Deceit of Depleted Uranium use in Afghanistan – 1
by Peter Eyre on 29 Oct 2009 0 Comment

We have heard so many times the lies associated with what weapons have or have not been used in the theatres of war. It is only when independent experts reveal the evidence that the respective authorities back down and admit to their usage. One can almost guarantee that soon after this these authorities play down how much they actually used. In the Balkans, for instance, the US said it had only used DU rounds that were fired from US A10 aircraft. The truth is that vast arrays of weapons containing uranium components were used.

We have since observed many headlines that keep raising the same old questions such as:

- Depleted uranium munitions use in Afghanistan unclear 

- Council of European Union: No DU was used in Afghanistan

- Depleted uranium warheads found in Afghanistan

Already we can see from the above that its starts with uncertainty, which then moves into a denial phase, followed by the crunch when they find such weapons. Once it is realised that information has now entered the public area, they bring in their expert PR teams to smooth things over and play down its usage.

This format applied to the Balkans, Kuwait and Iraq when they denied its usage and then did a 180 degree turnaround. Lebanon and Gaza have been tested and samples reveal that yet again they are spreading nuclear waste in the far corners of the earth, but say nothing.

Now we patiently wait for confirmation from our illustrious US, UK and NATO forces that they do use weapons containing uranium components in Afghanistan. Experts who have visited the region confirm this is the case, so how long do we have to wait for their acceptance or will they continue to tell more lies? I myself have sufficient evidence to prove the use of DU, but one can live in hope that the military will eventually come clean… it doesn’t look like they will,  so I will release my evidence in Part 2.

Where do we stand at the moment and how long will it take for all these authorities to accept the independent experts’ advice that the inhalation of such aerosols is extremely dangerous to humans. In relation to the usage of uranium products in the seven areas of past and current conflict (Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza and Pakistan), the first three have been confirmed, I will confirm Afghanistan, and that leaves just three to go.

The three remaining areas show clear evidence of increased levels of cancer and birth defects and follow the same pattern as the other four. This trend yet again proves that it is the weapons being used that are causing the problem. When will this act of evil end and progressive slow genocide stop? 

It was in December 2001 when Rumsfeld accidentally revealed that DU warheads had been found in Afghanistan. The interview started like this:

Rumsfeld: “There was a report on radiation in one. It turned out to be depleted uranium warheads”

Bowman: “You found depleted uranium warheads in the location”?

Rumsfeld: “In a location”

Rumsfeld: “It turned out to be depleted uranium”

Bowman: “Small arms or warheads or – “

Rumsfeld: “Typical, I suppose, artillery”

He clearly pointed a finger at the Taliban, but doesn’t he realise they have no sophisticated weaponry or means to launch them? Doesn’t he understand that the Taliban are primarily foot soldiers who carry only automatic weapons and RPG’s? This was Rumsfeld’s own ploy to divert attention from the US and the heavy carpet bombing that had taken place.

Ever since, the US, UK, NATO, and the Council of the European Union have said clearly that no DU was used in Afghanistan. However, after some research by independent experts medical evidence has revealed the opposite.

This is a part transcript of an EU meeting:                                                         

European Parliament - Report of Proceedings                                         
TUESDAY 9 APRIL 2002 Defence / armaments [DU in Afghanistan]

The following was stated by Lannoye: Mr President, today, even if no official information confirms it, of many elements accredit the thesis according to which a great part of the massively bombarded Afghan territory was contaminated by depleted uranium:

According to our information, the PNUE [UNEP] should start, in the next weeks, a study relating to the environmental impact of the war. Questions remain however that I would like to pose with the Council: does the Council plan to take particular measures to protect the humane troops [aid teams?] and missions on the ground, in Afghanistan? What thinks the Council of the long-term use of this type of ammunition and weapons, knowing that they are weapons for purpose indiscriminé [of indiscriminate effect] concerning at the same time the civilian populations and the soldiers?

The response came from Trillo-Figueroa, Consejo. - Sir President, In the first place, I must say to him that our information do not agree with which it has handled its Senoria I have information, that is does not matter to declassify at this moment (that can be released) which makes sure that depleted uranium ammunitions has not been used in Afghanistan.

Later, the US military rejects claims that it used DU bunker busters in Afghanistan.  It also denies allegations that the weapons it used in Afghanistan are affecting health and the environment. Another letter from the DoD also confirmed that DU was not used in guided bombs or cruise missiles.

It was ironic that in a period of less that one year (2005) a letter was sent regarding depleted uranium ammunition: It talks about the movement of critical munitions (DU) to our forces in Afghanistan.

In an interview early 2008 Major Chris Belcher, spokesman for the coalition forces said the following “We don't use depleted uranium in Afghanistan; we don't have a requirement to use that,” But he did say that such weapons might have been used in the past. “I don't have any knowledge of what might have been used in 2001 and 2002. If there was an armour threat, the DU rounds would have been used to counter that threat.”

Dr C Ross Anthony from the Rand Corporation, the US think-tank, suggested use of DU ordnance would have been light in Afghanistan. “With very few of them (DU weapons) being used, it is hard for me to imagine that much of a real environmental problem exists,” he said.

Let’s review what weapons or aircraft in Afghanistan are believed to be using uranium components:

- Munitions known or suspected of containing Uranium and means of delivery: 25 and 30 mm shells, bunker busting bombs and missiles (GBU-28, 15,24,27,31 and 37, AGM-130C) all of which were/are delivered by one or more of the following aircraft F-15E, B-2, A-10, AC-130 Spooky, and Apache helicopter [AH-64], GBM-109 Tomahawk and AGM-86D CALCM cruise missiles.

The deadly A-10 aircraft can fire thousands of DU rounds a minute. Many of the above listed aircraft visit the region on a regular basis. The military has not only totally lied, but also broken the safety protocol associated with such weapons.

(To be continued…)
Peter Eyre, a former British Naval officer, worked at NATO headquarters, and spent a lot of time in the Middle East and South East Asia as a petroleum consultant; he lives in the UK and writes regularly for the Palestine Telegraph

User Comments Post a Comment
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at
Post a Comment

Back to Top