Ukraine: depleted uranium shells, munitions as useful as they are controversial

Vladimir Putin jumped at the opportunity to play the nuclear escalation card. The Russian president warned the United Kingdom on Tuesday (March 21st) against the delivery to Ukraine of a new type of controversial shell that would "force Russia to respond accordingly".

For the master of the Kremlin, the supply, confirmed by London, of depleted uranium munitions would amount to bringing "weapons with nuclear components" into the battlefield.

From Nazi Germany to the war in Yugoslavia

The British government cried out at "Russian disinformation", pointing out that the British army has been using these shells "for decades" legally. London considers that they are authorized under Article 36 on "new weapons" of the 1977 Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Washington on Thursday gave its support to the British initiative, assuring that "there was no radioactive risk [with these shells, editor's note] and that we were miles away from a nuclear escalation".

In reality, these are munitions made from the remnants of the uranium enrichment process in the civilian nuclear industry. It is said to be "depleted" because it contains fewer isotopes and is also less radioactive than enriched uranium, according to the many studies conducted on these shells.

Nevertheless, "it is clear that sending this type of shell to Kiev will provide arguments to all those who echo the Russian narrative about the responsibilities of the West in the aggravation of the conflict," said Jeff Hawn, an expert on the war in Ukraine and external consultant for the New Lines Institute, a US geopolitical research center.

Because this type of shell has had bad press for decades, and scientific controversies about the dangerousness of exposure to this radiation "have never been definitively settled," adds the American expert.

Depleted uranium shells are essentially used as "ammunition for tanks against enemy armored vehicles," Hawn said. The idea of using this radioactive material to make munitions dates back to Nazi Germany. In 1943, the Minister of Armaments, Albert Speer, wanted to use it to alleviate the shortage of tungsten, which is the traditional material for tank shells. But history does not say whether the Third Reich actually used it.

The Americans will then seize the concept to develop weapons "killing Russian tanks" in the 1960s. "The United States wanted to have the most effective weaponry possible in the event of combat in Europe against Soviet tanks," Hawn said.

"Very flammable"

Depleted uranium has an ideal quality against tanks: "It is a very dense material, which gives it a significant perforation power, very useful for overcoming armor," says the US Department of Defense.

Its advantage over other very dense materials — like tungsten — is that "it's also very flammable," Hawn adds. Concretely, these shells penetrate without too many problems in the cockpit of the targeted tank, where they will heat. And "the proximity of the fuel usually leads to the explosion of the tank," details this military specialist.

Its main disadvantage? Uranium, even depleted, remains toxic. That is why, even though several countries have manufactured these shells – France, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, Pakistan, Russia – few have officially used them. "Most states consider that the advantage that these shells provide over tungsten munitions is outweighed by the fact that these munitions are politically toxic because they are associated with radioactivity and nuclear weapons," notes Jeff Hawn.

In fact, only the United States and the United Kingdom openly used it during the first Gulf War in 1990 and during the Yugoslav War (1991-2001). Since then, scientific studies have multiplied to try to assess their harmfulness to health.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) alone produced reports on this issue in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014. In 2001, the British Royal Society published another authoritative one of more than 300 pages, and various scientific articles have attempted to analyze the health risk posed by these munitions.

Minimal health risk?

Research initially focused on the risks faced by soldiers handling these weapons. Subsequently, other studies sought to understand whether environmental pollution caused by radiation was dangerous in the long term for the health of local populations. In Iraq, for example, studies have tried unsuccessfully to establish whether the rise in cancer cases in some areas can be attributed to the use of depleted uranium shells by the US military in 1991.

The risk is twofold. First, the debris from these shells remains radioactive and, potentially, dangerous in case of prolonged contact. Then, upon impact with the target, these munitions release radioactive dust that will contaminate the environment. Soils and groundwater can be polluted, which can lead to contamination of local populations by ingestion, notes the Royal Society report.

The U.S. and U.K. have been saying for years that the health effects are minimal. The British Royal Society concluded that the risk of developing lung cancer may be a little higher... but only in case of direct exposure and for a long time to these munitions.

Despite a substantial body of science, the UN believes that it is necessary to continue to assess the health effects of these weapons, while stressing that no evidence of a "significant" health risk has been provided to date.

Nevertheless, "the use of these munitions in Ukraine is bound to lead to environmental pollution for decades," notes Jeff Hawn. Under these conditions, is the use of these shells really necessary when Russia has already lost a significant part of its tanks?

For Jeff Hawn, the British decision is nevertheless justified. First, "because there is a shortage of ammunition and these shells, which were lying in the stocks, can be used by the main models of tanks available to the Ukrainian army," he said. They can also fire from farther than most other tank shells. "The more Ukrainians can shoot from a distance, the more it helps to stay safe and protect soldiers, which for an army that remains outnumbered is essential," Hawn said. And this could be the main reason for the strong Russian reaction: Moscow is perhaps less worried about the use of more or less toxic weapons than about the arrival of ammunition giving a new advantage to its Ukrainian adversary.

The summary of the week France 24 invites you to look back on the news that marked the week

I subscribe

Take international news with you everywhere! Download the France 24 app