Propaganda for Depleted Uranium - a Crime against Humankind
Piotr Bein, PhD and Peđa Zorić. MSc
Vancouver, Canada
International Conference "Facts on Depleted Uranium"
Praha, November 24-25, 2001
Key words: information warfare, NATO, DU, crimes against humankind
Summary
Based on material in the public domain, the paper considers the structure,
strategy and tactics of military Information Operations concerning depleted
uranium (DU). The analysis reveals a deep involvement of US and other NATO
country governments in misinformation and cover-ups of horrible effects of
DU. Nuclear and DU weapon industries, as well as media are intimately woven
into the misinformation operations, so it is logical to refer to government-military-industry-media
complex.
DU facts have been clear for at least two decades, according to NATO countries
military and government documents. The truth is tragic and incriminating,
but the perpetrators chose to cover their deeds up and misinform the public,
instead of helping the civilian and military victims, and cleaning up the
contaminated environment. While Middle East, Gulf and Balkan DU victims still
remain neglected, a new DU war is in the making in Afghanistan, possibly
with the largest DU bombs ever, to “neutralize bin Laden”.
NATO misinformation on the effects of DU weapons targets foreign and
domestic public, governments, and intelligence, in order to influence their
perceptions and actions in support of national and strategic goals. Propaganda
at first justified that DU ammunition provides "military advantage" over
the enemy without own losses. In the last decade, fatal consequences of DU
emerged on a mass scale in veterans of DU battles and in civilians whom NATO
terrorized with toxic-radioactive DU weapons.
Consequently, propaganda for DU evolved to save face and skin of the guilty.
It is driven by the fear of multi-billion dollar litigation, and by the attempts
to escape responsibility for crimes against humanity. Cleanups of DU battlefields,
shooting ranges, and DU storage sites around the world would also be extremely
costly. The military, the government and the defense industry continue misinformation
operations which have expanded from US and UK to all NATO allies and candidates,
including CEE. DU cover-ups evolved into manipulations of inquiries of international
health and safety organizations: WHO, UNEP, ICRP, IAEA. Institutions, individuals
in high positions and their “reports” on DU became a laughing stock. Special
operations reminiscent of the Stalinist era are employed -- sometimes in
an absurd and grotesque way, in relation to the clarity of DU facts that
incriminate NATO.
US and NATO DU propaganda strategy proved counterproductive. DU ammunition
was not advantageous in Kosovo against Yugoslav armour, but contaminated
the region. Desperate, angry victims left without medical care and material
help grow into generations harbouring resentments against US and NATO. The
public has little doubt about the risks of DU weapons and who the perpetrators
are. Moral credit of the USA and NATO was tarnished everywhere. People in
former Soviet block who invested hopes for a better world led by US and NATO
are disappointed and angry. USA is harming its own national long-term interests.
CEE nations are very concerned that DU weapons could move into their military
ranges, after being expelled from the West by domestic protests..
DU is in ammunition, and in armour as in Leopard II tanks, but also in the
ballast of cruise missiles, flying bombs and military and civilian aircraft.
Apache AH-64 (two crashed in Poland during exercises in October 2001) has
100 kg of DU in its rotor blades. It is not clear yet how much DU was in
the planes that rammed into WTC and Pentagon. The “WTC cough” might be a
symptom of DU dust inhalation.
The public must take a vigorous stand to protect present and future generations
from DU. Propaganda is a weak point of the military-government-industry complex.
However, the public does not question mainstream media and does not have
capacity to seek and understand information about DU, so alternative information
is generally rejected.. Biased messages from the government-military-industry
information warriors undermine freedom of opinion and the right to know the
truth. Covering up information regarding DU crimes against humanity are crimes
themselves. The public's self-preservation instinct emerged during successful
protests against nuclear mania, and gives hope for countering DU propaganda
and cover-ups.
Introduction
Analysis of reporting in “free world” media on US-led NATO attack on Yugoslavia
opened our eyes on politics, militarism, and propaganda. Depleted uranium
(DU) is one of the most scandalous issues of NATO involvement in the Persian
Gulf and the Balkans, although military use of the weapon started with Israeli
tank battles in the 1974 Yom Kippur war. Exploiting the North Atlantic Pact
to dilute responsibility and to legitimize immoral interventions, US and
UK spread low-intensity radiation and toxicity on battlefields and exercise
ranges around the world. No wonder that “terrorists” want to pay back.
We are very concerned about US and NATO irresponsibility. The homeland of
one of us was contaminated with DU, while the other’s may be used by NATO
for exercises with DU weapons that were chased out from the West by growing
protests. Crashes of two DU-capable Apache AH-64 helicopters during exercises
in Poland in October 2001 are of great concern. NATO propaganda is keeping
a tight lid on Polish adventures of AH-64 and also on Leopard II tanks, that
might be shooting with DU bullets on Polish ranges. The ranges are located
in pristine areas, including the Green Lungs of Europe in northeast Poland.
We support a nation’s right of defense. We are very concerned, however, that
our countries of birth and adopted Canada participate in NATO misinformation
and cover-ups of weapons of mass destruction and against humankind. DU weapons
indiscriminately harm civilians, not only soldiers.
Information warfare
Beside combat, diplomacy, and economic sanctions, propaganda is one of the
four instruments of power. PsyOp (psychological operations) are the most
conspicuous of the tools of information warfare. Bein postulated in November
2000 that the DU subject is controlled by the information warfare [www.du-watch.org/bein/psyops.htm].
The hypothesis proved itself during the “Kosovo” DU scandal that followed
only a few weeks later. Every information warfare operation could be observed
then, including intimidation of vocal victims of DU, and of anti-DU activists
in the West and in the CEE countries.
The Supreme US Commander General Dwight Eisenhower was responsible for drafting
a plan for integrating every aspect of civic life with the military. His
last presidential speech in 1946 warned against growth of the military-industrial
complex. Today, half of American federal taxes during peacetime go into military
spending, including information operations. The military-government-industry
complex battles for our minds, using mass media for delivery of doctored
information. They draw on techniques described by Hitler in "Mein Kampf".
His information minister Göbbels perfected them during Nazi rise to
power and WW2 genocide of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies and Jehovah Witnesses.
US Department of Defense (DoD) and other military specify the structures
and methods of Information Operations. War engages behavioural science, mass
media and high technology, as laid out, for example, in the US Field Manual
[2]. DoD targets foreign nations and groups, including foreign governments.
DoD actions "convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign
audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning;
and to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels." [3] DoD management
of the foreign perceptions, "combines truth projection, operation security,
cover and deception, and psychological operations."
NATO PsyOp are directed to "enemy, friendly and neutral audiences in order
to influence attitudes and behavior affecting the achievement of political
and military objectives." NATO country military and media act like clones
of Pentagon. Critique comes mainly from outside the Pact, where political
and military objectives are different, but not better. It seems that the
only audiences that yielded to Pentagon and NATO DU propaganda are allies
in the North Atlantic Pact.
Public Affairs (PA) "provides objective reporting without intent to propagandize"
and disseminates information internationally [4]. PA involves press releases,
media briefings and statements by the military that "are based on projection
of truths and credible message [that serve to discredit] adversary propaganda
or misinformation against the operations of US/coalition forces [which] is
critical to maintaining favorable public opinion." [2].
PA use propaganda - white (telling the truth), gray (ambiguous) or black
(lying) - often through Public Relations (PR). In “Selling a conflict - the
ultimate PR challenge” NATO spokesman Jamie Shea told a Switzerland forum
that "he won the war" in Kosovo by carrying out daily briefings in a PR style.
It was not the first use of PR at a high level in the Balkan conflict. A
deep control of the global media by military-government Information Operations
to demonize the Serbs was perhaps the most “successful” aspect of that war.
Information operations prepared the world opinion for NATO engagements in
Iraq and the Balkans by demonizing the leaders and the peoples. These campaigns
subordinated mass media through PA of PsyOp.
Censorship was an attribute ascribed to “commies” during the Cold War. Today,
in a world free of Soviet communism and censorship, NATO applies PsyOp. Its
PA prepare a pot of misinformation soup that is then served to all official
news brokers. From there, the propaganda flows to TV, radio, and the press
outlets. No wonder that a standard end line in news and stories repeats Pentagon
position, for example, "Numerous studies into the effects of DU, a heavy
metal used in anti-armour munitions because of its high penetrating power,
have not revealed any connection between the metal and cancer." Independent
journalists do not have a chance to publish in mainstream media, since NATO
information operations subtly control chief editors. Consequently, It is
difficult to find independent opinions on DU in the official media.
Several types of special services integrate to achieve information warfare
objectives. The commanders decide who are the right people for a mission
and what units should be used in addition to PA and PsyOp. US Special Operations
are engaged. It is a joint command that can assemble teams of experts in
different fields from the different services of NATO countries, as the mission
requires. Attacks on anti-DU activist, Dr. Doug Rokke, former Pentagon expert
on DU, were likely steered by US Special Operations in a broader campaign
of "fighting" the truth about DU.
More recently, the military and government authorities forged death certificates
of Balkan DU military victims. NATO special operatives use Stalinist-like
intimidation methods in the CEE and the West alike, to keep a lid on DU truth.
In March 2001, “unknown” criminals broke into the home of Mrs. Riordan, the
widow of a Canadian veteran of the Gulf War. The criminals destroyed her
PC and stole medical certificates of uranium presence in the body of her
husband who died in 2000. Royal Canadian Mounted Police refused to investigate,
because the criminals “did not leave any traces.”
Implemented by a military-bureaucratic structure, information warfare produces
blunders. PsyOp then attempt to cover the blunders up with more blunders,
amazingly but tragically. An imperative to hide the truth drives the guilty
and their operatives -- Special Operations, PA, PsyOp, spokesmen, official
media, pseudo-scientists -- into intricate thought contraptions and staged
events that are supposed to "convince" the audience.
The Balkan DU case has the following information warfare features.
Mission: i) avoid government-industry-military liability, including storage
of DU waste and past uses of DU weapons in the Gulf, Balkans, and on testing
ranges; ii) maintain a terrorist weapon.
Target audience: domestic and foreign leaders and public opinion.
Psychological objectives: alienate, dilute, delay, eliminate global public
opposition to DU.
Timing: i) until US and international laws ban the military use of DU; or,
ii) until a world tribunal sentences persons responsible, whichever comes
first.
Theme: “Effective against enemy armour, protects our own troops”, "As harmless
as a handful of dirt" - Pentagon; "Radiation no higher than in a household
smoke alarm." - British MoD.
Partners: US and British departments of defense, NATO member and candidate
country politicians and military, DU industry, corrupt institutes and
international organizations, such as UNEP, WHO, IAEA, ICRP.
Development: i) communication through spokesmen, "scientific" reports, and
mass media; ii) intimidation of key anti-DU activists with "special" methods.
Filtering: (I) emphasize "friendly" reports, (ii) suppress independent research
results, (iii) deceive by applying pseudo-science.
Damage control: i) suppress scientific evidence and hide casualties; ii)
change emphasis to possible other causes of Gulf and Balkan syndromes, iii)
special operations against victims of DU and anti-DU activists.
Blunders: i) contradictory own reports; ii) delays in divulging location
of DU use over Yugoslavia; iii) failure to warn and protect NATO and UN forces,
foreign workers and local civilians, iv) special operations obvious and objectionable
to public opinion; v) DU military use cover-ups necessarily extend to civilian
applications, causing unnecessary risk to NATO country own civilian populations.
Predictable by amateurs
PsyOp are also predictable, as events since Gulf War proved. In 1999, Bein
predicted cover-ups of Balkan DU, based on post-Gulf War experience [www.eco.pl/zb/147/;
www.eco.pl/zb/internet/nato/zuran2.htm]. Events in 2001 proved that amateur
Bein was accurate. If NATO is so predictable, it is not worth our taxes.
Bein's 1999 predictions were:
- Understate the amount of DU weapons used.
- Belittle, change emphasis, dilute, deny.
- Manipulate reports and scientific evidence, including those from previous
campaigns that used DU.
- Censor DU information in mass media.
- Blame "Milosevic” and “his" secret manufacture, storage and use of biological
and chemical weapons.
- Coerce old and new Yugoslav government to withhold the truth.
- Blame other causes, such as pre-war or general pollution.
- Partially blame DU used by the Yugoslav forces and KLA.
All of the above points (except the last one -- when would it be coming to
your TV screen and local paper?) came true in some form, as is described
in this paper. A book exhausts the topic of censorship in the context of
NATO involvement in the Balkan wars [1]. Numerous comments about PsyOp and
DU can be found on www.du-watch.org. Several of them were selected by other
websites: Antiwar, Yahoo, Indymedia, Balkanpeace, and other.
There are reasons to believe that NATO coerced old and new Yugoslav governments
to supress DU casualty information. Patricia Axelrod's report [11] indicates
that Yugoslav de-contamination units were deployed during NATO bombing, while
the government likely concealed NATO DU casualties in military hospitals..
If the Yugoslav authorities knew about DU contamination and risk, why there
were no reports on Yugoslav Army and civilian DU casualties from outside
Kosovo where the Yugoslav authorities were not impeded by NATO? After new
Yugoslav foreign minister visited Lord Robertson in the beginning of 2001,
Yugoslavia tested soldiers for DU “negative,” as in NATO member and candidate
countries . One experienced Yugoslav military doctor who was not allowed
to take part in the tests, commented, “Tested by whom and by what methods?”
Dangerous at any speed
Like many other texts on radioactivity, professor of physics Tadeusz Niewiadomski
wrote in 1991 “Medycyna naturalna” (natural medicine), published by the Polish
Medical Publishing House: “A thin piece of paper or the exterior, dead layers
of skin can stop alpha particles [...] Thus they are not dangerous to the
body, provided they remain external to it. However, if they are inhaled or
enter the body with food or through open wounds, they become exceptionally
dangerous, since they emit much energy to each cell, seriously damaging it.
Although beta particles penetrate tissue to the depth of several centimeters,
the resulting biological damage is significantly smaller compared to
that of alpha particles. Gamma and X-ray radiation [...] is weakened by the
tissue only to a small degree [...] The biological effect of one absorbed
quantum of this radiation in the tissue is the same as from one quantum of
beta radiation.”
Niewiadomski also mentioned long-term effects of accumulated small exposures,
which transfer to future generations: “...every dose is harmful and can cause
cancer or genetic changes after years, therefore one must always avoid unnecessary
exposure and maintain doses in smallest quantities possible. It is not merely
a common sense requirement, but also the letter of Polish law.”
Objective DU reports from US and UK governments do not say differently. Read
after years of information warfare on the DU topic, they prove that USA and
the world knew about the health and environmental consequences of DU weapon
use. They documents have been warning about toxic-radioactive effects of
DU, as follows,
- In 1984, US Federal Aviation Agency document cautioned the investigators
of aircraft crashes against the hazard from DU in counterweights of civilian
airplanes: particles inhaled or ingested are toxic and can cause long-term
irradiation of the internal tissue.
- Six months before the Gulf War, a Science Applications International Corporation
report wrote, "Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while
long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."
- In the early nineties, UK Atomic Energy Authority warned that if all of
the DU fired by tanks in the Gulf War was inhaled, "there could be half a
million deaths as a result by 2000." Tanks fired only about 8% of all DU
used in that war.
- 1993 US General Accounting Office report GAO/NSIAD-93-90 stated, "Inhaled
insoluble [DU] oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer
risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive
and toxicity risk."
- 1995 US Army Environmental Policy Institute report warned, "Toxicologically,
DU poses a health risk when internalized. Radiologically, the radiation emitted
by DU results in health risks from both external and internal exposures [...]
If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical
consequences “
- In 1999, a Los Alamos Laboratory memo said that there were concerns about
the environmental consequences of DU. Thus, in order to protect the DU weapons
from becoming politically unacceptable and removed from the arsenals, reports
from the Gulf War should be edited accordingly. Another memo stated that
alpha particles emitted from DU dust created from exploded DU ammunition
pose a health risk, but beta particles from DU shrapnel and from intact DU
bullets are a serious hazard to health.
- January 2001, leak: UK Ministry of Defense was secretly testing for radiation
poisoning among British soldiers just months before it sent troops to Kosovo.
At the time the ministry was refusing screening for Gulf War veterans. The
disclosure went much further than an earlier leak that showed only that officers
knew 4 years earlier about the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers
from DU shells.
- In January 2001, a leak implicated former Republican Senator Warren Rudman
and retired Rear Admiral Paul Steinman who biased and censored a serious
inquiry into Pentagon's handling of Gulf War illness, run by Dr. Bernard
Rostker.
Managing the process
Portugal science minister Dr. Mariano Gago told reporters DU was a
"false problem." His team did not find “the smallest shred of radioactivity
in any part of Kosovo.” Dr. Fernando Carvalho, waving a Geiger counter, told
the reporters that no radiation at all was found. Alpha radiation is not
detectable with an ordinary Geiger counter. The politicians spoke before
scientific results were in. “Was it a pre-taste of things to come from NATO
and UN investigations?” -- asked Bein in part 3 of “DU Cover-up Saga” on
January 19, 2001 [www.du-watch.org]. The answer is, “Definite yes!”
NATO propaganda “manages the process” as DU issues emerge onto the public
arena. The goal is to brainwash the public about DU (and the Pact’s) innocence.
The propaganda applies “damage control” when DU issues get out of hand. It
then suppresses evidence, and emphasizes “other factor” causes of Gulf and
Balkan syndromes. In the “Kosovo DU” scandal, NATO cited chemicals in wood
handled by the soldiers, and benzene with which they allegedly cleaned guns.
The media also cited natural asbestos deposits and lead contamination of
Kosovo appeared in order to divert attention from DU. Amidst the Balkan DU
debate, Associated Press dispatch from Kosovo named lead, untreated sewage,
dust from a cement plant, and toxins from neglected factories. As if to add
insult to injury, this “environmental advocacy” also served to justify a
military takeover of the Trepca mines by KFOR for billionaire George Soros.
US Army Col. David Lam announced, "If there is in fact a health risk resulting
from services in the Balkans, I think we need to look at all possible causes,
such as other pollutants and hazards, and not focus only on DU." Dr. Milan
Orlić, president of the Nuclear Sciences Society at Vinča Institute, said
at a January 2001conference in Athens that Balkan syndrome was more likely
correlated with other agents present besides DU. A recent article blamed
kidney diseases in the Balkans on well water contamination by toxins seeping
from coal deposits [12].
A disinformation tactics of the "other factor than DU" was adopted after
the Gulf War. Pentagon and NATO will likely pursue it for Balkan DU, once
cancers start taking a high toll. Inoculations and pills did not enter the
stage, yet. It would help the propaganda, if “Miloseviç” set oil wells
and refineries on fire, squashed a rebellion with chemical-biological weapons,
or if anthrax inoculations were administered in the Balkans. Unfortunately,
it was NATO who set Pančevo and Novi Sad refineries on fire. Even if "Slobo
did it,” the wind blew the smoke away from Kosovo.
Non-DU nuclear material is also subtly suggested to the public opinion. Srđa
Popović, advisor for ecology to the Serb Prime Minister, told Radio B92 on
November 22, 2001, that a smelter in Bor, Serbia, melted nuclear waste in
late eighties, causing radiation level in the area 150 times higher than
allowed [http://news1.beograd.com/english/archive.html]. B92 is a known outlet
of NATO propaganda. It spread lies about “Milosevic crimes to Yugoslavs.
"If it is true, this is an ecological crime and genocide against inhabitants
of Bor, and someone will have to take over the responsibility. If we prove
that the waste has been imported, which is against our laws, the sanctions
would be considerable. We must investigate who has imported it and how, what
about customs control, who has received it here and ordered melting, leaving
the by-products somewhere near the town. I repeat, the Government of Serbia
will do its best to investigate the allegations and, if they were valid,
to find and punish persons responsible for it," said Popović to Radio B92.
The radio did not go on record for exposing NATO crimes during 1999 air raids,
and was also silent to date about NATO DU genocide of Gulf and Balkan populations.
Someone at the Fort Bragg headquarters of US Special Operations Command (that
include Information Operations) apparently sits at a “Milosevic” desk. The
mission statement of his/her office is something like, “Blame "Milosevic”
and “his" secret biological and chemical weapons.” Hungarian "intelligence
sources" said that Milosevic planted DU nuclear and chemical pollution while
NATO was carrying out its humanitarian mission in Kosovo, and earlier in
Iraq (by teleportation?) and in Bosnia. Portuguese Gen. Barrento accused
the anti-DU journalists and the father of dead KFOR soldier Hugo Paulino
of being on the payroll of pro- Milosevic forces. Kosovo Albanian leader
Ibrahim Rugova dismissed Europe’s concerns over DU for he believed they were
raised by people trying to drive KFOR out of Kosovo. He did not mention “Milosevic-friendly”
but it could be implied.
DU PyOp use simple, but ridiculous ideas and phrases to appeal to Joe-in-the-street,
according to two basic rules of propaganda:
(i) repeated lie becomes accepted truth,
(ii) the public accepts outrageous lies more readily.
DU misinformation operations,
- create pseudo-science where science proves DU is risky,
- emphasize toxicity of DU at the expense of its radioactive risk,
- co-opt international organizations, research institutes, and universities,
in order to lend “authority” and “independence” to deceiving statements and
reports about the effects of DU,
- launch tightly controlled “investigations” while suppressing mounting evidence
of DU-induced illness and death.
The propaganda tactics is 3-d: deny, delay, deceive. The risk of DU in Kosovo
was absolutely denied at first. A NATO document warned member countries participating
in KFOR about the toxicity from DU weapons in July 1999. The KFOR troops
and UN workers entered Kosovo 2nd week of June 1999. The release of DU site
information was delayed for almost 2 years. When it came out, it was understated
(see “Not good at math or ...geography”). Finally, a barrage of lies, half-truths
and nonsense was engaged to defend radioactive DU. Similar phases could be
traced on the issue of U-236, plutonium, and other “impurities” in DU.
Lord Robertson claimed that NATO warned "without exception" all countries
in KFOR about DU toxicity.. Portuguese army denied categorically. Their contingent
was placed in Kosovo’s worst DU areas. US troops kept out of contaminated
areas while European troops were sent in - without adequate information.
In countries whose military claimed they received NATO warning, rank and
file soldiers protested. German defense minister Scharping lied about preparation
of soldiers for DU before they arrived in Kosovo. According to him, the use
of uranium in the war had been made public in May. Actually, the ministry
did it on July 2nd, 1999. Who warned Kosovo Albanians, for whom Germany stood
under arms for the first time since WW2? Seeing how NATO disrespects their
life and health, KFOR troops of many countries mutinied, while volunteers
withdrew.
NATO “research” fails to promptly test the exposed military and civilians,
a starting base for any serious inquiry.. When “testing” is instituted, it
is controlled by the military who are subordinate to NATO command. Results
of independent tests are concealed. The Portuguese defense ministry refused
to hand over Hugo Paulino's body who died from leukemia. The ministry deliberately
camouflaged his death, citing "herpes of the brain" and refused to allow
his family to commission a post-mortem examination.
This practice was reminiscent of cover-ups of Gulf syndrome among US, UK,
and allied troops. The veterans had to self-organize to defend their right
to health. According to independent veteran organizations in the US and UK,
out of about 750 000 Gulf War veterans, reportedly well over 30 000 died
already, and almost 20% have the syndrome. The doctors diagnose “post-combat”
stress and prescribe Prozac. The authorities push the sick veterans around,
deny them proper medical care and compensation. Sick and disabled, they are
left without means to survive. Desperation drives many to suicide and assaults
on the bureaucracy.
Testing of veterans authorized by NATO does not measure the right things.
DU can be detected in urine - some soluble form of DU always accompany insoluble
one, but somehow government tests cannot detect it. Normal levels of uranium
in urine do not mean absence of danger and disease, either. Only chemical
analysis of lymph nodes from dead victims could confirm the lymphatic cause,
but, not surprisingly, there had been no government reports of such autopsies.
Radiation at DU sites is measured with the Geiger counter, which is insensitive
to alpha particles, the primary radiological hazard from DU. UNEP study was
unable to detect any wider area of contamination "with the Beta and Gamma
radiation measurements” because the team was not adequately equipped to measure
for alpha radiation. NATO “experts” in a study for European Commission were
unable to observe” the health effects below 100 mSv, a low-level, but dangerous
effect of a DU particle in the tissue. Dr Bertell commented, “It should be
obvious that one changes instruments as measurements become more fine [...]
One uses a micrometer to measure the width of a piece of paper, not a metre
stick.”
DU cover-ups have co-opted major international organizations and institutions
that the public regards as respectable, objective and independent. DU information
operations evolved into manipulations of inquiries done by international
health and safety organizations: UN Environmental Program, World Health Organization,
International Commission on Radiological Protection, International Atomic
Energy Authority, and other. The activities are carried out within the government-military-industry-media
complex. Independent scientists widely criticize UNEP reports on DU. Experts
of WHO decided to investigate the effects of DU in Iraq 10 years after the
Gulf War! ICRP has been suppressing low-level radiation data since Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.
IAEA, the only UN agency under obvious influence of a private sector
(nuclear industry in this case) has a monopoly on dealing with radiation
aspects of DU, leaving WHO the authority over the toxic aspect, only. Under
an agreement with the IAEA, WHO is obliged to limit the scope of its activities
to the toxic effects of nuclear materials. Health issues arising from radiation
are the exclusive domain of the IAEA. This is no bureaucratic freak, but
a deliberate institutional tool of the civil-military nuclear complex control
and cover-up of all irradiation issues around the world.
Countless journalists and numerous professionals, researchers, professors
and persons in responsible positions help with NATO deception and misinformation
about DU. Those individuals broke their own professional ethics of primary
allegiance to public good, and, more importantly, colluded in crimes against
humanity by spreading lies and distortions about the fatal effects of DU
in military and civilian applications. These apparently intelligent people
don’t seem to understand that radioactive DU particles may sooner or later
affect them and their offspring.
Not good at math ...or geography
Pentagon admitted in May 1999 that it used DU ammunition in Kosovo, but US
Army assistant secretary Dr. Bernard Rostker said he did not see any reason
why the US should tell anyone where DU was used. After much maneuvering,
19.5 months after the refugees started returning to Kosovo after NATO bombing,
and several years after Bosnia war, NATO reluctantly published the DU sites.
At the end of 2000, NATO set up web pages [www.nato.int/du/] with information
on DU sites in Kosovo and Bosnia. Lists of coordinates accompanied the maps,
but the data was useless: the coordinates were given in cryptic military
convention, while the map files could not be read even from our powerful
PCs. Was it intended by the NATO webmaster?
Repeated by NATO propaganda, "31 thousand DU bullets” were only at the sites
with records. Many entries in the list of DU sites indicated "unknown number"
of bullets. Probably Yugoslav and Russian army estimate of 50 thousand bullets
in Kosovo campaign was closer to the truth. Zorić [8] analyzed NATO Kosovo
list. Out of 112 sites, NATO knew DU quantities for only 89 sites. The rest
was “unknown”. The known number was 30 523 DU bullets, which represented
a total mass of about 9 metric tons. One 30 mm bullet contains just under
0.3 kg of DU metal.
Using an average from the sites with known quantities, Zorić estimated 7
888 additional DU rounds at the “unknown” sites, adding up to a total of
38 411 [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/files/nato%20du%20kosovo.xls].
The number might be higher still, if NATO used large or very large quantities
at some sites. This could be the reason NATO hid true quantity from the start,
with a view on bagatelizing the problem through propaganda.
Zorić also discovered that majority of rounds were fired at the very end
of the aggression. In June's 11 days of attacks, some 20 000 rounds were
fired, and from May 29 to the end -- some 23 500. Yugoslavia accepted the
"peace deal" on June 3, and the war officially ended 7 days later. Yet NATO
records show that DU was still fired on June 11. Out of 3 270 DU bullets
fired in Serbia outside of Kosovo and Metohija, almost 2 000 were shot in
June. At Plackavica near Vranje, A-10 shot at a rock -- for exrecise or nuclear-toxic
terrorism?.
Yugoslav professor Jaksić [5] discovered that there were at least 115 locations
in the Balkans which were stricken by DU rounds during NATO Kosovo campaign,
and that the NATO list “hides” 26 locations in Macedonia, 16 in Albania and
one in the Adriatic Sea. Neither NATO nor Yugoslav government mentioned the
sites. They clustered around the airports in Skopje and Rinas (near Tirana),
which NATO used for emergency landing and support bases during air raids
on Yugoslavia in 1999. Bein postulated that the clusters resulted from dropping
DU ammunition before emergency landing of damaged NATO aircraft. The cluster
in the Adriatic Sea might have been around an aircraft carrier.
A comical situation arose when Zorić pointed out to UNEP that sites they
tested for a major report were not on official list of NATO DU sites. UNEP
answered: “Some of the coordinates given on the website are effectively wrong,
but we can assure you that our teams went to the sites mentioned on the NATO
table. You can check this from the sample coordinates that the teams went
through large areas surrounding the NATO given coordinate. The coordinates
given in the website will be corrected immediately.” [10] This statement
alone is proof that UNEP did not measure at NATO given locations, but in
the surrounding areas.
DU witchcraft
NATO creates DU “science”. We would not expect cigarette companies to produce
objective studies on tobacco-induced cancers, would we? Supposedly a physicist
and professor of public and international relations at Princeton, Frank von
Hippel was cited in January 15, 2001, New York Times as saying DU is not
a radioactivity hazard because much of it has been removed. Is “public and
international relations” in his title related to NATO “Public Affairs”? Most
likely, since von Hippel’s “work” is featured on NATO DU website www.nato.int/kosovo/010110du.htm.
The website spins pseudo-science produced on PsyOp demand. There is no other
explanation, since DU facts have been clear for years. The perpetrators are
accomplices in a crime against humanity, and will be held responsible. The
NATO DU site is yet another evidence of corruption at international organizations,
research and strategic studies institutes, universities, and mass media.
Pentagon’s own objective reports will not be found there, but on many DU
websites that are linked to from www.du-watch.org, for example.
A 1999 RAND "report" was designed to divert attention to drugs that Gulf
War soldiers received as protection against a nerve chemical. UN after-war
reports on war pollution in Kosovo showed everything except the truth. One
report said there was no risk of DU in Kosovo and the population could go
on living as usual. More recent UNEP reports don’t say differently. See “Service
to humankind.”
Instead of being as harmless as a "handful of dirt from your backyard," the
DU turned out to contain radioactive-toxic additives that according to specifications
should not be there. Maybe for this reason NATO meant the majority component
of DU, uranium 238, is "not a health concern". Relatively, the other components
are, so the risks from U-238 fade by comparison. NATO told the truth, but
not the whole truth.
"Impartial" groups were quick to jump on the bandwagon. WHO expeditiously
compared DU-like illness incidence in Kosovo before and after NATO bombing.
Statistics are incomparable, because it is a completely different population
in the province today. 300 or 400 thousand opponents of Albanian extremism
and separatism left Kosovo, but many more immigrants came from Albania. Pre-1999
Kosovo Albanians boycotted the Yugoslav state health care system under Milošević,
so the statistics quoted by WHO are fragmentary at best.
After 2 weeks of”controversy” the alliance said in mid-January 2001 that
its chief medical officers compared evidence and found no serious health
risk from DU weapons. The true evidence includes all DU-related cases of
dead and sick soldiers that were hidden from public scrutiny -- tens if not
hundreds of thousands in NATO countries, and an order of magnitude more civilians.
If DU is so vigorously covered up in the West, how much easier it must be
in the CEE countries where, for example, the tobacco companies bribed a professor
with a trip to Hawaii for lying about the effects of nicotine, and reporters
were paid off to write lies about cigarettes. PsyOp enlisted top nuclear
and medical experts from CEE. Poland is a typical case. Polish nuclear "scientists"
made nonsense statements, some in team with Western “professors” [www.du-watch.org/bein/apologists.htm].
Instead of giving own scientific opinions, Polish nuclear "experts" maintain
"DU has nothing to do with the Gulf War illness." They neither participated
in any studies of this kind, nor specialize in this field of research.
Prof. Jaworowski of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in
Warsaw discredited himself by siding with the nuclear lobby. In a joint article
with a Dr. Roger Bate from Cambridge, “professors” underestimated the risk
from DU by a factor of million [7]. Jaworowski and Bate also rejected “Kosovo
leukemia” as occuring too early. In fact, many KFOR soldiers with leukemia
in 2000 and 2001 served in 1994-1995 Bosnia war, where DU was used. The rest
were the earliest, most vulnerable victims of leukemia among KFOR and UN
police from 1999 DU in Kosovo. Jaworowski and Bate compiled from the press
the number of deaths among KFOR and UN Kosovo policemen and compared them
with leukemia morbidity for average UK population -- an absurd, since: (I)
the accounts of Kosovo leukemia were certainly incomplete; (ii) average population
is not comparable with the young and healthy social group of soldiers, and;
(iii) the authors applied a biased procedure of the ICRP which is known to
ignore empirical data of morbidity and mortality due to low-level radiation,
nuclear reactor catastrophes and uranium mining and processing.
The chairman of the Polish Nuclear Agency, Prof. Niewodniczański insulted
the public with irresponsible statements about DU. He got away with his crime,
for an average Pole obtains information from the TV, billboards and tabloids.
Another "NATO expert", Prof. Zagórski from the Institute of Chemistry
and Nuclear Technology in Warsaw, compared radioactivity from 300 t of DU
in the Gulf to 1953-1977 emissions of "natural uranium" over the entire area
of the USA, implying that since it did not harm Americans for so many years,
why would it be dangerous in the Persian Gulf region! He also insisted one
can safely sit on DU rounds for 2000 hours! DU is known to give on contact
in one hour a dose thrice the annual allowable limit.
Service to humankind
Toxic and radioactive effects of DU do not need to be “studied” and “proven”.
The sick and dead Gulf War veterans in US and UK are sufficient proof that
scientific reports from the military and governments were true. Though there
were about 6 major factors contributing to mortality and morbidity of own
troops, scientists do not doubt that DU was one of them. The statistics are
not yet known for Balkan war veterans. If details of DU effects are uncertain,
they should be resolved by qualified research institutes, but not on involuntary
human subjects exposed by NATO to internal alpha radiation. From precautionary
principle, any potentially harmful effect should be prevented at all cost.
Normal scientific assessment of DU effects follows a standard risk analysis
chain: products of DU use - fate in a place over time - exposure to people
and nature - dose received - morbidity and mortality effects. NATO “scientists”
tinker with every step of the analysis. What would one expect? A criminal
will not investigate his crimes. NATO “scientists” notoriously do the following:
1. Fail to mention that the concentration of uranium in DU makes it orders
of magnitude more hazardous than naturally occurring uranium that is mixed
with other minerals in the ground in a steady-state, chemical and radiological
equilibrium.
2. Concentrate on the "pure" DU comprising mainly U-238 and a minimal proportion
of U-235. Contrary to industry specifications, real DU contains U-236, U-234,
plutonium, americum and other isotopes from nuclear reactors.
3. Skim over the risky products of DU (U-238) military use: soluble uranium
oxides (as short-term toxic agents) and insoluble ones (long-term toxic and
radioactive), also in ceramic form
4. Conceal the fact that ingested or inhaled DU particles are the main problem,
not the external radiation from DU metal on the human body.
5. Calculate the exposure to DU over areas thousands of times larger than
areas actually contaminated.
6. Spread DU doses over kilograms of internal organs, instead of grams of
affected tissue -- a falsification also by a factor of 1000. NATO dose is
thus millions times smaller than the actual risk from DU [7].
7. Ignore an activity in the lungs, which moves particles into the lymph
glands, and adopt the optimistic picture of DU passing from the body.
8. Ignore the fact that elimination of soluble uranium overwhelms the kidneys.
Insoluble uranium oxide and ceramic uranium oxide may move through the kidney
slowly and not cause serious renal toxicity.
9. Do not emphasize that just one dose on a DU battlefield is bad for the
lymph nodes, but a veteran may be present at many such events.
10. Project morbidity and mortality from ICRP curves that are invalid for
internal doses of low-level radiation and insoluble DU particles.
11. Pass over in silence the fact that DU radiation,
- causes cancer directly, and
- promotes cancers from other factors (the early Balkan
cancers could be radiation-promoted).
12. Compare erroneously estimated incidence of cancers among veterans to
statistics for general population. The latter is an incomparable group. Official
epidemiological statistics are biased downwards, “background” radiation includes
gradual accumulation of global radioactive pollution. Allowable exposure
standards are steadily being adjusted downwards by international institutions
responsible for public health and nuclear safety.
NATO “scientific” propaganda concentrates on the less harmful aspects of
DU. Defending the military use of DU is then much easier. When critics mention
the other aspects, DU pseudo-science says, "No evidence exists". In all cases
sufficient evidence exists to the contrary. In uncertain cases, the precautionary
principle decides about avoiding the risks of DU use.
US Government has recently admitted that 50 years of uranium fuel manufacturing
has not led to serious epidemiological studies. Previous studies focused
on cancer death as a biological endpoint, while ignoring chronic illnesses,
deformed children, and other veteran medical problems. Internal radiation
dose was never calculated in the A-bomb studies, hence it cannot inform on
the biochemical pathways of a ceramic DU particle in the body. Yet, ICRP
analytical apparatus relies solely on the false data.
NATO “scientists” apply ICRP estimates concerning uranium dust from nuclear
industrial processes, and not from aerosols (including ceramic) produced
from DU ammunition. Analogies of DU particles to nuclear industry situations
and encoded into ICRP data are invalid, because of cover-ups in the industry.
Also, inhalation of uranium dust cannot reveal all of the biochemical intricacies
of inhalation of ceramic uranium.
The propaganda exploits general ignorance of the complexities of DU risks.
From a uniform "depleted, spent U-238” DU suddenly turned out to contain
highly radioactive and toxic uranium 234, 236 and plutonium in the beginning
of 2001. European allies of the US were furious that they were not informed
prior to DU use in the Balkans. Pentagon stealthily planted the information
on the NATO DU website in December 2000.
On February 17, 2001, the Swiss radio announced that a Swiss lab has found
only minute traces of plutonium in NATO DU weapons used by NATO-led forces
in the Balkans [www.enn.com]. The lab report had signs of a PsyOp hand [9].
"Minute traces” read "no traces" a few lines on. "Highly toxic plutonium"
of course was not radioactive at all. The "additives" to DU were deemed "no
more dangerous than purely DU arms,” i.e. as innocent as a “handful of dirt.”
An official Swiss government document [www.nato.int/du/docu/d010125a.htm]
posted at NATO DU site raises a number of questions. DU weapons were tested
in tunnels in Switzerland from 1960 to 1980, then the tests were "brought
to an end." Why would one need a tunnel if the weapon were not a health risk?
In August 1999 a Swiss agency conducted research in Serbia on spent DU ammunition.
"All results concerning health hazards were negative." They only discovered
radioactivity and shells buried into the ground, for example around the radio
tower at Vranje. There were no medical tests on the population. In January
2000, when world public opinion was still waiting for NATO to tell where
and how much DU was used in Kosovo, a Swiss defense contractor AC-Laboratorium
Spiez (ACLS) "determined through analysis conducted as of April 1999 that
the health hazards related to DU are negligible." In April 1999 the USA announced
DU would be used in Kosovo.
In January 2001, Swiss authorities introduced voluntary tests for all Swiss
military and civilians engaged in the Balkans, past and present. However,
"spent ammunition samples collected against regulations in the field and
brought home illegally by some soldiers" was "collected by Army services"
who "offered help" to the soldiers concerned. Help with what? DU was not
harmful said the Swiss ACLS report. Swiss concern was not limited to own
soldiers: "the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation has contacted
UNMIK, the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina as
well as UNEP to inquire about steps taken to safeguard civilian populations."
On January 17, 2001, the Swiss minister of defense tasked ACLS with testing
spent DU ammunition for plutonium. On the next day, the Swiss president suggested
to propose that the December 2001 Geneva CCW Review Conference take up the
matter of a ban on DU ammunition. Why ban it if the prime Swiss defense contractor
to NATO ascertained DU was not harmful?
Former secretary-general of NATO, later EU foreign and security policy chief,
Javier Solana was heading NATO ad hoc investigation to prove to the public
that DU was safe. With a PsyOp script Solana stated -- before any serious
investigating began -- that there was “no evidence of a link between the
illnesses reported by NATO personnel and the use of DU ammunition.”
A meeting of the ad hoc committee comprising top medical experts of NATO
included Mark Laity, NATO spokesman who during the “Kosovo DU controversy”
upheld the traditions of Jamie Shea from your 1999 TV screen. The meeting
declared, "We cannot identify any increase in disease or mortality in soldiers
who have deployed to the Balkans as compared to those soldiers who have not
been deployed." The meaning of “ad hoc” came out. With a lightning speed,
the committee “examined” thousands of soldiers who served in IFOR, SFOR and
KFOR, and not a trivial number of policemen sent at various times to the
Balkans. Then DU could not be a problem to civilians, either.
When Italy and Portugal raised serious concerns about the DU risk to their
veterans, European Commission asked an unspecified “group of independent
experts” whether "hundreds, if not thousands" of EU personnel and contract
employees who have worked in the Balkans might face health risks from exposure
to DU "slight radioactivity". On March 6, 2001, the report was in. The “experts”
turned out to be not health professionals, but theoretical physicists who
know little about toxicology or biophysiology. They know only how to apply
recommendations of ICRP which also fails to have Occupational or Public Health
professionals on its Main Committee which makes all recommendations. The
public hoped the EU report would clarify the DU “controversy” but the “experts”
repeated unsubstantiated propaganda:
- “radiological exposure to DU could not result in a detectable effect on
human health,” and
- “there was no evidence to support” a hypothesis that exposure to toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals could combine with radiation.
Independent scientists S. Kaiser and R. Bertell called the opinion,
- “useless for the protection of either the veterans or the public, contrary
to the expressed intent,”
- “out of touch with facts and depends on dubious theory for its answers,”
- “a basic physics paper using theoretical (and often inadequate and incorrect)
models,”
and concluded that it “added little to the concerned dialogue about DU.”
On October 30, 2001, Pentagon released "Depleted Uranium Environmental and
Medical Surveillance in the Balkans" [http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_balkans/index.html].
As if posed to fend critics of possible use of DU in Afghanistan, or of opposition
to NATO DU weapons on Polish military ranges, the paper has “not found any
connections between DU exposure in the Balkans and negative health effects.”
Most of the work cited in the paper was from “independent” organizations:
UK Royal Society, WHO, UNEP and ACLS.
Playing with words
Attempts by DU propaganda to deceive, confuse and play with words are most
amazing. Undoubtedly, these ideas breed in Fort Bragg and other seats of
PsyOp, from where they radiate to influence the language and opinions of
those to whom society looks up. Anti-war publicist George Szamuely called
it “an orgy of lying.” Propaganda says "depleted" to highlight "neutral"
DU that encyclopedias assert is toxic and radioactive. Polish NewSpeak artists
even tried to call DU "disarmed uranium".
The silver metal is better than "neutral": soldiers are safer against radiation
from space in a tank made of DU than outside, on the battlefield. US defence
secretary William Cohen said DU was no more dangerous than “leaded paint”.
A US Army briefer advised reporters DU was safe enough to eat!
If DU refuses to "evaporate" and "disappear”, the propaganda says that the
dust is too heavy to fly anywhere. Basic environmental science classes teach
that fine particulates remain airborne, no matter how heavy they are. If
the audience is still skeptical, NATO says that DU "saves lives" of soldiers,
because it knocks out enemy armour from a "safe" distance. DU particles don’t
steer away from NATO troops. Once created in the battlefield, they travel
freely. Many NATO soldiers got sick and died of DU after their vehicles were
hit with friendly fire. Many more were contaminated from burning DU ammunition
stores.
NATO spokesmen and medical experts compared DU to "glow-in-the-dark type
of watch," and maintained that DU poses "negligible hazard." "Smoking 2 cigarettes
a day or having a series of bowel X-rays can cause more radiation exposure
than an hour of deliberate handling of a DU penetrator round." The penetrator
bullets are just “tipped” or “coated” with DU. 30 mm rounds contain almost
0.3 kg DU core, and 120 mm rounds -- 4 kg. GBU 28 bunker buster, which
contains 2 metric tones of "dense metal ballast" is being readied for possible
use in Afghanistan.
VIPs were remarkable. While heading an ad hoc “investigation” to prove Kosovo
DU was not risky, former NATO political chief Javier Solana stated, “The
evidence points in the other direction.” “Is DU is a health benefit?", wondered
a reader in a January 22, 2001, letter to Washington Times.
Madelaine Albright was original, "There's absolutely no proof” of a DU-cancer
connection. Then she does not need to answer if who-knows-how-many children
dying of DU exposure in Iraq's Basrah were "worth it." Lord Robertson defended
the "proven [DU] technology that has been independently tested": 'We cannot
possibly act on the perceptions of people or on the view of a word such as
'uranium'.” For the relevance of "perceptions" to information warfare, see
www.du-watch/bein/psyops.htm.
German defence minister Scharping compared radioactivity of 1 gram of DU
with that present in "10 litres of bath water" and called Balkan syndrome
a "hysteria syndrome". Chancellor Schröder who had a "healthy skepticism"
about DU-cancer connection, suddenly became "skeptical about the use of munitions
that could lead to dangers" to German troops.
The "dirt" that everyone walks on is compared to “harmless” DU. “There is
more natural radioactivity in homes in many parts of the US (and Europe)
than inside and M1 tank," wrote a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, Washington DC. When the armour is pierced by friendly
fire and DU sandwiched between the steel of armour burns and disintegrates,
then NATO has a big problem, not just inside the damaged tank, but in the
region.
Most victims of Gulf and Balkan syndromes were not even close to A-10 plane
or DU tank. They did not handle any DU rounds. Those who handled DU bullets,
shells or shrapnel exposed themselves to some 300 millirems per hour. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion allowable limit is 100 millirems ...per year.
However, most of the civilians and soldiers with Gulf or Balkan syndrome
breathed DU-contaminated air, or took in DU particles through water, food,
or open wounds. They also brought DU particles home. Storing military gear
from the Gulf War at home of a Gulf War veteran made his child sick. His
wife also contracted the Gulf syndrome, and then miscarried a baby.
Of the fifth kind
In the 1990s, the US and the UK at the head of the “international community”
added legalistic warfare as the fifth kind of instrument of power. It concentrates
on made-up allegations against “regimes” that violate “human rights” and
obstruct “democracy”, “freedom” and “free market economy” around the world,
starting with Yugoslavia. Ridiculous “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” allegations
are put forward by “international tribunal” in the Hague that claims to deal
with “crimes against humanity”.
Nuremberg Chapter, Geneva Conventions and protocols Additional to Geneva
Conventions.define war crimes and crimes against humanity. DU weapons fail
tests derived from the laws, as follows
- they cannot be contained to legal fields of battle;
- they continue to act after hostilities are over;
- they are inhumane, since they kill long after the combat is over;
- they cause genetic defects in children born after the war;
- the use of the weaponry is genocidal by burdening gene pools of future
generations, and;
- they cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment.
UN Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolved in
1996-1997 that DU weapons were incompatible with existing humanitarian and
human rights law. A weapon that is illegal by existing law and customs of
war, is illegal for all countries. A treaty banning DU is not necessary,
but preparations for one could be exploited by the US and UK to duck responsibility.
Any treaty could be broken anyway, especially by US and NATO, as recent history
proves.
NATO prosecution of “Serb perpetrators” instead of NATO crimes including
DU could be regarded an arm of the propaganda warfare. All sides committed
atrocities in Yugoslavia, but mostly “Serbs” fill the cells of the tribunal.
Broadcasts from Hague show “uncooperative Milosevic”. The allegations are
made up from speeches of a legion of consumers of PsyOp bulletins for highest
political level. Hundreds of “reporters”, while violating their code of ethics,
swarmed on the topic with anti-Serb bias, if not war-mongering [1].
Criminals don’t investigate and try own crimes. The court’s chief prosecutor,
Carla del Ponte refused to prosecute NATO for causing DU risk in Bosnia and
Kosovo. On January 14, 2001, she said her tribunal would act “if coherent
results emerge directly linking the use of DU ammunition with health
problems.” What other answer would one expect from a court that,
- was founded and is funded by NATO countries that are biased against “Serbs”
instead of being independent,
- has a track record of violating civilized rules of justice procedures;
- despite appeals from international groups, including lawyers, dismissed
proven NATO crimes, one being the conscious, repeated bombing of a passenger
train near Grdelica in southern Serbia.
US and UK used the DU ammunition at home and abroad, and are responsible
for:
(1) military and civilian victims from the Persian Gulf and Balkan wars;
(2) civilian victims of DU use at military exercise ranges all over the world;
and
(3) pollution of the environment by toxic-radioactive DU.
NATO say they use DU weapons for tactical advantage over enemy armour at
a low cost, and lower own casualties. Equivalent bullets made from tungsten
(toxic, heavy metal ore of wolfram), are more expensive. There are several
objections to NATO claim:
- The additional expense on tungsten would be negligible in the total military
spending.
- The DU weapons are not effective [6].
- Victims of “friendly fire” suffer from acute poisoning and radiation sickness,
instead of ordinary wounds.
- Longer-term casualties among own troops and civilians are substantial.
It is unlikely that US and NATO insist on DU weapons just for cost-effective
military advantage. The military does not apply full social cost calculus,
so all damages to people, including own soldiers, do not enter the equation.
If they did, DU would have been given up years ago. It is also unlikely that
DU weapons use up significant quantities of the total mass of DU waste. DU
weapons are not effective, either. DU-capable aircraft must fly low to hit
armoured targets, so NATO losses among these aircraft were high. But NATO
Operation Allied Force was effective at bombing refugee convoys and other
civilian targets in Yugoslavia with DU. Independent/Guardian reporter Robert
Fisk witnessed the aftermath of one attack, recognizing fragments in craters
to be like those from DU weapons used in the Gulf. Fisk and Scott Peterson
of The Christian Science Monitor saw children play around DU sites, and adults
recover parts from vehicles hit by DU.
Civilian casualties of DU in Iraq, Bosnia and Yugoslavia are ignored in official
reports on the Gulf and Balkan syndromes. It is cynical on the part of the
democratic, humanitarian West. Women and children are most vulnerable to
DU. As if contamination of people and their environments was not a bad enough
crime, the victim nations were subject to economic sanctions at the time
when they most needed medical help, fuel and bread . The sanctions included
medicine and medical supplies. Considering that the US and NATO governments
knew about the consequences on civilians, it follows that DU was used in
the regions to terrorize civilian populations.
It follows that DU weapons persist due to institutional inertia, or because
changing to other types of weapons would indirectly admit the risks of DU.
Also, war-mongers have discovered that DU is an effective terrorist weapon
that can stealthily and slowly damage present and future generations without
public stigma associated with nuclear arms or with other weapons of mass
and indiscriminate destruction.
References
1 Philip Hammond and Edward S. Herman (editors), Degraded
Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis, Pluto Press, London, 2000
2 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-6:
Information Operations, USGPO, Washington DC, 27 August 1996
3 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense, JCS Publication
1, Glossary Department of Defense Military and Associated Terms, 1987.
4 Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Joint Publication 3-53, Joint Doctrine for Psychological Operations, USGPO,
Washington DC, 10 July 1996
5 Predrag Jaksić and Vladimir Ajdacić, Discovering the
full truth about the use of DU during the NATO air-strikes in Yugoslavia,
Proc. Eco Conference 2001, Novi Sad, Sep 26-29, 2001
6 Venik's Aviation, Health Risks of Using Depleted Uranium,
Philadelphia, November 03, 2001, www.aeronautics.ru/venik.way.to
7 Piotr Bein, www.du-watch.org/bein/apologists.htm
8 Peđa Zorić, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/message/543,
February 21, 2001
9 Piotr Bein, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/message/500
Feb 17, 2001
10 Peđa Zorić, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/message/740
0Patricia Axelrod, On the road to Kosovo: Yugoslavs are paying the price
for NATO's war, August 1999, www.emperors-clothes.com/news/pay.htm
1Jeff Hecht, Coal may be cause of poisoned Balkan groundwater, 19 November
2001, www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991581