arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

The report claims as many as 260,000 could die in the conflict and its three-month aftermath, with a further 200,000 at risk in the longer term from famine and disease. A civil war in Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths.
Collateral Damage is being published on Tuesday in 14 countries and has been compiled by Medact, an organisation of British health professionals. It comes as the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, is deciding how to respond to a series of deadlines on weapons inspections imposed by the United Nations.
If he fails to meet any conditions, the US and the UK have threatened to destroy Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction using military force.
The report has been commended by both medical and military specialists. "It is really important that people understand the consequences of war," says Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association.
"All doctors look at war with a very large degree of horror because they know the meaning of casualties," she told New Scientist. "Even in the cleanest, most limited conflicts, people die and people suffer."
General Pete Gration, former Chief of the Australian Defence Forces and an opponent of a war on Iraq, adds: "This is no exaggerated tract by a bunch of zealots. It is a coldly factual report by health professionals who draw on the best evidence available."

Nuclear attack
The report assumes an attack on Iraq will begin with sustained air strikes, followed by an invasion of ground troops and culminating in the overthrow of Baghdad.
It concludes that the resulting death toll will be much higher than either the 1991 Gulf War, which killed around 200,000 Iraqis, or the war on Afghanistan, which has so far left less than 5000 dead.
In the report's worst-case scenario, nuclear weapons are fired on Iraq in response to a chemical and biological attack on Kuwait and Israel, leaving a massive 3.9 million people dead. But the report states that even the best-case estimates for a short war would initially kill 10,000 people, "more than three times the number who died on September 11".
The report argues that the 1991 war led to the severe weakening of the health of Iraq's people and the country's healthcare infrastructure, and that this would mean higher casualties in any new war.
"Casualties, the cycle of violence and other consequences continue to affect generation after generation," says the report's author, health consultant Jane Salvage.

Rob Edwards
This story is from NewScientist.com's news service
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993043

Een vervolg op mijn mail: een bevestiging van het hoog aantal burgerslachtoffers. En wat de meeste onderzoekers niet vermelden, maar wat volgens Carel De Rooy dé oorzaak voor het groot aantal slachtoffers zou zijn, is de ineenstorting van het rantsoeneringssysteem, de "food basket", waar ieder Iraaks gezin 2/3de van de maand moet zien mee rond te komen, maar dat bij een inval zou worden verstoord, evenals de ineenstorting van de al precaire economie.

available at http://www.medact.org
Published 12 November 2002

PRESS RELEASE 12 NOVEMBER 2002

**************
New report shows likely casualties of up to half a million in short and long term from war on Iraq
**************

A war on Iraq could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond, says an authoritative new report launched today in London and 13 other countries.

Researched and written by international health professionals, this evidence-based analysis examines the likely impact of a new war on Iraq from a public health perspective. Estimates of the total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians.

The aftermath of a 'conventional' war could include famine and epidemics, millions of refugees and displaced people, and economic collapse in Iraq. Destabilisation and possible regime change in neighbouring countries and more terrorist attacks are possible. Global economic crisis may be triggered through trade reduction and soaring oil prices, with particularly devastating consequences for developing countries. The financial burden will be enormous on all sides, with arms spending, occupation costs, relief and reconstruction possibly exceeding $150-200bn.

The new report describes the most probable hypothetical war scenario based on information from leading US and UK military analysts. This forms the baseline for its projections from the 1990-91 Gulf War and comparable conflicts, and from the best available information on the current state of health in Iraq. This indicates that its people are far weaker mentally and physically than in 1990 and therefore less able to withstand new assaults on their health and find strength for recovery and reconstruction.

The main aim of this report is to aid decison-making and encourage informed public debate by spelling out the true cost of a new war, against which any potential gains from going to war must be weighed. It does not take a political stance on the alternatives to war, but lists non-violent strategies not yet fully explored - some relating specifically to Iraq, and some to improving the international security context.

Jane Salvage, the report's author, will say that 'war is a huge public health issue. Casualties, the cycle of violence and other consequences continue to affect generation after generation. The structure of society deteriorates. Uncertainty and war itself affect regional and economic stability; displaced people become refugees in their own and other countries; and poor health hinders poverty reduction and sustainable development, which are preconditions for peace and prosperity.'

Medact President June Crown will point out: 'The world could benefit immensely if the more than $150 billion to be spent on the war were used in more productive ways. For example, this sum would fund about four years of health expenditure to address the health needs of the world's poorest people.'

The sponsors of the report, Medact and IPPNW, believe there is an urgent need for humane and wise global leadership which recognises that national security is impossible without international security. They urge all those concerned to pursue peaceful means of resolving conflicts with Iraq, and to think carefully about the effects of waging a war that might damage our fragile planet and its people for decades to come.

The report is also being issued today by affiliates of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in 13 other countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, and the United States.

Available for interview at the UK launch will be:
Dr June Crown - President of Medact and former President of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine
Jane Salvage - international health consultant and author of the report
Mike Rowson - Director, Medact
Gill Reeve - Deputy Director, Medact (report co-ordinator)
More information from Medact, 020 7272 2020; info@medact.org; http://www.medact.org