2002 CPEO Military List Archive

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
Date: 28 Jan 2002 16:40:38 -0000
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: Re: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions
DU is an effective weapon in the short run. We learned that in the War
with Iraq. We not only took out a lot of Iraqi armor. We knocked out
some of our own.

But in the long run it may reduce the habitability of the land we are
trying to save. This is one of the parallels with Agent Orange.

In general, I do not believe our troops should use a number of clases of
weapons, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, even when
and where they are "effective." My reasons are both moral and practical.
I also oppose the use of environmental weapons. I believe international
treaties and law support me on most of these points.

The question is: Is a weapon (DU anti-tank penetrators) or tactic (such
as blowing up an oil well) that has strategic value but potentially
serious environmental consequences an environmental weapon? If we know
for sure (and we don't yet) that DU will cause people to get sick for
decades, should we stop using it?


fgibbons@theitgroup.com wrote:
> Both Laura and Diane fail to address a key point in Gawarecki's reply:
> DU is an extremely effective weapon. Is anyone suggesting that when our
> troops are ordered to fight by our civilian leaders that they should not
> have the most effective weapons available? What should be substituted?
> I am also puzzled why Laura finds Gawarecki's reply "angry"- her
> response offers nothing more than a different viewpoint.


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918

  Prev by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions
Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Perchlorate Workshop
  Prev by Thread: RE: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions
Next by Thread: RE: [CPEO-MEF] DU Munitions

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index