All flying bombs are made of depleted uranium. Jdams, tomahawks…etc.

So we might just have to scratch our whole inventory.

Snipet of information on the Depleted uranium. We have had this discussion many times in the military. There appears to be no significant risk of using depleted uranium but of course you can never say never.

Dr. Michael H. Repacholi of the World Health Organization, however, said in a January report: “DU [deleted uranium] is released from fired weapons in the form of small particles that may be inhaled, ingested or remain in the environment.”

Dr. Repacholi said, “For smaller particles, a larger fraction will deposit in the lungs, where they may remain for months or years, unless they dissolve. Very small amounts may be retained in the lymphatic system for longer.”

He added, “Breathing ultra-fine particles could lead to a theoretical risk of cancer.

Im not sure they have proven any link because the only real country to have any significant usage of DU weapons is Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither of these countries are exactly set up with a world class CDC.

It would be ironic though if we used chemical weapons in Iraq, given the pretext for the invasion.

I wonder if they’ll ever ban depleted uranium rounds.

There is an argument that the Chemical Weapons Convention should be interpreted in such a way as to ban white phosphorous, but that is a matter for normative debate (how it should be interpreted) not empirical fact (the specific text).

The white phosphorus story is an old anti-US smear. Yes, it was used. But Chris is wrong in saying it was in violation of treaties the US has signed. The use of WP & incendiaries against civilians was banned by Protocol III of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US never signed this protocol, and certainly did not use WP against civilians in Fallujah

Marlowe,
I’m by no means an expert on the subject, but I’ve been told that the Chemical Weapons Convention that we are signatory to, outlaws the use of white phosphorous type weapons completely.

We don’t need squadrons of B2 bombers and F22s to hold cities in Iraq, and we certainly don’t need them to fight the outmoded forces commanded by Iran, Syria or China.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not putting all the blame on Rumsfeld here. American politicians for whatever reason are afraid of cutting the military budget, even in the case of obvious boondoggles like the missile defense shield. It’s really just insane when you think about it.

They wanted Heavy 80 Ton Crusader Mobile artillery pieces that was going to cost billions. They wanted many, many things that would have worked great in a world war but that would not work in a new time in which world war was no longer going to happen…..given the fall of the USSR.

These old timers just could not get the old way of thinking out of their system. I know. I rubbed shoulders with many of them for many, many years. That is exactly why Rummy was not well liked by the brass and why he rubbed many people the wrong way. He brought a new way of thinking to the force structure and they did not like it, agree with it or accept it.

The new Military needed a new direction. However that being said no one could forsee that the USA would be involved in a pretty substantial police action in TWO nations in just 2 years.

So yes it was his way to lean down and make the forces rapid, mobile and agile. It was his way to cut 80 ton mobile artillery pieces in favor of stryker vehicles.

We are not bogged down in Iraq because of anything Rumsfeld did. We are bogged down in Iraq because we are asking 150,000 men and women to do the job of 1 million. Thats not Rumsfelds fault. Thats Bush’s fault.

But no matter what our military is still not capable of the mission being asked of them today. However you must understand that our military kicked Saddams heiny every which way but loose. The rapid, agile, mobile military machine moved to Baghdad with amazing speed and accomplished exactly what it was meant to accomplish.

It was never meant to be a police squad in two nations nor was it intended to do anything other then hit hard, accomplish military objectives and then go home.

This is Vietnam all over again and we promised ourselves we would never have another Vietnam and voilla……..here we are again. That is not Rumsfelds fault.

Not romanticizing it…noting instead that it was a brilliant example of how urban warfare has been transformed. Yes, much of the population was displaced — but note, not DEAD! There was a controlled depopulation of much of the civilian population, that the enemy used as cover.

Compare the example of Fallujah to any other urban siege/warfare example in history. Hue City, during the Tet Offensive, makes for an excellent comparison.

The white phosphorus story is an old anti-US smear. Yes, it was used. But Chris is wrong in saying it was in violation of treaties the US has signed. The use of WP & incendiaries against civilians was banned by Protocol III of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US never signed this protocol, and certainly did not use WP against civilians in Fallujah (it wisely did not sign the protocol, for otherwise anti-war activists would be dragging out AQ fighters in civilian dress as “victims” of US WP atrocities, and war crimes).

MVG said: “But wasn’t that his own agenda as well? Didn’t he accept the job because that is exactly what he wanted to do?:

Rummy and Bush have disagreed considerably, and many accounts – there was a piece in the Atlantic, I think, at his resignation that noted this – have Rummy only reluctantly buying into nation-building in Iraq (he wanted to hand the keys over to some Baath official and pull out…he never planned for an occupation and rebuilding of Iraq in a US image…that is Bush’s responsibility).

Yes. There can be no doubt that the USA spends more on defense then anyone else.

However the way of addressing this statement shows that you have only one agenda and further support my contention that:

But the antiwar shouts long and hard and eventually distortions of the truth become the truth.

What is the truth exactly?

GAO found that: (1) since 1990, decreases in the active military
personnel accounts have been closely aligned with decreases in active
military personnel; (2) between fiscal years 1990 and 1997, the active
military personnel account is projected to decline by 30 percent;

Today.

The Army consists of four corps and 18 divisions. In the active Army, there are ten divisions: two forward deployed in Europe, one in Korea, one in Hawaii, and six in the continental United States. The remaining eight are Army National Guard Divisions.

in 1991

The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions – 18 active and 10 National Guard –Eight Army divisions were deployed to the Persian Gulf, just as eight Army divisions had been deployed to Korea four decades earlier. The Reagan administration boosted the Army from 14 to 16 divisions during the mid-1980s.

Bush Sr. and Clinton and Congress drastically cut back our military during the 90’s and justifyably so. Yet when 911 came Rumsfeld was asked to fight a war in two nations with a drastically reduced military and it somehow became

“ALL HIS FAULT.”

Donald Rumsfeld worked with what he was given. A very small budget (relatively speaking).

Bull. He inherited the most well funded military in the world, by far. We currently spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, and in 2000 we were already close to hitting that mark.

The value of his transformation of US forces can be seen in the Second Battle of Fallujah and the Surge, and how US forces in Iraq today sweep urban areas with seeming effortlessness.

Since when did we start romanticizing the second battle of Fallujah? By most accounts we obliterated the city, displacing 3/4s or more of it’s original population. We used white phosphorous weapons in violation of international treaties we’ve signed. And in the end violence hasn’t been quelled there.

I would disagree, however, with MVG on Rummy’s career as Defense Sec.

The value of his transformation of US forces can be seen in the Second Battle of Fallujah and the Surge, and how US forces in Iraq today sweep urban areas with seeming effortlessness.

Perhaps it is the liberal bias of the MSM…I don’t know…but the media chooses to overlook how radical a transformation this represents in the history of modern warfare.

Look at any media coverage of the Iraq invasion, and you find fears of US troops being drawn into street by street fighting in the city. Urban warfare has long been the nightmare zone of combat.

Yet with Rumsfeld’s focus on highly professional forces and Special Forces, deployed with the latest technologies (Predators etc.) – and, having won a battle with the CIA, direct battlefield access to satellite intel – the US armed forces now deals with urban warfare (booby-trapped houses etc.) with extraordinary success.

“Ho-hum…whatever” say the liberal MSM. “Rummy is a sick old man….that goes to show you.”

Get small, stop spending…….Your NOT needed.

Donald Rumsfeld worked with what he was given. A very small budget (relatively speaking). George Bush sent our troops to war having to call up the national Guard which was part of the Clinton Era idea of a Military. Not a bad idea. In fact it was a GOOD idea. Im not Clinton Bashing….That decision had been made well prior to Rumsfeld arriving on the scene.

The decision had been made as far back as Bush Sr. to cut the military in order to balance the budget. The budget got balanced thank you very much to drastic reductions in military spending and force restructuring and

Downsizing.

He will always be accused of sending a pitifully small force into Iraq when in fact he really didnt have much more then that to start with. But the antiwar shouts long and hard and eventually distortions of the truth become the truth.