Re: Depleted Uranium

[Steven <themissinglink@eznetinc.com>]

"Frankly, I find discussions regarding the environmental consequences of war
silly.  Bombs and missiles, and rockets, and grenades and bullets and mines
kill and destroy and maim."

This is not a well thought out position.  Chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons would also put an end to the violence against innocents in Kosovo yet
they are precluded from use.  Lets explore why.  Their use is indiscriminate
and long lasting.  Presumably, bullets and bombs are discriminate and last
only as long as they are being aimed and fired.

The signifigance of chemical(which I would maintain DU is), biological, and
nuclear weapons being precluded from use by the Geneva Convention is that we
do not want them used against us by an aggressor.  These are "codes of
conduct" for "civilized" wars.  Civilian casualties and long lasting
environmental damage are abhorrent war practices in a civilized world.  Why
are we at war with Iraq just because they are developing chemical and
biological weapons?  From their perspective, and using your analogy that the
environmental consequences of war are silly things to worry about, these are
perfectly rational weapons to use.

Don't fall into the trap that we, as Americans, can follow or not follow
international conventions such as the Geneva Convention, without
consequences.  When we use DU, our words about Weapons of Mass Destruction
will lose their credibility.  America will lose her credibility and high
moral ground, and when that happens, we change from being protectors of
democracy to being bullies on the world stage.

Pretty soon China, North Korea, India, Iran, and Pakistan will all have
missiles capable of hitting the U.S. with nuclear, biological, and chemical
payloads.  I want the Geneva Convention to remain unambiguous in the
prohibition of these payloads.  DU muddies the line and I dont want to argue
after the fact with North Korea that their use of anthrax on our water supply
is no worse in long term damage than our use of DU.

This is a public policy issue whose decision should not be left to the
military.  What makes it public policy and not military policy is the fact
that Russia has already made several criticisms of the environmental damage
Nato has caused.  The military was not given the mission to create foreign
policy issues aside from their mandate to prosecute missions given them by
the civilian leadership.  DU and the bombing of chemical factories creates
just such issues.  If there is one thing the DoD does not seem to get is that
environmental consequences are regional and global in nature.

Steven Pollack