LogFAQs > #876707820

Antifar posted...

Saloonist posted...

International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs.

Often even these laws have carveouts for the sole purpose of exempting the U.S.

Two months ago, it was revealed we were using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and Syria, knowing that it has been blamed for birth defects and cancer among civilians
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/

The harmful effects of depleted uranium are greatly exaggerated, based on the evidence available from what I understand. Blame and accusations are not the same as evidence, and although there is some evidence that it can cause birth defects, a lot of the other evidence, such as it being carcinogenic is inconclusive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Gulf_War_syndrome_and_soldier_complaints

But there is no convention banning depleted uranium. The rest of the world can come together to sign a treaty banning it if they so desire and create a new international norm, even without US support. There are many international conventions of which the US is not a party. Yet they did not. The US is violating no laws and it is not violating an international norm. Should there be a norm against using depleted uranium? Maybe. But that is irrelevant. There is a norm against using weapons like sarin gas. Assad explicitly made a deal with us that he would not use these weapons in conformity with international law, and in exchange we would leave him alone. He backed out of that deal.

Also I would hardly call that a "carveout". Depleted Uranium is nothing like gassing people which can kill hordes in a few minutes. The purpose of depleted uranium is not to cause birth defects.The purpose of sarin gas is to kill masses.

Negative side effects are to be avoided, but the comparison is disingenuous.
---

BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more