Americas illegal use of chemical weapons

[highfly 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

Anyone fancy burning of the flesh?

Its a bit of a joke how " there was " WMD in Iraq and then White Phosphorus is used?

Why?

White Phoshorus

Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination

Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh

Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)

Protocol III not signed by US

www.myspace.com/durtymac

[shropshire 0]

Hope your arse is covered with Asbestos cus boy are you going to get flamed... Good luck and good hunting mate.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tcnelson 1]

it's also illegal to shoot people with a .50 caliber machine gun. it's only for light vehicles.

anyway, white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon by current definitions. it is used because phosphorus oxidizes in air so violently that the temperatures reached in the reaction are high enough to destroy sensitive equipment and the like.

if you consider white phosphorus to be a chemical weapon, then bullets are a chemical weapon too as they are comprised of atoms.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

"When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round or rounds into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

If this is their only use of white phosphorus as a weapon (EDIT: in an antipersonnel context), then I see no problem with it. But he said this earlier in the article:

Quote

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

That's so fucked. Spirit vs. letter of the law. Fucked. I'd rather be hit with VX.

I've thought about this a lot since Trent brought it up in another thread, and I could come up with only one strategic value (note, no tactical value) for the employment of white phosphorus as an incendiary anti-personnel weapon over other, more conventional options, particularly in the urban warfare environment we have in Iraq:

Terror.

[billvon 3,086]

>if you consider white phosphorus to be a chemical weapon, then bullets
>are a chemical weapon too as they are comprised of atoms.

Bullets don't kill by chemical action; they kill by punching holes in people. That's the difference. Perhaps the distinction you wish to make is that WP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) since its effects are limited in area affected. In that manner it is more similar to napalm than bullets.

[kelpdiver 2]

yes, it's quite like napalm. It's hot and burns, but hardly equilivent to mustard gas or nerve agents.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

its effects are limited in area affected.

WP grenades are VERY impressive. The problem is that you can't throw them far enough to get out of range from the flying white-hot phosphorus that emanates from the explosion. You've got to have something to duck behind for cover after you throw it.

They're great for melting steel into useless lumps, to render enemy equipment unusable.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

>if you consider white phosphorus to be a chemical weapon, then bullets
>are a chemical weapon too as they are comprised of atoms.

Bullets don't kill by chemical action; they kill by punching holes in people. That's the difference. Perhaps the distinction you wish to make is that WP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) since its effects are limited in area affected. In that manner it is more similar to napalm than bullets.

WP injures due to its high temperature, not due to a chemical reaction. technically, burns are a chemical reaction but, i don't think that burns are considered a chemical reaction in this context.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[matthewcline 0]

That list is from the warning label.

The Col. does not appear to be an arty officer but a PR officer, so I think he went "off the cuff" and made a few errors in his quotes.

WP is a marking round used to spot arty barrages.

It is also in flares used to mark freindly positions.

It does get used to detroy equipment but that is in the hand grenade version, and it is not thrown hap hazardly, but deliberatly placed.

If some one used them intentially for any other reason it would be wrong, signed treaty or not.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

yes, it's quite like napalm. It's hot and burns,

White phosphorus is to napalm as high-explosive fragmentation rounds are to cannonballs.

No shit, the difference is night and day.

[highfly 0]

Quote

Perhaps the distinction you wish to make is that WP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) since its effects are limited in area affected.

Wiki Pedia definition of WMD


Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Because of their indiscriminate impacts, fear of WMD has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media.

www.myspace.com/durtymac

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

Quote

>if you consider white phosphorus to be a chemical weapon, then bullets
>are a chemical weapon too as they are comprised of atoms.

Bullets don't kill by chemical action; they kill by punching holes in people. That's the difference. Perhaps the distinction you wish to make is that WP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) since its effects are limited in area affected. In that manner it is more similar to napalm than bullets.

WP injures due to its high temperature, not due to a chemical reaction. technically, burns are a chemical reaction but, i don't think that burns are considered a chemical reaction in this context.

Oh, the context defense. Just like "lies", eh?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,086]

>WP injures due to its high temperature, not due to a chemical reaction.

It causes injuries due to its high temperature AND its chemical action. Even a minor burn may introduce phosphorous into your body; 50 milligrams (a tiny amount) will kill you. First aid is complicated by the fact that you cannot remove embedded phosphorous in the field; in a hospital, you have to debride WP wounds underwater to avoid reignition. Lesser amounts in your body can, among other things, dissolve your lower jaw. This was seen in match manufacturing before they realized how dangerous the stuff was.

In that way it's nothing like napalm.

[shropshire 0]

Published on Friday, June 17, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
US Lied to Britain Over Use of Napalm in Iraq War
by Colin Brown

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq..........


The MK77 bombs, an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea, carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that, like napalm, the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. The bombs lack stabilizing fins, making them far from precise

clicky




.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[matt91078 0]

I would love for you to show me in FM27-10 https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/4803-1/fm/27-10/toc.htm where is says it is illegal to shoot people with a 50 caliber anything. I do not happen to see it anywhere nor have our lawyers (JAG) ever told us we could not use the 50 on people. Their guidance is quite the contrary. They say we can use anything the Army gives us against the enemy.

34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury
a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)

b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.

I fail to see the text stating it is illegal to use the 50 caliber. I used the Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle for many uses when I was enlisted and a sniper.

Let me guess, you also believe that it is illegal to shoot paratroopers until they hit the ground? Wrong, it is open season. Only pilots from stricken aircraft are not allowed to be fired upon, until they hit the ground and make hostile action toward you, then they are basically asking us to demonstrate our marksmanship skills.

30. Persons Descending by Parachute
The law of war does not prohibit firing upon paratroops or other persons who are or appear to be bound upon hostile missions while such persons are descending by parachute. Persons other than those mentioned in the preceding sentence who are descending by parachute from disabled aircraft may not be fired upon.

I have been wrong before, but I fail to see the correlation between using a 50 caliber being an illegal action.

[Lefty 0]

Just because something has chemical properties and uses chemical reactions to function (ex: TNT, C4, white phosphorous, tear gas, any explosive you can think of) does not make it a chemical *oh no!* WMD. White phosphorous is highly visible, has a low area of effect, and can be discriminately employed by those who use it. A real chemical WMD like nerve gas or something would have none of these properties. As for the "civilians" (read: terrorists if you're not in the European press) who got hit with the WP, it's hard to think of a more painful way to die, but those are the breaks when you pick a fight.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

White phosphorous is highly visible, has a low area of effect, and can be discriminately employed by those who use it. A real chemical WMD like nerve gas or something would have none of these properties.

Some blister agents pass this test with flying colors.

[Broke 0]

Quote

>if you consider white phosphorus to be a chemical weapon, then bullets
>are a chemical weapon too as they are comprised of atoms.

Bullets don't kill by chemical action; they kill by punching holes in people. That's the difference. Perhaps the distinction you wish to make is that WP is not a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) since its effects are limited in area affected. In that manner it is more similar to napalm than bullets.

The lack of blood to body systems prevents oxygen from being circulated through the body so in a way you could say they have a chemical action against the body. We could call them a Hemoglobin inhibiter

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Some blister agents pass this test with flying colors.

Yes. Fortunately we're not talking about blister agents.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Broke 0]

Lets look at VX, because America just had to make something more powerful. It was designed to be extreamly leathful invery little quantity. However VX will not kill anyone unless it is distributed right. You could stand next to a vat containing VX and nothing would happen to you, however if you took an ammount say the size of a quater and atomized it and dispersed it with fans it will kill lots and lots of poeple.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

Some blister agents pass this test with flying colors.

Yes. Fortunately we're not talking about blister agents.

Quote

White phosphorous is highly visible, has a low area of effect, and can be discriminately employed by those who use it. A real chemical WMD like nerve gas or something would have none of these properties.

You were arguing against the potential categorization of white phosphorus as a WMD by identifying properties allegedly unique to white phosphorus (vs. WMD).

All I did was mention a WMD that has the same properties you identified as absolving white phosphorus from the being categorized as such; your argument as a canteen would leave you very thirsty.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Oh, the context defense. Just like "lies", eh?

yeah, or like the retard defense: "it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[tcnelson 1]

it's in the geneva convention matto...

Quote

I used the Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle for many uses when I was enlisted and a sniper.

did they teach you that the barrett was a machine gun as i stated in my original post? what sniper school did you go to? the one i went to had bolt action rifles.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Lefty 0]

Quote

your argument as a canteen would leave you very thirsty.

Probably so, since I am not an expert on the subject. Don't expect to hear an airtight argument from me, I'm just going off of common sense.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

WP is a marking round used to spot arty barrages.

It is also in flares used to mark freindly positions.

It does get used to detroy equipment but that is in the hand grenade version, and it is not thrown hap hazardly, but deliberatly placed.

We affectionately referred to WP as Willie Pete and it was usually the first round in a fire mission. Walking around with a WP grenade on your web gear was an accident waiting to happen and it did.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.