Dirty Bombs Vs Dirty Bullets
So I keep seeing all these stories about how the US invaders in Iraq will, apparently, have to deal with those nefarious Iraqis who might dare, dare!, to use chemical weapons (apparently a notoriously ineffective battlefield weapon). Then I read about how the region is still suffering from the radiological pollution from the dirty bullets of poisonous and radioactive Uranium that the Pentagon scattered around the last time it went adventuring. Everyone seems so concerned about some “dirty bomb” threat, but nobody seems to care that the US will soon be scattering dirty bullets all over Iraq. In a country where half the population are children under 15, the mutagenic effects will have a long time to warp their DNA and breed a new generation of embittered super-mutant Jihad warriors.
Using “depleted Uranium” in a battle in Iraq is just a clever, more directed way of using chemical-radiological weapons in the battlefield. Thanks to the notable lack of any progress in the Geneva Conventions since the mid-part of the 20th century, the old-fashioned and discredited gaseous agents are explicitly proscribed whereas radiological warfare has not been explicitly proscribed. I suspect that this lack of multilateral progress in restricting these new weapons has much to do with the influence of the main country that possesses the raw material and the will to engage in radiological warfare: the US.
