The Russia Journal, 20 gennaio
Misplaced glee over NATO’s new crisis
http://www.russiajournal.com/weekly/article.shtml?ad=4157

NATO member states have found themselves embroiled in a "uranium crisis" that is causing great delight in Russian military and political circles. Our generals are jubilant to see what they call further evidence that European and U.S. goals are strewn with irreconcilable contradictions.

The generals’ schadenfreude also stems from the fact that back in 1999, they warned about the long-term consequences of using ammunition containing depleted uranium in military operations. Now, they are out to brand the "imperialist aggressors" with shame. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev has already called for an international conference on the matter with independent experts from the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Russian generals see no real cause for concern regarding the whole issue – peacekeepers in Bosnia and Kosovo haven’t reported any cases of leukemia, and radiation levels in the areas they are deployed seem normal. But there is reason to be worried. The "uranium crisis" shows that neither the tactics nor the weapons of the world’s leading armies are suited for today’s wars.

Some five years ago, during one of my first trips to Bosnia, I asked American and British military officials whether NATO peacekeeping operations required any cardinal changes to troop organization and training. Everyone was quite sure then that no changes were necessary. They told me how they spent decades preparing for a fight with the Soviet army, an opponent more formidable than Bosnian Serb divisions.

Likewise, Russian generals are convinced they can fight as equals against the world’s most powerful armies, and put their setbacks in Chechnya down to material difficulties, insufficient money and all the consequences of 10 years of "democratic chaos."

But the world is entering an era of a different kind of warfare – humanitarian intervention. The objectives set by this kind of conflict are not described in any military textbook. During the Cold War, an army’s primary mission was to defeat the enemy on the battlefield. But armies today conduct military operations to save populations from humanitarian catastrophes. This isn’t just talk, either. But both American and Russian armies remain equipped with arms designed during the Cold War era.

Only recently has the United States begun serious work on designing non-lethal weapons, such as those using chemicals, infrared radiation and lasers capable of disabling or blinding large contingents of enemy troops for a fairly long time.

But these are weapons of the future. For the moment, armies are trying to fight modern wars with Cold War-era weapons. Since most of these military operations are considered short-term interventions, no one has had any reason to think about the long-term consequences of these weapons.

That’s why scientists can’t explain how depleted uranium can cause leukemia. Until now, it was always thought that depleted uranium could cause only poisoning, like all heavy metals.

It would seem that the leukemia is caused by a whole combination of factors. Armor-piercing shells containing depleted uranium weren’t the only kinds of weapons used in Yugoslavia. Large-scale use was also made of weapons emitting radioelectronic impulses, containing graphite dust and so on. Separately, these weapons could be safe, but they might provoke disastrous consequences when used together. And this is something that shouldn’t just concern the Americans and their European allies.

The paratroops medical service has hastened to note that no cases of leukemia have been detected among Russian peacekeepers. But they also said that 10 cases of leukemia have been reported among paratroops who weren’t in either Bosnia or Kosovo.

According to Russian medical statistics, for every 100,000 people in the country, there are 13 cases of leukemia. Currently, Russian paratroopers number 46,000 men. This shows that, as in NATO forces, the incidence of leukemia among Russian troops is double the statistical average.

Even if one believes that Russian troops have never used depleted uranium shells (though we have had them for the last 20 years), there’s no getting away from the fact that Russian paratroops, who have been involved in all conflicts in former Soviet territory, are at higher risk of leukemia.

This suggests that weapons used in the wars of the past decade are having harmful and as yet little-understood side effects on the Russian troops involved, meaning that NATO’s problems today will be Russia’s problems tomorrow.

By ALEXANDER GOLTS / Special to The Russia Journal



Commento: In America, invece che 13 casi di leucemia su centomila, ne vengono riportati come normali 3. Alexander dovrebbe leggere questo interessante articolo (pa ruski): A. Sakharov, "Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Non-threshold Biological Effects" Soviet Journal of Atomic Energy, July, 1958, vol.4 #6.