Are DU Shells Considered Dirty Weapons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kernelpenguin
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of depleted uranium (DU) shells as dirty weapons, which are designed to make areas uninhabitable through the release of radioactive or toxic materials. Concerns are raised about the potential use of dirty weapons by terrorists in urban settings. While DU shells contain slight radioactivity, the consensus is that they are not intended for area denial or mass destruction, as their primary purpose is not to spread radioactive waste. The health risks associated with DU, such as cancer and birth defects, are acknowledged, but participants argue that the potential for harm does not equate to the intent or function of a dirty weapon. The distinction is made that while DU can cause harm, it does not fit the definition of a dirty weapon, which is meant to instill fear and cause widespread devastation. Overall, the classification of DU shells as dirty weapons is rejected by the participants in the discussion.
kernelpenguin
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
This probably shouldn't be under philosophy, but what the hell.

A dirty weapon is an area denial weapon. It is used to make an area uninhabitable by delivering a payload of radioactive or toxic goo, which is harmful to life. It is feared that terrorists might use dirty weapons in major cities to render them uninhabitable and kill civilians in the process.

Depleted uranium (DU) shells have a slightly radioactive payload and their weight is the property that they are used for. While the radioactivity is of little to no threat to humans, dust from DU shells when inhaled or ingested can allegedly cause cancer and is allegedly to blame for the high rate of deformed births in Iraq following the first Gulf War.

So my question is, do you think that DU shells should be classified as dirty weapons? And what is your reasoning behind this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From your own definitions, depleted uranium shells are not dirty weapons even though they have some residual radioctivity. They should be banned because of this but it really just confuses the issue to mix them up with genuine area denial weapons. If you wanted to use a dirty weapon for area denial, you would certainlly not choose depleted uranium shells.
 
A dirty weapon is more than that. It is intended to be a weapon of mass descruction and a weapon to instill fear.

Regarding DU causing cancer and it being a dirty weapon. It is a weapon no doubt. But it is not intended to rain radiopactive waste on areas and kill by radioactivity. Under odd circumstances it may be possible for people to get cancer from it under rare conditions. However just because a weapon can do harm it doesn't mean that it will do that harm. I used to smoke. But Philip Morrison wass not trying to use a weapon on me. At least I wouldn't call it a weapon. Yet I could have gotten cancer from it. Cigarettes give off "second hand smoke" and the people around this smoke can get cancer too. Are cigarettes dirty weapons? I don't think so. The DU is the weapon. The residue left over after the DU has served its purpose can cause cancer.

No. I don't consider them dirty weapons.

Pete
 

Thread 'Today I Learned'

Every day we learn new things. Sometimes it's just a small fact or realization. No matter how trivial or random, let's start recording our daily lessons. Please start off with "Today I learned". Keep commentary to a minimum and just LIKE posts. I'll start! Today I learned that you clean up a white hat by spraying some cleaner with bleach on it (rinse before putting it back on your head!)
View full post »

Similar threads

News Weapons of Mass Destruction found already.
Replies
36
Views
7K
Is Depleted Uranium Weapon Use Justified in U.S. Nuclear Policy?
Replies
4
Views
5K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top