3 ms·

It's possible to google the answers to these things, and we're getting off topic. Here's something I found that may answer your question: https://www.theguardi

by llamaz 6y ago

It's possible to google the answers to these things, and we're getting off topic. Here's something I found that may answer your question: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-uranium-weapons-civilian-areas-iraq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/us-depleted-ur...

torstenvl 6y ago
You introduced the topic. Asking for you to support that position isn't off-topic. And the link you provided does not support your position. It says that the Air Force OJAG advised minimizing its use in order to prevent unnecessary suffering when other munitions were available and DU was not needed for armor-piercing. It doesn't say use of DU is "in contravention of international law."
- llamaz 6y ago
  My position is that the United States should de-escalate an arms race. I don't want to argue about details from examples that I use to support my point. If you want to labour the point, here's the specific law: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule70 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul... I'd consider birth defects to be "unnecessary suffering" (this exact wording was used in the Guardian article). The topic is elaborated on here: Here's an additional link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicULawJJl/2015/6.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicULawJJl/2015/6.html
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    The link you added says "DU munitions are nonetheless legal under international humanitarian law." This is in contrast to your previous opinion that their use is "in contravention of international law." Thanks for your time. Enjoy the rest of your day.
    - llamaz 6y ago
      I agree, DU munitions are not illegal. Weapons that cause unnecessary suffering are illegal. The question is whether DU munitions cause unnecessary suffering, and whether the US knew that the caused unnecessary suffering. Ultimately the question is not of great importance because no one actually enforces international law. Have a nice day :) (said sincerely, without irony)

by llamaz 6y ago

torstenvl 6y ago

You introduced the topic. Asking for you to support that position isn't off-topic. And the link you provided does not support your position. It says that the Air Force OJAG advised minimizing its use in order to prevent unnecessary suffering when other munitions were available and DU was not needed for armor-piercing. It doesn't say use of DU is "in contravention of international law."

llamaz 6y ago
My position is that the United States should de-escalate an arms race. I don't want to argue about details from examples that I use to support my point. If you want to labour the point, here's the specific law: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule70 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul... I'd consider birth defects to be "unnecessary suffering" (this exact wording was used in the Guardian article). The topic is elaborated on here: Here's an additional link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicULawJJl/2015/6.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicULawJJl/2015/6.html
- torstenvl 6y ago
  The link you added says "DU munitions are nonetheless legal under international humanitarian law." This is in contrast to your previous opinion that their use is "in contravention of international law." Thanks for your time. Enjoy the rest of your day.
  - llamaz 6y ago
    I agree, DU munitions are not illegal. Weapons that cause unnecessary suffering are illegal. The question is whether DU munitions cause unnecessary suffering, and whether the US knew that the caused unnecessary suffering. Ultimately the question is not of great importance because no one actually enforces international law. Have a nice day :) (said sincerely, without irony)