05-08-2006, 04:06 AM
I think it is fair to say that soldiers like their DU shells. They are incredibly effective against armour. It has been suggested that DU shells have mde tank warfare obsolete. Thus, if history teaches us anything, it is quite unrealistic to expect militaries to give up this effective weapon. I recently read that DU shells have been sold to 14 countries now, and even more are suspected to have them in their arsenal.
So where does this leave us? I think it doesn't change the need for action on DU. Several countries have had nuclear bombs for a while now, and so far none have been used since WWII, not counting tests.
I would like to at least see an international treaty banning the use of DU as an offensive weapon, or banning first-use of DU shells. This would have been relevant to the recent invasion of Iraq. As Iraq didn't use DU shells against coalition forces, I feel the coalition forces had no need to use them against Iraq.
There are several weapons that are treated this way, including napalm and chemical or biological weapons. I think we should work toward treating DU with the same discretion.
So where does this leave us? I think it doesn't change the need for action on DU. Several countries have had nuclear bombs for a while now, and so far none have been used since WWII, not counting tests.
I would like to at least see an international treaty banning the use of DU as an offensive weapon, or banning first-use of DU shells. This would have been relevant to the recent invasion of Iraq. As Iraq didn't use DU shells against coalition forces, I feel the coalition forces had no need to use them against Iraq.
There are several weapons that are treated this way, including napalm and chemical or biological weapons. I think we should work toward treating DU with the same discretion.