The Student Room Group

Depleted Uranium bombs dropped on Libya?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
The reason we are forced to link to Iranian and Russian news websites is that they are the only organisations which give a voice to UK dissenters.

So I'm sorry if we can't give links to articles on your oh so respectable BBC who do nothing but beat the drum for war. There was a report from John Simpson the other day denying that civilians had been killed in the bombing, disgraceful propaganda.
Reply 21
Americans eh? Hmm... not suprising.
Reply 22
Original post by garethDT
The reason we are forced to link to Iranian and Russian news websites is that they are the only organisations which give a voice to UK dissenters.

So I'm sorry if we can't give links to articles on your oh so respectable BBC who do nothing but beat the drum for war. There was a report from John Simpson the other day denying that civilians had been killed in the bombing, disgraceful propaganda.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6105726.stm
Press TV
That paragoon of objectivity that brought you the EDL maslamic rape gangs vid recently.
Reply 24
Good news, bad news, guys. The good news is that people are right to try and read between the lines of the news media and not take it all at face value. Possession of certain analytical skills and an amount of media literacy is a useful attribute. And there are undoubtedly serious flaws in news content in liberal democratic media systems (nothing to do with the political party - it's what we call them in the media analysis business). This is mostly to do with corporate ownership and the relentless pursuit of profitability, incidentally, but I won't go into that here.

The bad news is that because not many people actually possess those skills, they assume all media sources to be biased to fit their particular hobbyhorse or prejudice. They cherrypick facts to fit their theories. They see something they don't like on the BBC and it's because the BBC is biased. They don't see something they think should be there and it's because it has been hushed up. A piece of propaganda that is put out on various 'niche interest' websites (like Stop the War - bit of an agenda there, in the name, don't you think?) is not reported anywhere in the mainstream press not because it is not true, or because there is no proof, but because there's a conspiracy amongst all the liberal democratic media systems in the world to hush it up. Which are all controlled by the government, apparently. Or 'elites', as Profs Herman and Chomsky would put it, like good Marxists.

To equate the editorial control of content and the selection of stories based on news values that goes on at the BBC (as just one example of a western media system Public Service Broadcaster) with something like Press TV or Russia Today, assuming they are all equally biased, shows a serious lack of understanding about how the media work. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 25


Thank you for bringing to my attention this insightful article addressing the use of depleted uranium warheads in the Libya war... oh wait, it appears it is dated 1st November 2006 you absolute muppet:rolleyes:
Original post by Jez RR
Good news, bad news, guys. The good news is that people are right to try and read between the lines of the news media and not take it all at face value. Possession of certain analytical skills and an amount of media literacy is a useful attribute. And there are undoubtedly serious flaws in news content in liberal democratic media systems (nothing to do with the political party - it's what we call them in the media analysis business). This is mostly to do with corporate ownership and the relentless pursuit of profitability, incidentally, but I won't go into that here.

The bad news is that because not many people actually possess those skills, they assume all media sources to be biased to fit their particular hobbyhorse or prejudice. They cherrypick facts to fit their theories. They see something they don't like on the BBC and it's because the BBC is biased. They don't see something they think should be there and it's because it has been hushed up. A piece of propaganda that is put out on various 'niche interest' websites (like Stop the War - bit of an agenda there, in the name, don't you think?) is not reported anywhere in the mainstream press not because it is not true, or because there is no proof, but because there's a conspiracy amongst all the liberal democratic media systems in the world to hush it up. Which are all controlled by the government, apparently. Or 'elites', as Profs Herman and Chomsky would put it, like good Marxists.

To equate the editorial control of content and the selection of stories based on news values that goes on at the BBC (as just one example of a western media system Public Service Broadcaster) with something like Press TV or Russia Today, assuming they are all equally biased, shows a serious lack of understanding about how the media work. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. You're attacking the source not the content.

DU has disputed long term harmful effects. DU is not ruled out at all by the US or UK forces. It has been used in recent wars and is strongly linked to reproductive defects (whether it be deformed babies or children dying from leukaemua at higher rates than normal ) so there is good reason to believe it is being used now. The question is, should it? Surely there are better, less controversial methods of destroying tanks and armoured vehicles.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 27
Original post by garethDT
Thank you for bringing to my attention this insightful article addressing the use of depleted uranium warheads in the Libya war... oh wait, it appears it is dated 1st November 2006 you absolute muppet:rolleyes:


I was making the point that the BBC will happily criticizes the West's wars. There is a reason you will not see anything about DU in Libya on the BBC. Because there is no evidence other than what the SWC say
Anyway this thread has got nowhere thanks to the red herring of apparent media bias. Time to end it.

DU bombs are not conclusively safe and remain controversial. If/when British troops get fired upon with them perhaps then we'll bother to pay attention. Until then lets pretend its ok cos its happening way over there to them Arabs.
Reply 29
Original post by Aj12
I was making the point that the BBC will happily criticizes the West's wars. There is a reason you will not see anything about DU in Libya on the BBC. Because there is no evidence other than what the SWC say


The BBC dedicates only a very small percentage of its coverage to anti-war discourse I wonder why, because it receives its funding from the government perhaps?

No evidence than what the SWC say? Well there was no evidence of WMDs but they didn't censor that did they? they propagated that lie again and again until us suckers believed it.
Original post by Aj12
I was making the point that the BBC will happily criticizes the West's wars. There is a reason you will not see anything about DU in Libya on the BBC. Because there is no evidence other than what the SWC say


They've been used before in wars just like this. They haven't been ruled out. When the military are not open about it we'll only know the effects several years down the line. Bottom line, history suggests they are being used and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Anyway that's me done.
Reply 31
Original post by silent ninja
They've been used before in wars just like this. They haven't been ruled out. When the military are not open about it we'll only know the effects several years down the line. Bottom line, history suggests they are being used and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

Anyway that's me done.


Well one of the commanders said he was not aware of it being used. The other question is how useful is this kind of a munition on bombs. From what I have read of other posters DU is to hard and would punch straight through a building.
Reply 32
Original post by Wookie42

What shoddy journalism: the first sentence of the Press TV article is false. Not the best of starts, one has to admit.
Reply 33
Sounds just about normal to me. It's a typical part of current artillery.
I bet there are more deformed babies born due to incest than due to the usage of DU in shells.


Because, you know, people still love their incest in certain parts of the world.
Reply 35
Original post by silent ninja
I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. You're attacking the source not the content.


Well the two are pretty closely linked. But you're right - I actually thought this was the other thread with the same name.

The problem we have is that any US military denial that DU weapons have been deployed is going to be dismissed by people with an agenda - whether it be an anti-US one, an anti-NATO involvement one or just an anti-war one in general, which will just assume that there is a cover up by default.

As I understand it, there is currently no evidence that DU weapons have been used. Even the International Coalition to Ban DU Weapons has said there is no evidence they are being used, who you might think would have a vested interest in establishing whether they had been. And realistically, any news outlet - BBC, Telegraph, whatever - would consider it journalistic gold if they could prove it, so they wouldn't hold back on reporting it unless there was a specific D-notice issued by the government (which would be extremely hard to justify and would easily be circumvented by non-UK news outlets, so is not feasible).

There's a lot of research that needs to be done into the implications of the stuff, but a general acknowledgement that it's probably not very good for you. How that matches up with the realpolitik of long-term effect of airstrikes is a bit of a grey area - there was a sharp spike in the number of birth defects in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam after US bombing in the 70s, long before DU was on the scene (and quite separate from Agent Orange). And in Germany after WW2 there was widespread TNT contamination which can affect the diversity of flora and fauna. If you're going to bomb anywhere you're going to make a hell of a mess, with long-term physical and psychological health implications for the population, DU or not.

So while there's a chance DU is being used, in itself that probably doesn't merit the outraged shriek of 'shock horror US nuking libiyans' headlines that certain media outlets will produce, and which certain individuals will then unthinkingly perpetuate.
War in Libya has nothing to do with civilians anyone with a functioning brain cell can see that.
Original post by Jez RR
Well the two are pretty closely linked. But you're right - I actually thought this was the other thread with the same name.

The problem we have is that any US military denial that DU weapons have been deployed is going to be dismissed by people with an agenda - whether it be an anti-US one, an anti-NATO involvement one or just an anti-war one in general, which will just assume that there is a cover up by default.

As I understand it, there is currently no evidence that DU weapons have been used. Even the International Coalition to Ban DU Weapons has said there is no evidence they are being used, who you might think would have a vested interest in establishing whether they had been. And realistically, any news outlet - BBC, Telegraph, whatever - would consider it journalistic gold if they could prove it, so they wouldn't hold back on reporting it unless there was a specific D-notice issued by the government (which would be extremely hard to justify and would easily be circumvented by non-UK news outlets, so is not feasible).

There's a lot of research that needs to be done into the implications of the stuff, but a general acknowledgement that it's probably not very good for you. How that matches up with the realpolitik of long-term effect of airstrikes is a bit of a grey area - there was a sharp spike in the number of birth defects in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam after US bombing in the 70s, long before DU was on the scene (and quite separate from Agent Orange). And in Germany after WW2 there was widespread TNT contamination which can affect the diversity of flora and fauna. If you're going to bomb anywhere you're going to make a hell of a mess, with long-term physical and psychological health implications for the population, DU or not.

So while there's a chance DU is being used, in itself that probably doesn't merit the outraged shriek of 'shock horror US nuking libiyans' headlines that certain media outlets will produce, and which certain individuals will then unthinkingly perpetuate.


Thank you for an intelligent response.

I'll just add that the skepticism surrounding DU is justified in my opinion. No army has to my knowledge ruled out such weapons and considering how recently they have been used (Iraq most certainly), you can understand why it is so concerning.

Its funny how this turned in to a Press TV bashing thread when, in fact, there is barely anything in the Press TV article. They have merely quoted and rehashed bits of the SWC piece. I guess some people wanted to let off a little steam?
So, i have read through this entire thread. yes, i know its a few years old but VERY interesting.

I'm 18, american, had a single mother, and on most genrally every subject i remain unbias. with that said, i would like to state my own personal opinion on the matter.

DU is a junk substance as a result of enriching uranium (EU). EU is used to power our big American nuke plants.

Then one day a genius man (dont know who) had an idea, lets kill 2 birds with one stone. Because of DU's chemical properties it is alot heavyer than lead and it is a very strong dense material. so why not tip all of our bullets with this heavy junk and use it to kill other people in other countrys. slowly lowering the amount of DU in our stockpiles. the same goes for any country with a nuke plant, it is an economical way to rid your own countrys of junk. Is it toxic or radioactive? who cares, because its not you and its not your kids good luck getting anybody to listen. its not morally wrong or politically incorrect because we dont know and we dont care to know, using DU to kill them arabs (as silent ninja put it) is just simply buisness.

deformed babies, not my problem, mass cancers of every variety,any and every negitive side effect upon the human body directly caused by DU...... its still not my problem because i am American and we do have rather large guns. So silent ninja i thank you for this thought provoking forum oh and dont worry about being bombed by DU tipped amunition, we got your back UK :smile:
Reply 39
Depleted Uranium isn't actually as radioactive as people make it out to be.

Quick Reply

Latest