22 Mar 2013, 12:43 pm
Today I saw a report from the BBC looking at the rise in birth defects - by 60% since before the 2003 invasion. (video here - may not work outside the UK, but I believe there's a programme about it on the BBC News channel over the weekend).
The Beeb is a bit late to this, as the Independent carried a report about the issue five months ago. Here is alink to a FAQ page on the WHO report into the prevalence of birth defects.
Now, there is no evidential link to a particular cause. There are accusations that mercury and depleted uranium are in part responsible, but so far that remains unproven (and the WHO report will not settle that).
But this does raise questions. Not about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War itself (or of war per se), but about how it was waged and what was used.
On a 'traditional' battlefield, far away from urban populations, I guess the ethics of what is used are a little different, but modern warfare is not fought only in remote locations, it takes place in cities, near crop fields, in places where people live and work - or will do afterwards. Sure, the idea is that we create weapons that kill effectively, but should we also be more careful about using weapons that may cause long term damage afterwards?
We have tried to clamp down on the use of mines, which blight a warzone for years and take many innocent lives. We have also looked at clusterbombs. What about things like depleted uranium, white phosphorus, mercury etc?
The Beeb is a bit late to this, as the Independent carried a report about the issue five months ago. Here is alink to a FAQ page on the WHO report into the prevalence of birth defects.
Now, there is no evidential link to a particular cause. There are accusations that mercury and depleted uranium are in part responsible, but so far that remains unproven (and the WHO report will not settle that).
But this does raise questions. Not about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War itself (or of war per se), but about how it was waged and what was used.
On a 'traditional' battlefield, far away from urban populations, I guess the ethics of what is used are a little different, but modern warfare is not fought only in remote locations, it takes place in cities, near crop fields, in places where people live and work - or will do afterwards. Sure, the idea is that we create weapons that kill effectively, but should we also be more careful about using weapons that may cause long term damage afterwards?
We have tried to clamp down on the use of mines, which blight a warzone for years and take many innocent lives. We have also looked at clusterbombs. What about things like depleted uranium, white phosphorus, mercury etc?
