Americas illegal use of chemical weapons

[mr2mk1g 10]

Hey guys. I think this whole thing swings on a technicality.

War's not nice. People are going to get fucked up. Hell that's the point - people are trying to fuck each other up.

WP is not banned in and of itself. Up until last month the Pentagon said that they used WP in Fallujah sparingly as an obscurant and to illuminate combat areas. This is all obviously legal and I don't know that anyone is suggesting otherwise. Prior to this however the Pentagon had issued repeated denials about any other kind of use.

Now the Pentagon has admitted that WP was used in other ways. They admit that it was fired directly at insurgents. This is where the technicality arguments start.

First the Pentagon is saying that they didn't want to kill anyone with WP but only scare them so that they could be killed with HE rounds. This is an incredibly tardish argument but hey. I don't seriously expect even the Pentagon thinks anyone will actually buy the whole "we didn't mean to kill anyone by firing incendiary rounds at them honest gov'nr" argument.

Besides, the fact is people were killed by it - they have the bodies. This therefore, isn't where the real argument lies.

The Pentagon says that if WP kills it does so by burning them to death and that those burns are thermic in nature. This is a compelling argument. Phosphorus in the presence of oxygen ignites spontaneously and burns. It continues to burn even when in contact with your skin.

The burns produced are thermic in nature (ie it is the heat of the exothermic reaction which causes damage to you not the chemical interaction between components of your skin and the chemical in contact with it). This burning will kill you or fuck you up (see the start of my post). This is legal.

Others acknowledge that but say that WP works in other ways too. Phosphorus is extremely hygroscopic - ie if absorbs water rapidly. In contact with a water molecule phosphorus forms an acid. Acid burns. It burns in a chemical way (ie the damage to your skin is because the chemicals effect on proteins and fats rather than the simple presence of extreme heat). The inhalation an acid vapor causes serious damage to the lungs leading to mortality through oxygen depravation.

Water vapor is present in the atmosphere. When phosphorus smoke is also present in the atmosphere you will get a cloud of acid which will lead to chemical burns wherever you also have that third element 'human' present in the atmosphere. Use of acid as a weapon would be controlled as a chemical weapon.

I don't know if that makes WP a chemical weapon. I'd say from my uneducated point of view that the primary mode of death would clearly be the thermic reaction of the burning phosphorus under most circumstances. I do acknowledge however that if you fire this stuff at someone they will most likely also be subjected to chemical burns.

While inhalation of phosphoric acid would damage your lungs, perhaps fatally, the likelihood is you'd be far more damaged by also inhailing the phosphorus itself which would burn through the tissue of your lungs, thorough your ribs and out the other side.

Now that might sound really bad... but as it's a thermic reaction I can't see how it's currently controlled.

Of course I may have missed something... but I've done my best.

[Trent 0]

Don't know if this still holds true, but WP is/was used in artillery shells to fire marking rounds so that following shells could be adjusted to their target. If these targets were in Fallujah on Joe Jihadi's house... then he may very well get a marking round through the roof before the rest of his place is leveled with conventional shells.

In WW2, flamethrowers were used to clear entrenched positions and bunkers because people could take cover from frag grenades. Perhaps we should go back to using the flamethrowers in places like fallujah. Since that's more discriminating on where it hits, it's better right? No big WP explosions (unless of course we're SURE it'll miss everyone), no imprecise napalm, just a charred and clear room.

Next thing you know, smoke grenades will be giving people lung cancer and that'll be the issue of the day.

Oh, hello again!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Don't know if this still holds true, but WP is/was used in artillery shells to fire marking rounds so that following shells could be adjusted to their target. If these targets were in Fallujah on Joe Jihadi's house... then he may very well get a marking round through the roof before the rest of his place is leveled with conventional shells.

Could be the case in some instances of course but it's kinda moot now the Pentagon has admitted deliberately targeting troops with WP (note in my post above though I'm not actually say that such acts are in themselves illegal).

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Next thing you know, smoke grenades will be giving people lung cancer and that'll be the issue of the day.

oh god don't give them anymore ideas. We'll be hearing about big bad america trying to suffocate poor innocent children with the chemical weapons of smoke gernades

MB 3528, RB 1182

[ViperPilot 0]

Yeah, and then there will be more additions to some of the already fucking ridiculous LOAC rules. They're not fighting by a single rule, why should we?...fucking politicians.

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

Yeah, and then there will be more additions to some of the already fucking ridiculous LOAC rules. They're not fighting by a single rule, why should we?...fucking politicians.

Now that WMDs have gone in the garbage bin of revisionist history, you are supposed to be there to support the rule of law.

...

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

[ViperPilot 0]

I have no problem supporting rule of law in Iraq, I just hate some of the BS LOAC rules and the fact that we follow them and no one we fight ever does (since WWII). The "Gentleman's War" is extinct, it's about time the Western world realizes that.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I have no problem supporting rule of law in Iraq, I just hate some of the BS LOAC rules and the fact that we follow them and no one we fight ever does (since WWII). The "Gentleman's War" is extinct, it's about time the Western world realizes that.

The Laws of War can still be adhered to, even in this conflict. It can't be, won't be, easy. The other options do not serve what we stand for, what we strive to be.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[downwardspiral 0]

hah! this thread is ridiculous

Yep we should be more humane during war. Below are are a few examples on how to kill the enemy humanely.

**WARNING EXTREMELY GRAPHIC** [/B]

http://www.optruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=134

http://www.optruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=230&Itemid=134

http://www.optruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=134



and my personal favorite....

http://www.optruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=225&Itemid=134

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[ViperPilot 0]

No, I understand and agree. I'm just saying BS LOAC rules such as, can't use HP ammunition, but you can slam a JDAM into someone. If these guys run around chopping heads off, we ought to be able to use HP ammo.

[billvon 3,086]

>They're not fighting by a single rule, why should we?

Cause we're, I don't know, a little better than Saddam/the insurgents? At least I like to think we are.

One thing I find funny about this is that Saddam's use of phosphorous was one of the reasons we went to war with him. "He uses chemical weapons AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE! Oh the horror!" But when we use them, it's just a stupid meaningless rule that got broken. Let's pray we are never judged by the rules we use for others.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

[bch7773 0]

Quote

One thing I find funny about this is that Saddam's use of phosphorous was one of the reasons we went to war with him. "He uses chemical weapons AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE! Oh the horror!" But when we use them, it's just a stupid meaningless rule that got broken. Let's pray we are never judged by the rules we use for others.

TNT, c4, nitroglycerine are all poisonous too... according to you, bill, using explosives is chemical weapons. we better stop using mortars, bombs, and hand gernades.

gee i guess the US should beat people to death, so we dare don't get chemicals on them while we shoot them or blow them up

MB 3528, RB 1182

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

gee i guess the US should beat people to death, so we dare don't get chemicals on them while we shoot them or blow them up

Do you, by chance, have children of service age? Have you, yourself, ever served?

[billvon 3,086]

>according to you, bill, using explosives is chemical weapons.

Uh, no. You're missing the point here. War is war; we use whatever we think we need to, from rubber bullets to nuclear weapons.

But ACCORDING TO THE US, white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, and when Saddam Hussein used it against his own people, he was labeled a monster. But when we use it, well, it's just fine.

Ever wonder why the US gets such a bad name in the international community? It's because we constantly say one thing and do another. We say we don't torture, then we discover yet another string of prisoners tortured and beaten to death. We say Saddam is an evil monster for using WP against Iraqis, then we use WP against the Iraqis during our occupation. If another country did such things we would have already invaded it.

Solution? If we want to talk the talk, walk the walk. If we say we don't torture, then stop torturing people. Pass the anti-torture bill. If anyone is found torturing prisoners, go after everyone involved, not just the guy posing in the pictures. If we say we don't use chemical weapons like that monster Hussein, then stop using chemical weapons.

Or keep doing all that stuff because the terrorists are evil or whatever and we have to crush them like bugs. But for god's sake get off the high horse and admit what we're doing, and stop with the meaningless platitudes (the US, not you.)

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Cause we're, I don't know, a little better than Saddam/the insurgents? At least I like to think we are.

You didn't read all my posts. I'm not saying get rid of LOAC, I'm just saying it's stupid to be bound by dumb rules such as no use of HP ammo when these guys are running around blowing themselves up and sawing heads off. It's pretty ridiculous.

Quote

"He uses chemical weapons AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE!

Umm...yeah, he gassed his own people...I never said anything about WP. Maybe WP was included in the list. But, it also depends on how you use it. We use it for illumination and marking, Saddam may have just been dousing people in WP. Completely different context.

[purnell 0]

I agree with you that 'talking one way' and 'acting another' play poorly in the international community, but this seems like another classic example of media jumping all over a story because of its perceived 'gotcha' quality.

I'm hardly a military expert, but it seems extraordinary to compare illumination rounds, used opportunistically in Fallujah because of their incendiary characteristics with mustard gas and nerve agents (which Saddam used against the Kurds and Iranians).

Soil samples from Halabja collected after the 1988 attack included traces of mustard gas and Sarin. I think the comparison to wp falls flat, not even taking account that those weapons were intentionally directed at civillians.

As a side note, incendiary weapons (including wp used as a weapon) are governed under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Geneva, 1980) to which the US is not a signatory.

[billvon 3,086]

>I'm hardly a military expert, but it seems extraordinary to compare
>illumination rounds, used opportunistically in Fallujah because of their
>incendiary characteristics with mustard gas and nerve agents (which
>Saddam used against the Kurds and Iranians).

The illumination thing was actually not true. From the BBC:
--------------------------------------------------
US used white phosphorus in Iraq

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
--------------------------------------------------------

[matthewcline 0]

The Marines on the ground stated it was used for marking prior to the "fire for Effect" call.

Again IMO the LTC who was quoted is a PAO/PR apokesman not "Arty" and mispoke.

It did have the effect he quoted, but it was primarily a marker.

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

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Quote

gee i guess the US should beat people to death, so we dare don't get chemicals on them while we shoot them or blow them up

Do you, by chance, have children of service age? Have you, yourself, ever served?

no, and i really have no idea what it has to do with my comment

MB 3528, RB 1182

[brenthutch 444]

I think we should get rid of all of the bullets an bombs and have laser tag systems hooked up to everybody. But instead of having an alarm go off when you get hit, you would be given a lethal injection. No blood no pain just lay down go to sleep and die. Being burned and shot is just too uncivilized.