards says 'it is judged that any radiation effects from possible exposures are extremely unlikely to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by some Gulf war veterans.' Note how over a quarter of a million sick and dying US and UK vets are called 'some'.
The Way Ahead
Britain and America not only used DU in this year's Iraq war, they dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the previous war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time the use of DU wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities. This means that Iraq's cities have been blanketed in lethal particles-any one of which can cause cancer or deform a child. In addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the deadly particles higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that billions of deadly particles have been carried high into the air-again and again and again as the bombs rained down-ready to be swept worldwide by the winds.
"In Basra, it took us two years to obtain conclusive proof of what DU does, but we now know what to look for and the results are terrifying."
Leukaemia has already become the most common type of cancer in Iraq among all age groups, but is most prevalent in the under-15 category. It has increased way above the percentage of population growth in every single province of Iraq without exception.
In Iraq:
- Depleted uranium has caused severe deformities in babies
-Women as young as 35 are developing breast cancer.
- Sterility among men has increased tenfold.
Barely human
But by far the most devastating effect is on unborn children. Nothing can prepare anyone for the sight of hundreds of preserved foetuses barely human in appearance.
There is no doubt that DU is to blame.
The Royal Society has suggested the solution is massive decontamination in Iraq. That could only scratch the surface. For decontamination is hugely expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of the worst areas, it cannot fully remove them. For DU is too widespread on land and water. How do you clean up every nook and cranny of a city the size of Baghdad? How can they decontaminate a whole country in which microscopic particles, which cannot be detected with a normal geiger counter, are spread from border to border? And how can they clean up all the countries downwind of Iraq-and, indeed, the world?
Unfortunately it's already too late the damage is done...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"We, of course, agree with the Sub-Commission that the use of weaponry containing depleted uranium in armed conflict is incompatible with existing human rights and humanitarian law. In our numerous oral and written statements on the issue of this weaponry we have set out four tests that all weapons must pass in order to be used in armed conflict: the weapons and their effect must be contained to the legal field of battle (the "geographical" test); the weapons and their effect must cease to function when the armed conflict is over (the "temporal" test); the weapons and their effect must not be unduly inhumane or cause undue suffering (the "humaneness" test); and the weapons can not unduly harm the environment (the "environment" test). Weaponry containing depleted uranium has been increasing in the news and subject of widespread international condemnation, especially as it was so widely used in the new war against Iraq. One study of children born of United States veterans of the first Gulf War shows a more than 60% incidence of disability, deformity and other serious medical problems. Another study shows that United States Gulf War veteran' children have a much higher likelihood of having three specific birth defects: two types heart valve abnormality to children of male veterans, and genito-urinary defects to children born of female veterans. "Gulf WarBirth Defects" in the Lexington-Herald Leader, 4 June 2003. A study of British veterans of the Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo reveals that they have 10 - 14 times the level of chromosomal abnormalities than usual. H. Schrader, A. Heimers, R. Frentzel-Beyme, A. Schott & W. Hoffmann, "Chromosome aberration analysis in perifiral lymphocytes of Gulf war and Balkan war veterans," in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol.103 no.3, pp. 211-220.
There is increasing evidence that troubling weaponry was also used in Afghanistan, as a Canadian medical research facility found that the urine of Afghani people near where the United States carried out military operations contained radioactive isotopes 100 to 400 times higher than Gulf War veterans from the United Kingdom tested in 1999. The report is posted at http://www.umrc.net. The maximum permissible level for members of the public in the United States is considered to be 12 nanograms per year. The Canadian team recorded an average 315.5 nanograms in people in Jalalabad, Tora Bora and Mazar-e-Sharif. A 12-year-old boy near Kabul tested at 2,031 nanograms. After a second trip to Afghanistan, the Canadian team documented comparable results in a much broader area and larger population group. A prominent Afghani physician reports that there is a dramatic increase in birth defects in Afghanistan and people are experiencing catastrophic health consequences.
Regarding the use of weapons used against Iraq this spring, it is clear that much weaponry containing depleted uranium was used. For example Abrams tanks only use DU ordnance. The bombs fired on Baghdad and other cities as part of "shock and awe" are alleged to have had DU nosecones. Cluster bombs were admittedly used in urban areas in an attempt to protect British troops. Paul Waugh, "Allied use of cluster bombs illegal, minister admits," The Independent, 30 May 2003. While the amount of DU dispersed over Iraq for the second time in less than 15 years is unclear, it is clear that the United States does not intend to clean up the DU nor even fully disclose where it was used and in what amounts.
Our organization considers the Iraq situation an atrocity followed by a catastrophe. The international community simply must respond or risk being overtaken in every way by a power that did not and does not intend to abide by the principles of humanitarian law carefully carved out since the first Geneva Convention of 1864 and The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The weapons already in use are terrifying enough, without contemplating those planned in the future.
We urge the Sub-Commission to request Mr. Yeung Sik Yuen to continue his work on all these weapons. In the course of his work on this topic he has become one of the few experts in this field and the Sub-Commission is well advised to request him to prepare an additional follow up paper. Indeed, it would take years for another to catch up to his expertise. The importance of this endeavor cannot possibly be overestimated. The fate of the whole world lies in being able to carry out true disarmament. The smaller, poorer countries cannot possible keep up with "arm-chair" wars or they will bankrupt themselves. Even the other developed countries are far, far behind this technological madness. If the United States is allowed to use and develop these weapons, all other countries are reduced to peonage at the mercy of the United States. Therefore, it is essential that the international community find a way to truly rid the world of illegal weapons.
In our Memorandum we identify the four basic rules for weaponry under existing customary and treaty-based humanitarian law: (i) weapons must be able to be contained to legal military fields of action (the geographical requirement); (ii) weapons must be able to cease harming action when the armed conflict is over (the temporal requirement); (iii) weapons may not cause undue suffering (the humanitarian requirement); and (iv) weapons must not unduly harm the environment (the environmental requirement). We conclude that the use of most of the weapons listed in resolutions 1996/16 and 1997/36, especially weaponry containing depleted uranium, would constitute a per se violation of these requirements. We also conclude that production or threat of production, stockpiling and development of weapons whose use would constitute a per se violation of humanitarian law could be viewed as coercive, torture, a serious threat to peace, a threat to the right to self-determination and a threat to the right to life.
Mr. Yeung Sik Yuen's assessment of when weapons are to be considered banned by operation of law is stated somewhat differently but is essentially compatible with ours. However, he adds an essential element that we had not included -- the requirement that all weapons use must be in proportion to the legitimate military objectives. Thus even "legal" weapons might be used illegally -- as when using a large bomb against a small, lightly defended military outpost and causing injury and damage in excess of the actual military gain. This is an important addition, as several weapons systems are now being proposed that would severely tax this rule. One of these, being developed in the United States, would allow the United States to engage in an armed conflict anywhere in the world from its own territory. Code-named FALCON (for Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States), weapons delivery systems are being planned that would carry 12,000 pound bombs anywhere in the world in less than two hours from a US launch. As the United States would not have any military personnel on site, it would be impossible to assess proportionality. And the "enemy" would have no way at all to defend itself as the "enemy" would not have the same weapons capability. The United States is also planning smaller bombs that can be launched into space, and when guided over its target, dropped to earth. These would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock. They are defended by United States officials because it "would free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries or terrorist organizations." From the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) invitation for bids, posted on its website, reported by Julian Borger, The Guardian, 1 July 2003. We call wars to be waged this way "arm chair" wars. The United State military will not have to leave home, but can effectively destroy a country from their homes. The United States "combatants" never have to see combat, nor the destruction they cause with the bombs they send from home. "
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://www.alternet.org/story/15590/
Also the peacekeepers in the areas developed measurable nuclear radiation 1000's of times above normal or healthy even in their hair, urine etc after just a few days of being in affected areas in Iraq (essentially everywhere as the dust blows wherever in the dry conditions).
GW Veterans are demanding an inquiry be done. But the US govt continues to dodge the issue at every turn.
This is freaking deplorable (to put it nicely).
Who can still support this kind of shit...I mean really???
how long will it be before mother nature shakes us off like a bad cold? 100 years, 1,000 years, or do we kill ourselves first?
Sadly all the evil military and political rats in this world will crawl into their mile deep underground bunker "virtual worlds" to survive, and eventually repopulate.
My, just imagine what lovely new world society that will be... :rolleyes:
We need to stop depending on oil like it's the blood in our veins.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Parents in Iraq stopped asking doctors "Is it a boy or a girl?" they now ask "Is it normal?"
Google Videos: Depleted Uranium in Iraq
Because it incites braindead people such as yourself to squeeze a few damaged braincells together and grimace :rolleyes:
Ahnimus, Long time no see man. Glad to have you back.
Yeah it's freaking insane. What are the real motives I ask myself. Like they didn't test any of these munitions first. They gov't knew exactly what would happen, and they still continue...more than ever.
Well the least disgusting explanations is that they wanted to dispose of the hazardous material. The most disgusting is that they intended to commit generational genocide.
Thanks, I was banned up until 07/03 for a conversation where I lost my cool. So, just a hint, don't lose your cool.
Yo man check your PM...
How are you suppose to keep cool when talking to fascists?
Nice reports. Read a John Pilger essay on the effects of DU in Iraq this week. Its in his book "New Rulers of the World", so I can't copy and paste it.
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!