It was in September 2023 that the United States announced it would be joining the UK in supplying depleted uranium (DU) munitions to Ukraine to be used in its ongoing war with Russia. With the UN Environment Programs (UNEP) 2022 report stating it was concerned about possible DU use in Ukraine, this report will examine the use of DU as a military weapon, its use in previous conflicts, the health and environmental concerns associated with DU and its context within International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

The US supplied 120mm depleted uranium tank rounds to use with the M1 Abrams tanks as part of a $1 billion US aid package for Ukraine, an announcement which initially came as a shock, considering the Pentagons statement in early 2023, that the US would not be sending any munitions with DU to Ukraine. The US has not been alone in its decision, as the UK also supplied Ukraine, alongside Challenger 2 tanks, with DU shells last year. The UK Ministry of Defence stated at the time that the shells would enable Ukrainian tank crews to fire on enemy targets from greater distances. Inevitably, the decision by the US and UK was met with criticism from Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that sending DU ammunition to Ukraine would mean the UK was “ready to violate international humanitarian law as in 1999 in Yugoslavia”. The Russian embassy in Washington denounced the United States decision, saying “The administration’s decision to supply weapons with depleted uranium is an indicator of inhumanity”.

DU is naturally occurring uranium that is a by-product from the process which prepares uranium for use in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. Despite being a by-product, it still contains some  radioactive matter and is an extremely dense mental, that can be inserted into the tips of tank shells, bullets and mortar rounds to enhance their ability to penetrate targets. DU munitions sharpen on impact, which makes them attractive for use during conflict for penetrating tough tank armour. This is often the argument given by states for using and supplying DU, such as the US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby stating, “This is a commonplace type of munition that is used particularly for its armour-piercing capabilities,” in response to backlash over the United States decision. DU is also inexpensive, making it attractive to countries as they can purchase and use large quantities to keep costs down during conflict.

However, since DU still contains radioactive matter, there are real concerns over the impact DU has on the health of civilians and military personnel who are exposed both directly and indirectly in warzones, and has been linked to kidney damage, cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems and chronic health issues. The most common way that DU munitions affect health, is when they strike armoured surfaces. The impact generates extreme heat, which burns the bullets and creates a very fine, harmful dust. This dust is both radioactive and chemically toxic, which when inhaled or consumed through contaminated food or water, can be absorbed by the body. Even before DU munitions are fired, military personnel involved in handling, transporting or working near the munitions or damaged armoured vehicles are also at risk of the health issues listed above. DU has been linked to birth defects and increased cancer cases in all the countries it has been used in during warfare, with cases in Iraq and Kosovo being the most documented.There are also potential long term environmental impacts of DU in post-conflict zones. DU bullets that miss their target don’t break down quickly, and their toxic substances can slowly seep into the groundwater and soil, harming the environment. Moreover, its unique properties make it nearly impossible to completely remove contamination from land and soil where DU has been used or has penetrated.

The first recorded use of DU munitions in an armed conflict was in 1985, when the Israeli Navy fired munitions at a boat of Palestinian commandos off the coast of what is considered Israel. The first major use in conflict was during the Gulf War in 1991, Kosovo in 1999, and during the Iraq War in 2003. During the Gulf War, US officials admitted that 340 tons of DU shells had been fired. In the 2003 Iraq war, between 1,000 and 2,000 tons of DU was fired, according to a 2007 report by UN Environment Program. The United States and NATO allies sparked controversy when they used DU shells during the Kosovo war, when in 2000 it was admitted to the UN that around 31,000 rounds of DU had been fired  during approximately 100 missions. Recently, the United States fired over 5000 rounds of DU ammunition during an air raid against ISIS in November 2015 in Syria.

One of the most extensively documented cases of the consequences of using DU during conflict is in Iraq. In Fallujah, contamination from DU munitions and other military-related pollution is suspected of causing a sharp rises in congenital birth defects, cancer cases, and other illnesses. This contamination has been linked to a steep rise in leukaemia, renal, and anaemia cases (especially among children) throughout many Iraqi provinces.Cancer statistics are scarce, as only 50% of the healthcare in Iraq is public, however, official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people.

Moreover, there has also been a dramatic hike in miscarriages and premature births among Iraqi women, especially in Fallujah. In 2004, the US military carried out two massive military sieges of the city, using large quantities of DU munitions, as well as white phosphorous. Even today, doctors in Fallujah continue to witness this steep rise in severe congenital birth defects, including children being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems. The U.S. military pledged to not use depleted uranium in bombing campaigns against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, in response to a international outcry over the effects of DU exposure in Iraq. However, a 2017 investigation by the independent research group AirWars and Foreign Policy magazine, found that the military had continued to regularly use DU munitions, and it is clear from the decision to send munitions to Ukraine, the US no longer feel the need to hide their use of the weapon.

Despite a greater awareness of the consequences of DU munitions, calls to ban DU, and the overwhelming scientific evidence that the use of DU munitions in armed conflicts have detrimental  environmental and health impacts, they are nonetheless legal. This can be explained by the lack of a treaty which regulates the use of DU ammunition, which means that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the primary legislation that governs the use of DU during conflict. However, there is a lack of applicable rules under existing IHL treaties which would see DU as illegal. Even within The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a framework for regulating or banning specific types of conventional weapons that may cause excessive harm to civilians or damage to the environment, DU is not explicitly mentioned. Similarly, DU is not explicitly mentioned in the Geneva Conventions either. Moreover, according to the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, DU does not meet the legal definitions of a nuclear, radiological, toxin, chemical, poison or incendiary weapon, so is therefore classed as a conventional weapon, subject to the same rules and laws as any conventional munition, despite its increased risks and danger to humans and the environment.

Countries known to possess DU include the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France), as well as other states such as Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However, the number of DU munitions worldwide and the number of states that have DU munitions in their arsenals is unknown. Some action has been taken by states, international organisations and scientific institutions to minimise the human and environmental risks of DU and halt its use. In 2006, the European Parliament strengthened its previous calls for a moratorium by calling for an introduction of a total ban, classifying the use of DU, along with white phosphorus, as inhumane. In 2009, Belgium became the first country to ban the use of uranium in conventional ammunition, with Costa Rica following in its footsteps in 2011. Since 2007, there have been numerous UN General Assembly resolutions which have highlighted serious concerns over the use of DU weapons. The UK, together with the US, France and Israel are the only states that have consistently voted against these resolutions. In an attempt to regulate the use and consequences of DU, the UNEP has issued guidelines for the responsible use and management of DU in military operations. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which provides guidance on the management and disposal of radioactive materials, including DU, also emphasised the importance of proper storage, handling, and disposal of DU to minimise health and environmental risks.

States and individuals who are involved in DU production, wish to supply DU, or have previously supplied DU munitions are keen to deny or downplay the environmental and health effects, such as research funded by the US government which denied the health risks DU posed to the Iraqi population during the Gulf War and 2003 Iraq war. Moreover, those who support, supply, and profit from the use of DU are quick to remind campaigners and critics of its  tentative legality in IHL. However, in the history of politics and warfare, just because something is not illegal, doesn’t make it right or morally acceptable. Despite there currently being no treaty explicitly banning the use of DU, it is clear from the devastating health and environmental effects of this weapon that using DU runs counter to the basic rules and principles of IHL. States should follow Belgium and Costa Rica’s example and ban the use of uranium in weapons, and international organisations and institutions must do more than emphasise ways to reduce the risks, by calling for the creation of a treaty that would ban the use of DU munition.