Should NATO ban the use of depleted uranium?

[bloodyminded]

This has always been Canada's out, even when faced with the obvious (e.g. Agent Orange and napalm used in Vietnam). Very convenient!

If this was ever used as an "out," then of course it should be met with the derision it practically begs for. It can't be taken seriously.

[Machjo]

Personally, I do agree that Canada ought to take responsibility for its actions. Again, I don't know if it has violated international laws on these fronts but if it has, then definitely the law should be enforced and Canada should pay the price. And international law or not:

1. Any product Canada bans on its own soil it should ban for export. To do otherwise is immoral and hypocritical.

2. Canada should pull out of NATO and follow the Swedish policy of 'involved neutrality' as UN peace-keepers only unless explicitly requested by the UN to take aggressive action against a belligerent state and even then only in compliance with international law.

3. Set an example by abiding by all other international laws that might apply to us.

[Guest American Woman]

To make a long story short, I do think that it should be banned, and if Canada plays a significant role in its poisoning people, then we should clean up our act too. If someone tried to sue us though, selling the stuff should not be incurring anywhere near the liability of actually using it.

So you think those you sell it to aren't going to use it? Just providing it so you can make a profit off of it is nowhere near as bad as using it?

What do you think about drug dealers? Do yo think selling drugs should not be incurring anywhere near the liability of actually using drugs?

[segnosaur]

2. Canada should pull out of NATO and follow the Swedish policy of 'involved neutrality' as UN peace-keepers only unless explicitly requested by the UN to take aggressive action against a belligerent state and even then only in compliance with international law.

So.... you believe in letting the United Nations, an organization that:

A: did not act to stop genocide in the Balkans

B: contains such countries as China and Saudi Arabia on its "human rights" council

c: contains a large number of members who are abusive dictatorships

be an organisation that gets to dictate our "morality" when it comes to dealing with international issues.

[bush_cheney2004]

1. Any product Canada bans on its own soil it should ban for export. To do otherwise is immoral and hypocritical.

Not very practical...Canada removed DU munitions from its inventory in 1998, but still benefits from UK/USA operations, DU armor, etc. Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg developed a nice alternative with tungsten steel long-rod penetrators.

2. Canada should pull out of NATO and follow the Swedish policy of 'involved neutrality' as UN peace-keepers only unless explicitly requested by the UN to take aggressive action against a belligerent state and even then only in compliance with international law.

Canada is a founding/charter member of NATO. It's policy of collective defense is decidedly different than Sweden's.

3. Set an example by abiding by all other international laws that might apply to us.

Very vague....please be more specific wrt DU. We beat this topic to death a while back, and the conclusion was less decisive than you may think, including the UN.

Edited June 26, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, drugs are used to harm yourself, and uranium to harm other people. That is a rather important difference, do you not think, ?

Not really...as uranium can be used in either objective.

[Sir Bandelot]

Secondly, uranium is an alpha emitter. Of the various types of radiation, this is the one that's of least concern. Alpha particles don't even have the ability to penetrate the skin. (And yes, inhaling particles of DU isn't a good thing, but if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat.)

Incorrect. Alpha particles are among the most deadly that there is, if ingested or inhaled.

alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle#Biological_effects

[Topaz]

You're right about Iraq, both, US and Britian used in this country knowing full well what the side effects are. Is this just another way to reduce the population of the Middle-East? http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm

[Guest American Woman]

Remiel, on 26 June 2010 - 03:22 PM, said: Well, drugs are used to harm yourself, and uranium to harm other people. That is a rather important difference, do you not think,

Not really...as uranium can be used in either objective.

I see you were thinking along the same line I was regarding drugs/dealing. I'll just add that it's ignorant to claim that people on drugs don't hurt others; that drugs just harm the user.

[dre]

I wonder if the people claiming DU is harmless would volunteer themselves and their families for some could conclusive DU exposure testing?

[dre]

What a twist...compared to...say...illicit drugs!

OOPS. You just compared depleted uranium to recreational drugs .

[Guest American Woman]

OOPS. You just compared depleted uranium to recreational drugs .

Yeah, it's real "recreational" when an infant is born addicted to heroin and meth.

[Remiel]

So you think those you sell it to aren't going to use it? Just providing it so you can make a profit off of it is nowhere near as bad as using it?

What do you think about drug dealers? Do yo think selling drugs should not be incurring anywhere near the liability of actually using drugs?

Did you miss my second post in this thread? Using drugs on yourself and using depleted uranium in weapons are not analagous.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Remiel

[dre]

Yeah, it's real "recreational" when an infant is born addicted to heroin and meth.

I never said drug abuse cant have bad consequences... just like acohol abuse can cause children to be born wit FAS.

It just doesnt have a whole lot to do with depleted uranium.

[Remiel]

Not really...as uranium can be used in either objective.

So, in other words, drugs can only be used in one objective? Which means, since drugs can only be used in one, and uranium in both, they are relevantly different?

[Guest American Woman]

I never said drug abuse cant have bad consequences... just like acohol abuse can cause children to be born wit FAS.

It just doesnt have a whole lot to do with depleted uranium.

It has a lot to do with one's minimizing 'only selling' the DU as opposed to using it. So I brought up drug dealing, if the same analogy should apply; if dealing drugs isn't as bad as using drugs, and I pointed out that referring to drugs as "recreational" is just another attempt to minimize drugs' effects.

So yeah, it does have a lot to do with selling a harmful substance, knowing full well what the consequences of the sale are. But if Canadians want to dismiss it as 'not as bad,' keep deluding yourselves. And by all means, keep selling it.

Edited June 27, 2010 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

Only selling bullets.

Only selling guns...

[dre]

It has a lot to do with one's minimizing 'only selling' the DU as opposed to using it. So I brought up drug dealing, if the same analogy should apply; if dealing drugs isn't as bad as using drugs, and I pointed out that referring to drugs as "recreational" is just another attempt to minimize drugs' effects.

So yeah, it does have a lot to do with selling a harmful substance, knowing full well what the consequences of the sale are. But if Canadians want to dismiss it as 'not as bad,' keep deluding yourselves. And by all means, keep selling it.

The problem is theres almost no product on earth that cant be used for nefarious purposes or cant cause death. 95% of the shit sold in your average hardware store can be used to kill people. A hammer is a "harmfull substance" and so is a screwdriver. Even a can of soup can kill

Having said that, I dont think Canada should be selling this stuff unless they recieve assurances it wont be used in weapons at least until theres better information out there.

[Guest American Woman]

The problem is theres almost no product on earth that cant be used for nefarious purposes or cant cause death. 95% of the shit sold in your average hardware store can be used to kill people. A hammer is a "harmfull substance" and so is a screwdriver. Even a can of soup can kill

Having said that, I dont think Canada should be selling this stuff unless they recieve assurances it wont be used in weapons at least until theres better information out there.

Yeah, well, when one sells a hammer, unless they sell it to a customer who has knowingly used the hammer to smash in someone's skull, it's pretty safe to assume it's not going to be used for "nefarious purposes."

However, we have people in this thread speaking of how the U.S. has used DU in other wars, so it's no secret. So Canada, by selling it to the U.S. while we're involved in another war, shouldn't be shocked that it's being used for "nefarious reasons."

Furthermore, since Canada is involved in Iraq, even if it's not "officially," Canada, I'm sure, is very well aware of what's going on.

I'm reminded of those who dismiss sending someone away to be tortured vs. torturing them themselves. Seems to me the "Canada's not as bad" crowd is critical of that.

I am seriously amazed by how many Canadians simply minimize, make excuses for, what Canada does. But Canada is not the 'good guy' to our 'bad guy' the way it's portrayed to be. Apparently, though, image is everything, to some.

I am totally against what the U.S. is doing regarding the use of DU, but if I were a Canadian, I wouldn't be minimizing my country's role in it.

[Machjo]

Incorrect. Alpha particles are among the most deadly that there is, if ingested or inhaled.

alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle#Biological_effects

And add to that that supposedly in Fallujah at lest, they suspect that much DU has gotten into their water supply. After all, with the US having used over 300 tons of DU all over Iraq, especially Fallujah, it's a reasonable possibility. And seeing that Iraq has little water to begin with, it finds itself stuck between a rock and a hard place here. In fact, authorities in Fallujah have already advised local women no longer have children! They have not yet proven a link between DU, other chemicals, and all the birth defects in that city, but they do know that birth defects have shot through the roof in recent years. So whatever the reason for this increase, there's clearly something going on that was not happening prior to the US invasion of Iraq, or at least Fallujah in this case. Though cancer rates and defects have risen across Iraq.

[segnosaur]

Secondly, uranium is an alpha emitter. Of the various types of radiation, this is the one that's of least concern. Alpha particles don't even have the ability to penetrate the skin. (And yes, inhaling particles of DU isn't a good thing, but if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat.)

Incorrect. Alpha particles are among the most deadly that there is, if ingested or inhaled.

Actually, if you look at my post, I already dealt with the issue of inhalation when I pointed out that if you're in a position where you're inhaling DU dust, then you're probably more likely to die in combat. I rather suspect that the average Iraqi civilian is not going to be in a position where they are in regular contact with DU in a form that will pose a significant dander.

I wonder if the people claiming DU is harmless would volunteer themselves and their families for some could conclusive DU exposure testing?

Actually I never claimed it was harmless... There certainly are risks: as I said, inhalation of DU particles can be bad (but its not a situation that non-combatants will find themselves in). And there is the fact that uranium is a heavy metal, and as such there is a certain amount of chemical toxicity that must be dealt with. (But then, the same would be true of almost any metal used in combat.)

I just don't think its the evil bogey man that it was made out to be in the opening post.

Edited June 27, 2010 by segnosaur

[bush_cheney2004]

So, in other words, drugs can only be used in one objective? Which means, since drugs can only be used in one, and uranium in both, they are relevantly different?

Not at all, as both can be used for either objective. I just found it curious that one legal (regulated) substance (DU) should be treated differently than illicit or regulated drugs for a seller's liability for harmful effects. Canada knows/knew damn right well what DU, defoliants, naplalm, etc. were used for by its "customers".

[Machjo]

I wonder if the people claiming DU is harmless would volunteer themselves and their families for some could conclusive DU exposure testing?

But it would have to be real life studies. Send them off to Iraq to drink the local water, eat the local food, breathe the local air. Do that for a few years, bring them back, and then test for DU in their bones.

[Remiel]

I'm reminded of those who dismiss sending someone away to be tortured vs. torturing them themselves. Seems to me the "Canada's not as bad" crowd is critical of that.

I am seriously amazed by how many Canadians simply minimize, make excuses for, what Canada does. But Canada is not the 'good guy' to our 'bad guy' the way it's portrayed to be. Apparently, though, image is everything, to some.

I think you are confusing the " Canada's not as bad " crowd with the " Canada is not as liable financially " crowd.

The extent to which one is " bad " and the extent to which they are " liable " are different considerations.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Remiel

[Remiel]

Not at all, as both can be used for either objective. I just found it curious that one legal (regulated) substance (DU) should be treated differently than illicit or regulated drugs for a seller's liability for harmful effects. Canada knows/knew damn right well what DU, defoliants, naplalm, etc. were used for by its "customers".

If person A sells drugs to person B, and person B forces person C to take those drugs, is person A liable for what happens to person C in the same way they would be liable if person B had taken the drugs?