Britain justifies its shipment of depleted uranium weaponry to Ukraine.

SHARE

It has been announced that British tanks given to Ukraine would be armed with problematic depleted uranium ammunition.

As seen in previous wars, the health effects of exposure to depleted uranium for Ukraine’s citizens will be severe. Depleted uranium is a hazardous and radioactive heavy metal produced by the enrichment process used to produce reactor-grade uranium. Its chemical and physical qualities have made it desirable for a variety of military and commercial applications: in the late 1950s, the US Department of Defence (DoD) was interested in its density and capacity to self-sharpen. The military was trying to improve weapons’ armor-piercing capability as well as tank armor.

Uranium and its history

Uranium, a heavy metal, must be enriched before it can be utilized in nuclear power plants. Depleted uranium, which is nearly two and a half times denser than steel, is a byproduct of the enrichment process; it continues to be radioactive but at a considerably lower level. Depleted uranium is commonly utilised in weapons due to its great density – it is more dense than lead — and ability to quickly pierce armour plate. Depleted uranium’s density makes it a useful substance for piercing heavy armor on the battlefield, and it is utilized by several militaries. Russia’s main battle tank has been updated and would now be able to shoot depleted uranium ammunition.

As pointed out by the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, countries other than the United States create uranium weapons that they do not categorise as nuclear weapons. Reuters identifies 14 more states that are known to store them.

Depleted uranium has been employed by the military since the 1990 Gulf War, so “this is nothing new or unique,” according to Stuart Crawford, a defense expert and former army officer in the United Kingdom. According to Mr. Crawford, Russia employs depleted uranium in some of its weaponry, including 125-millimeter tank rounds.

In 2013, the Ministry of Defense in the United Kingdom claims to have minimised any health or environmental hazards associated with the use of depleted uranium. While the dust released on impact can sometimes be a health hazard, “All of the current study indicates that these events are extremely unlikely to occur, and, if they do, will only affect very small clusters who will be at much significantly higher risk from the other hazards related to military conflict”.

Britain’s role

Recently, the British government stated that it would supply Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium, in addition to the Challenger 2 tanks that employ them. Depleted uranium is a main constituent in conventional anti-armor weapons available to be used in warfare by NATO countries for decades, and the United Kingdom stated in a statement that the ordnance it was sending had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Britain’s Foreign Minister, James Cleverly, claimed that there had been “no nuclear escalation,” noting that “the only country in the world that is talking about nuclear concerns is Russia.”

Baroness Goldie, Britain’s Defense Minister, made a further disclosure in answer to a written parliamentary question from crossbench pier, Lord Hylton. “Such shots are particularly effective in attacking contemporary tanks and armored vehicles,” Goldie stated.

Russia has previously stated that the use of depleted uranium in Ukraine would be considered a “dirty bomb”.

The other perspective

“As in Iraq, the insertion of depleted uranium ammunition into this battle would only deepen the long-term suffering of the people caught up in this conflict,” said Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Depleted uranium shells have previously been linked to thousands of avoidable cancer and other major disease deaths.

“CND has consistently urged the UK government to impose an immediate embargo on the deployment of depleted uranium weapons and to finance long-term research into their health and environmental consequences. Sending them into another combat zone would not benefit the Ukrainian people.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles