"depleted uranium round"....."turns you into a handful of mush.".....

http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_friendly_fire.html

-snip-

On March 19, 2004 NPR aired the first of two reports by Jackie Northam on the experiences of US Marines in battle. 11 field historians had entered Iraq with Marine units and interviewed marines after battle. She was given access to 20 hours of interview tapes. Her first report concerns a battle on March 23, 2003 near An Nasiriyah, during which an A-10 repeatedly straffed US troops with 'depleted uranium' rounds. As reported by Jackie Northam, the Marine Corps says that 18 marines died at An Nasiriyah that day but will not reveal how many died from the DU rounds.

It does seem clear though that previous assessments undersestimated Marine deaths from 'friendly fire' that day. Dan Fahey, for example, in his review of media accounts, reported the following as part of his assessment of DU use during Gulf War II:

23 March, near Nasiriyah – A-10 fires on Marine Corps vehicles attached to 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. At least one vehicle, an armored assault vehicle (possibly AAVP7A1), is hit and penetrated by A-10 fire, killing at least one Marine and possibly wounding others. A total of nine Marines and seven vehicles were destroyed in this incident, although it is believed Iraqi forces caused the majority of the deaths and damage during this engagement. "The Use of Depleted Uranium in the 2003 Iraq War: An Initial Assessment of Information and Policies," page 5. Dan Fahey, June 24, 2003.

Fahey's reporting of the belief that Iraqi forces caused the majority of the deaths and damage during the engagement appears to this writer to be a repeating of military spin. Listen to the interviews (first report) with soldiers soon after the battle. While the military will not disclose how many soldiers died that day from friendly fire, that is, from 'depleted' uranium rounds from the A-10, it is clearly many more than "at least one" as reported by Fahey, based on US media accounts. Sargeant Lonnie Parker said in the interview said that they lost the majority of their people from 'friendly' fire that day.
-snip-
------------------------------

killing our own and lying about it.
a taste of our own uranium poison.

My nitpick is that this isn't a good example of the evils of d.u. rounds. It's perhaps a good example of why we shouldn't attack other nations without good cause. (Because friendly fire ALWAYS happens in wars.)

The harm a depleted uranium round does to it's immediate target is NOT radiological in nature. It's kinetic, just like any other bullet. The d.u. content makes the bullet very dense, which makes it fly straighter and hit harder.

The unintended, long term consequence of the d.u. rounds is radiological. That is a problem to those who live in that area after the battle is over. (Or perhaps dust from the rounds to those who are exposed to it in quantity.)

But I think if you ask those troops, they won't think that the solution to their scenario would be to shoot at them with NON d.u. rounds. The solution would be to not shoot at them in the first place.

just another war toy?

and your saying it's alright for the military to lie, cause in every war we manage to somehow shoot our own.

how do you pick the nit when our troops bring home DU in their bodies, to keep forever (until they sicken and die) and to pass on to their SOs and future children?

Just saying that if a soldier is targetted and hit by an A-10s gun he's not killed by the d.u. content. He's killed by the kinetic energy of the bullet.

If you want to make a case against d.u., cite things like the weapons loaders who are sickened and dieing from the dust from these weapons, even though those weapons loaders never got near the combat front. If the data exists, cite the radiological content of crops grown in fields after battles wherein d.u. rounds were used.

And friendly fire is a fact of war. Ever since warfare got beyond the village vs village stage, there has been "friendly fire." Heck, SHAKESPEARE comments on it. Anyone who thinks you can fight a big war without friendly fire accidents is delusional. I'm certainly not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's an unavoidable fact of war.

Now, if you're using d.u. rounds as an example that all warfare is bad, I've got no nitpicks there at all. It's not alright for soldiers to die, no matter the method.

I'm a big fan of having the worlds leaders settle arguements via personal duels. They're the ones with the arguments. They should do the fighting and pay the price.

The rest of us can go get a beer and watch on TV, or not, as we choose.