# White Phospherous used as a chemical weapon in Iraq - by the United States



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

During the seige of Fallujah, the United States military used 'White Phosphorous' (sometimes referred to as WP) as a chemical weapon against the residence of the city.

This has been reported internationally for over a week now. It is talked about on some blogs, but very little mention in the traditional media - newspapers, television, radio.

When WP comes in contact with human flesh, the human flesh burns while leaving the clothing intact. Photos from Fallujah are available on the internet.

The military is reported to have used WP in the manner television shows depict tear-gas attacks; fire the WP into an area supsected of holding enemy fighters, and when those antagonists come out of the holding area, use high explosives to kill them. The technique is referred to as 'shake and bake'. 

White Phosporous, if it comes in contact with human skin will continue to burn until it is deprived of oxygen.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_ING.mwv


P.S.
The above video is half an hour long. It contains graphic images. I have submitted this link to the admins for review. They may choose to remove it. Please use discretion.

P.P.S. - Oops. I can't report my own post to the admins. ...


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 17, 2005)

By definition, Chemical Warfare is:  





> Warfare and associated military operations involving the employment of lethal and incapacitating munitions and agents, typically poisons, contaminants, and irritants.


I guess if you use chemical weapons on your own people you're a tyrant dictator, but if you use them on OTHER people, you're a hero.


----------



## JPR (Nov 17, 2005)

White Phosphorous (WP or Willie Pete) is not banned by any treaty on chemical weapons and has often been used to force soldiers out of strong points.  I am not sure of its first usage, but it saw extensive service as far back as WWII.  

   The &#8216;shake and bake&#8217; tactic beats a frontal assault on the position.  It is also probably more surgical than a bombardment to reduce / destroy the strongpoint (since these strong points are buildings within cities).  When given the mission to take a certain area, a commander does want to use the tactical options that will reduce the number of casualties he takes.  

   Wars, by their nature, are inhumane and horrendous.  There isn&#8217;t any &#8220;nice&#8221; way of killing someone.  It is the point of war to inflict pain, injury, and damage upon your enemy to the extent that he is no longing willing or able to fight, and then the war ends.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> White Phosphorous (WP or Willie Pete) is not banned by any treaty on chemical weapons and has often been used to force soldiers out of strong points.


 
This is not an accurate statement. How inaccurate it is, is being debated.

White Phosphorous is certainly mentioned and discussed in the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (Protocol III). Protocol III discusses incendiary devices. WP is considered an incendiary device. The protocol, apparently, has a loophole for a device if the primary purpose of the device is not the incendiary (fire). 

Under this theory, because the WP smoke is used to obscure field of view as the primary function, the incendiary action, as a secondary function, is not covered by Protocol III ("The definition of 'is' is.").

The opposing argument is that if the use of WP is to take advantage of the chemical reaction between HP, oxygen, and human flesh, then usage is considered a chemical weapon attack, and would be covered by Protocol III of the CCW. Some argue that if the effect of usage of WP is human or animal death, it is indeed a chemical weapon attack, regardless of intent.

The United States is not a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons. There are 51 signatories to this protocol.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2005)

I read the article yesterday. I came away with the impression that WP has legal and valid uses but that, in the heat of battle, it sometimes gets 'converted' to a use that may be prohibited. I don't know what to say. Since it's clear that that might happen....do we not let the troops have it even for valid uses? I have to side with letting them have WP weapons and relying on training and leadership.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2005)

Thread moved to MT, After Dark until further review can be made.

Rich Parsons
MaArtial Talk
Assistant Admin


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2005)

This is the article I read about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2005)

Video link is broke (* original Link *), Thread moved back to Study

Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Admin


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

Calling WP a "chemical weapon" in the same sense as Mustard Gas, Chlorine Gas and the like, is the same broadening of the definition often used to call CS/CN "Chemical weapons".  If we're broadening the definition to any chemical used to cause death or injury, gun powder is a chemical weapon.

WP is used on an extremely small scale and for that reason isn't a "WMD".  It does not blow over large sections of a battle field causing indescriminate death.  It is a very precise weapon that only kills those whom are targeted.  What makes REAL chemical weapons so insidious are their indescriminate nature and large scale effective area as well as their persistence.

Again, we have to examine what is the original intent when we talk about "chemical weapons", not what kinds of things we can squeeze in to the definition so we can use it's connotation to attack people we disagree with.

This is another example of semantics being used to frame the argument.  We'll alter the language just enough to try and demonize those we don't like.  I'm thoroughly impressed at the ingenuity of the arguments 'framers'.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

Well, then, why define anything.

Torture doesn't mean Torture.

Chemical Weapon doesn't mean Chemical Weapon.

It must be nice to live in a world where we change the rules to fit our convienence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, then, why define anything.
> 
> Torture doesn't mean Torture.
> 
> ...


 That was my point, kudos for simply changing the direction of my question.  That is exactly what I was accusing you of...changing the rules to fit your argument.   

A chemical weapon, as intended by those who initially sought to ban the use of chemical weapons, was one that caused wide-spread death and injury across the battle field due to it's indescriminate and broad use...such weapons as chlorine gas and mustard gas, as well as nerve agents such as sarin and VX.  The reason these weapons have been banned is because their use is indiscriminate and results in whole-sale destruction.  

WP is hardly that.  It is not persistent in the environment, it does not spread beyond the small area it effects, and it is not indiscriminate.  WP is a chemical weapon in the same sense you could classify gun powder as, or high-explosive.  By your broad characterization, both gun powder and high-explosive would be labelled "Chemical weapons".  Again, you are the one attempt to distort the definitions to fit an agenda, i'm merely trying to some perspective back in your denotation/connotation word game.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> A chemical weapon, as intended by those who initially sought to ban the use of chemical weapons, was one that caused wide-spread death and injury across the battle field due to it's indescriminate and broad use...such weapons as chlorine gas and mustard gas, as well as nerve agents such as sarin and VX. The reason these weapons have been banned is because their use is indiscriminate and results in whole-sale destruction.


 
Who says that a 'chemical weapon' is only a chemical weapon if it causes 'wide-spread death and injury'? 

Who are 'those who initially sought to ban the use' of weapons? 

I ask because a neutral source (wikipedia) defines 'Chemical Warfare' as warfare using toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.

I will agree that the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to portray 'Chemical' as a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'; however, I do not think by definition these two terms are synonomous.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> WP is hardly that. It is not persistent in the environment, it does not spread beyond the small area it effects, and it is not indiscriminate. WP is a chemical weapon in the same sense you could classify gun powder as, or high-explosive. By your broad characterization, both gun powder and high-explosive would be labelled "Chemical weapons". Again, *you are* the one attempt to distort the definitions to fit an agenda, i'm merely trying to some perspective back in your denotation/connotation word game.


 
I am not trying to distort anything. This is an ad hominem attack.  In my prior two posts on this thread, I don't think I have made any claims, I have reported events and linked to other reports. 

If you don't like the definitions offered here (taken from the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - Protocol III), please offer others that we all can agree upon. 

Chemical Weapon

Chemical Reaction

Weapon of Mass Destruction


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Who says that a 'chemical weapon' is only a chemical weapon if it causes 'wide-spread death and injury'?
> 
> Who are 'those who initially sought to ban the use' of weapons?
> 
> ...



While certain actions are not desirable and the use of such items against people is not good, I have to ask just any lawyer would the following:

If you control the food supply or water supply or even the air supply then you are also using a chemical weapon in its' broadest sense. 

Hence with treaties the reason for listing specific chemicals as chemical weapons. And as always if it is not on the list it does not mean it should be used against people. 

Not taking sides, just expressing the arguement in other words.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Who says that a 'chemical weapon' is only a chemical weapon if it causes 'wide-spread death and injury'?
> 
> Who are 'those who initially sought to ban the use' of weapons?
> 
> ...


WP is usually used as a marking round and to produce smoke.  Most injuries from WP are secondary and accidental.

Again, WP is toxic in the same sense explosives are "toxic".  The toxic effect of WP is the fact that it ignites on contact the air.  The effects of WP are for the most part thermal, rather than directly toxic.  Again, WP is far less damaging to the human body than explosives or direct firearms fire.  Within a few minutes exposure to air, WP degrades in to harmless chemicals.  

So, again, your inclusion of WP as a "chemical weapon" is as disingenuous as calling explosives and gun powder "chemical weapons".  WP causes injuries because it releases heat rapidly when in contact with the surrounding air.  Explosives produce thermal and kinetic reactions rapidly through chemical processes as well.  As does gun powder.  To call WP a "chemical weapon" is virtually the same as implying that ALL weapons that produce lethal effects through chemical processes are "chemical weapons"....it is fallacious. 

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus?bcsi_scan_6FA7218EAD2E0FCB=R+d1OGzHfWmj13RkwIUN+gEAAACD3GcA

Besides all THAT, the anti-personnel effects of WP are vastly overrated by those who seek to classify it a "chemical weapon".

"Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it disappears, in some cases burning right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin because only the larger WP particles can burn through personal clothing."

"Exposure and inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid.

Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.

WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. "

"Strictly speaking, however, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity or causticity, but its ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> While certain actions are not desirable and the use of such items against people is not good, I have to ask just any lawyer would the following:
> 
> If you control the food supply or water supply or even the air supply then you are also using a chemical weapon in its' broadest sense.
> 
> ...


 

Rich, I don't understand ... How would controlling the food, water or air create the required 'toxic properties of chemical substances' required to classify something as a chemical weapon? 

There is a Geneva Convention on this subject .... the 1980 CCW. The United States is *not *a signatory to Protocol III of this Convention. 

Protocol III talks about Incendiaries; weapons that create fire. WP is covered in this protocol. Basically, WP is an incendiary based on its *primary usage.*


If the primary usage is to light-up a night sky; WP is not a chemical weapon.
If the primary usage is to create a smoke screen; WP is not a chemical weapon.
If the primary usage is to create a toxic reaction on animal flesh; WP is a chemical weapon.
The reports from the field are that the United States military used a 'Shake & Bake' method of execution which used WP as a chemical weapon; fire WP shells into buildings to drive the enemy out, then kill them with high explosives. 

The United States military is reporting that it only used WP to illuminate and screen areas in Fallujah. Under these usages, WP is not considered a chemical weapon.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 17, 2005)

Think about how it looks for US troops to be using a substance in a gaseous form that burns on contact with the skin, forces people out of buildings screaming, to be blown to bits.  I think it would be easy for an average Iraqi, who lived through the Iran/Iraq conflicts usage of chemical weapons to take this the wrong way.  It's going to have a powerful psychologic impact...all the enemy has to do is video tape it and say, look at what the US does...

In fact, I wonder if one checked a few islamic sites if one could find such a video right now...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich, I don't understand ... How would controlling the food, water or air create the required 'toxic properties of chemical substances' required to classify something as a chemical weapon?
> 
> There is a Geneva Convention on this subject .... the 1980 CCW. The United States is *not *a signatory to Protocol III of this Convention.
> 
> ...


 Nice try, Michael, but WP isn't used to create a "toxic reaction on animal flesh", as I pointed out, it isn't a toxic reaction that causes injury, it is a thermal reaction....a bomb causes thermal reaction AND kinetic reactions, are explosives now "Chemical weapons"? Please answer that question.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Think about how it looks for US troops to be using a substance in a gaseous form that burns on contact with the skin, forces people out of buildings screaming, to be blown to bits. I think it would be easy for an average Iraqi, who lived through the Iran/Iraq conflicts usage of chemical weapons to take this the wrong way. It's going to have a powerful psychologic impact...all the enemy has to do is video tape it and say, look at what the US does...
> 
> In fact, I wonder if one checked a few islamic sites if one could find such a video right now...


 Ok, so now the localized thermal burns caused by close contact with WP is WORSE than being blown to bits?  Are we now calling BOTH WP and Explosives "chemical weapons"?  Lets be clear here.

WP is not a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary device, commonly used to produce smoke.  Any effects on the human body when in close proximity with the device is a secondary result of thermal burns caused by the heat produced by WP's contact with the air.  If you two will at least get your terms right, i'd appreciate it.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nice try, Michael, but WP isn't used to create a "toxic reaction on animal flesh", as I pointed out, it isn't a toxic reaction that causes injury, it is a thermal reaction....a bomb causes thermal reaction AND kinetic reactions, are explosives now "Chemical weapons"? Please answer that question.


 
The reports are saying that WP *was used* for its toxic affect on human flesh.

Chemical weapons are weapons that have toxic effects caused by the chemical properties of a substance.

High explosives that create thermal and kinetic reactions are not chemical weapons, unless they create a toxic effect because of Chemical Properties.

P.S.

Oh, and the 27 minute documentary can still be found by digging around that video link I posted at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 17, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The reports are saying that WP *was used* for its toxic affect on human flesh.


  What "reports"?  So now we're torturing the definition of "toxic".  By that logic, bullets are "toxic" and bombs are "toxic".  WP is anything else that burns.  The burns are not caused by a chemical reaction with the human body, but by WP's burning when in contact with the air, thereby producing heat.  It is the heat that is causing the effect.  WP is, therefore, and incendiary.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Chemical weapons are weapons that have toxic effects caused by the chemical properties of a substance.


  Thanks for acknowledging that fact, as it is the thermal effect, not a toxic effect, that causes the burns to the body.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> High explosives that create thermal and kinetic reactions are not chemical weapons, unless they create a toxic effect because of Chemical Properties.


 Thank you for acknowledging that.  Explosives, like WP, causes physical injury as a result of the production of heat through a chemical process.  Explosives, additionally, cause injury as a result of kinetic forces produced as a result of rapid combustion.  

Seems as though we've settled this pretty clearly...WP is an incendiary, as is no more a "chemical weapon" than explosives are.


----------



## kelly keltner (Nov 18, 2005)

Sorry for stepping into this one guy's. If we didn't sign(THE U.S.A.) that particular provision of the Geveva convention. Then are we bound to abide by it? Does it apply to us if we did not sign it?

KK


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The reports are saying that WP *was used* for its toxic affect on human flesh.



Which will happen in the confusion and tension of battle. Creativity flourishes...and this one is pretty obvious. 

Having WP puts a _potential_ chemical weapon out there...with the rule, _Don't use this...even to save your life._ Of course such a rule will be violated.

But I don't see restricting WP as the answer. It's useful. Training and leadership are the answers. And if on occasion a few U.S. soldiers use it in a questionable way to save thier own lives...well, that's war. I'm not overly worked up about that. As long as t hat's not our intent, if someone does it to save themselves on occasion--not as a habit--well, that's war. It's a mess.

Gloria Stivic: Daddy, don't you know that 943 people were killed by guns in this city last year?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows???

(From memory.)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 18, 2005)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> Sorry for stepping into this one guy's. If we didn't sign(THE U.S.A.) that particular provision of the Geveva convention. Then are we bound to abide by it? Does it apply to us if we did not sign it?
> 
> KK


 Well, again, WP is restricted under those provisions, so it's a moot point.  As i've pointed out, repeatedly, WP is a chemical weapon in the same sense gun powder and explosives are...i.e. that the harmful effect is the result of a chemical reaction.  The toxicity of WP (as it can be said to be toxic) is not the effect being sought when it is used anymore than the toxic effect of lead is the purpose of shooting someone (though, I suppose, it could be argued that getting shot and burned are both 'toxic' to the human body, but that line of thought tortures the definition well beyond any usefulness).  It is clear that WP is an incendiary, and would have the same effect as throwing a molotov cocktail in to the room (or a grenade).  

Again, the attempt to stretch denotation of words in order to make use of the negative connotations seems a bit disingenuous, and, ultimately, much ado about nothing.  But, I suppose, in a war where the REAL battles are fought in the media for public opinion, not on the battlefield, I guess some people consider it a point worth pursuing.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> Sorry for stepping into this one guy's. If we didn't sign(THE U.S.A.) that particular provision of the Geveva convention. Then are we bound to abide by it? Does it apply to us if we did not sign it?
> 
> KK


 
Correct.

The United States is not a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

We are not bound to abide by it. 

One must assume the reason the reports are being presented is that the United States War on Terror, and its stance on the dangers posed by Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, can suddenly appear very hippocritical if we are using weapons and tactics we claim to be fighting against. (terror and chemical).


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 18, 2005)

My point was this...what do you think Iraqis will think if we use something that looks like a chemical weapon?  This has got to have some psychologic effect.  I would say it probably tarnishes our image...most Iraqis (correctly) believe that we supported Saddam (tacitly supported his nastiness) so if we do some of the same things he did (Abu Ghraib and Chemical Weapons) the US are no better.

There was a report on Fresh Air where Iraqis referred to the US as Saddam's teacher...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Rich, I don't understand ... How would controlling the food, water or air create the required 'toxic properties of chemical substances' required to classify something as a chemical weapon?
> 
> There is a Geneva Convention on this subject .... the 1980 CCW. The United States is *not *a signatory to Protocol III of this Convention.
> 
> ...


 
Checimcal Weapon in its' broadest sense: Any Chemical that can cause an adverse effect to a human being. 

To much water can drown a person, just as too little can cause dehydration.

While Cyanide at certain levels may be allowed in the air, it can build up over time in the food chain and or in the water supplier, so by pumping legal amounts of Cyanide into the air, you coudl still adversly affect a human being.

If you starve someone with no food they loose the capability of being able to properly think and react, but not having the right chemicals in their brain or body. This is an adverse affect. Also too much sugar to certain people can cause an issue for them as well.

My point, when it comes to Chemistry, I can represent almost everything that occurs in what I know of hte universe in a chemical reaction. Just like the issue of gun powder. A hammer hits the bullet, and enough energy/heat is generated to ignite the gunpowder, which causes the lead bullet to travel down the barrel at a high velocity. With out the Gun powder to react to the energy, there would be no bullet, and this reaction is a checmical reaction. 

Yes, this is breaking it down to the point of rediculous, and I am not trying to say WP should be used against humans. Yet, WP is a chemical weapon in that it reacts with the environment to produce light and heat. So while what you quoted states it is ok to use it in the air, but not against a human being, I was trying to see where the line was drawn, and what the legal documents stated, for you could state that everything is a chemical weapon.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Correct.
> 
> The United States is not a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
> 
> We are not bound to abide by it.



So if Iraq never signed a treaty saying they wouldn't use chemical weapons....


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary



> However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that white phosphorus was not against the convention if it was used as an obscurant, but "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." *Strictly speaking, however, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity or causticity, but its ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [4]*



I believe the bold part. You dont die due to WP poisoning. You die from burns. Just like a bullet doesnt kill you due to lead poisoning.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm



> White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2005)

Well, weapons like flamethrowers _are_ legal, so I can see this argument.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Checimcal Weapon in its' broadest sense: Any Chemical that can cause an adverse effect to a human being.
> 
> To much water can drown a person, just as too little can cause dehydration.
> 
> ...


 
While chemical reactions take place in the body when the body is deprived of food, those chemical reactions are completely internal. In the arguments for WP, it is an external, man-made chemical that creates the chemical reaction when introduced to the environment. Chemical Warfare has been defined as warfare taking advantage of the toxic effect of the chemical. 

I suppose it is possible to argue that withholding water or food can create a toxic effect, but, I think that argument would be more along the lines of prisoner abuse. Is it OK to starve someone to death? While chemical reactions take place in the body, the captors are not imposing that chemical reaction. 

The founder of globalsecurity.org argued on the radio today that WP is not a chemical weapon, but an incendiary. This is the United States position on the weapon. He states that only if the WP material touches your skin does it burn you. The WP smoke is not toxic once you walk out of the smoke. Because it has no continuing effect, he claims it is not a Chemical Weapon.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, weapons like flamethrowers _are_ legal, so I can see this argument.



So is napalm.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm


 
That article is either a) incorrect or b) intentionally misleading.

Protocol II of the CCW deals with landmines.

It is Protocol III of the CCW that deals with incendiary devices. 

In one of the articles I saw, Protocol III *does *mention White Phosphorus, as a banned substance. 

There is an exception in this Protocol for substances where the ability to create a fire (incendiary) is secondary to its nature. The United States' position is that WP is used for a) illumination or b) to create a screen. Because the fire created when WP comes in contact with atmospheric oxygen is secondary to the light or smoke, the United States position is that it WP meets the exception of Protocol III.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by *Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects .*


Referring to the amended Protocol (2001) II

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-ii.htm
Click on the link below "Article1"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...n_conventional-wpns_prot-ii-art1_12212001.htm

We are not signatory to any of it anyways.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by *Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects .*
> 
> 
> Referring to the amended Protocol (2001) II
> ...


 

I don't understand why you keep referring to Protocol II. Protocol II deals with land-mines.

Protocol III deals with incendiary devices



> Protocol III
> Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
> Geneva, 10 October 1980
> *Article 1
> ...


If we examine how WP creates fire and smoke, we should note that it is a chemical reaction -- WP + atmospheric oxygen = Fire & Smoke.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

Is napalm a chemical weapon?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

Again...

Hes referring to Article 1 of Protocol II..any rules set forth in an article are applied to everything, not just the protocol in question. Article 1 of protocol II has to do with Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects .

Protocol III prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol. We also reserve the right to use landmines. None of it violates Geneva.....


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

Anyways... 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm



> Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
> Protocol III
> Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
> Geneva, 10 October 1980
> ...



http://www.opcw.org/html/db/chemdemil_intro.html



> Ground delivered chemical weapons declared by our States Parties awaiting destruction include artillery projectiles, artillery rockets, mortars, landmines and submunitions.



Grenades, mortars and artillery are not air-delivered. And even the prohibition against non-air delivered munitions has provisos....and note the bolded part. Again, we aren't signatory so it doesnt really matter.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If we examine how WP creates fire and smoke, we should note that it is a chemical reaction -- WP + atmospheric oxygen = Fire & Smoke.


 
If we examine how my body creates the fuel in the musculature I use to beat my opponent to death, we see it is a chemical reaction...

If we examine how an explosive propulsion is formed by gunpowder behind a bullet we see it is a chemical reaction.

If we examine how C4 detonates when it is exposed to heat and pressure we see it is a chemical reaction.

So are my muscles, C4 or Gunpowder Chemical weapons?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 18, 2005)

You were a chem soldier werent ya Techno?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You were a chem soldier werent ya Techno?


 
11Bravo


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

I think I have posted about 4 times on this thread that the United States is not a signatory to Protocol III of the CCW. 

But, thanks for clarifying that for me.



I'm with Senator McCain on this one .... We're supposed to be better than the other guys.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 18, 2005)

I take note, my friends, of michael's continual refusal to answer the basic question.  "If WP is a chemical weapon, because it causes injury as a result of a chemical reaction, does that not make ANY weapon a chemical weapon, including gunpowder, explosives, napalm, etc".  

He keeps falling back on "WP is toxic".  We are torturing the definition of "Toxic".  The terminal effects are thermal in nature, not toxic. In that sense bullets and gunpowder are extremely toxic as well as explosives.  Lead is toxic. What's more, some military high-explosives are extremely toxic (though less "toxic" than the terminal effects of igniting it).  

It's all absurd.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I take note, my friends, of michael's continual refusal to answer the basic question. "If WP is a chemical weapon, because it causes injury as a result of a chemical reaction, does that not make ANY weapon a chemical weapon, including gunpowder, explosives, napalm, etc".
> 
> He keeps falling back on "WP is toxic". We are torturing the definition of "Toxic". The terminal effects are thermal in nature, not toxic. In that sense bullets and gunpowder are extremely toxic as well as explosives. Lead is toxic. What's more, some military high-explosives are extremely toxic (though less "toxic" than the terminal effects of igniting it).
> 
> It's all absurd.


 

Okay, sgtmac_46 ..... I'm getting sick to death of these ****ing pissing matches...

You're right ... everyone else is wrong ... 

White Phosphorus does not create a chemical reaction that burns human flesh to the bone, as long as oxygen is present.

White Phosphorus does not need to be stored underwater, because the chemical reaction with oxygen is completely harmless.


I just hope to hell, all the Muslems in the world understand your argument. 

There are one billion of them, and the pictures they see on their news media are not filtered. 

George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, making the country less safe because of the use of WHite Phosphorus; because of continued torture of captives; because of a general lack of obeying the laws of being a decent human citizen.

But what the hell ... you beat michaeledward is a pissing match.



Any one who is interested ... Go to Google - Images - Search on White Phosphorus ..... Sure looks like lead poisoning by bullet to me.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Okay, sgtmac_46 ..... I'm getting sick to death of these ****ing pissing matches...
> 
> You're right ... everyone else is wrong ...
> 
> ...


LMFAO...I knew I wouldn't be seeing a direct answer from you.  "You're right...High Explosives do not create a chemical reaction that blows human flesh and bone apart.....Gun powder does not create a chemical reaction that fires a "toxic" projectile down ranger, blowing human flesh and bone apart..."  It's all distorting reality and torturing the terms, michael, admit it.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just hope to hell, all the Muslems in the world understand your argument.
> 
> There are one billion of them, and the pictures they see on their news media are not filtered.
> 
> ...


 So your argument is....They won't care if we SHOOT them and if we BLOW them up using high-explosives, but suddenly...use a marking round that burns a couple guys, and WE'RE HISTORY?! The whole idea is ludicrious.  Furthermore, the only folks pushing the concept are people like you.  You're turning this in to a "Chemical weapons" issue where none existed.  If anyone is responsible for making the country less safe, it's you through your torturing of the language and disingenuous propaganda.  

The only difference between blowing up an insurgent, shooting them and throwing a WP grenade at him...exists only in your mind.  You're the one trying to create an issue where none exists, so ANY fallout as a result of the fabrication of this issue rests firmly on the heads of you and those like you.  I find the idea that you think you can manufacture ANY issue you want, any allegation, and declare yourself faultless as to the consequences, while everyone else is liable for any act you decide you disagree with.  


I do accept your surrender though.   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








"If Guns kill people, then I can blame my pencil for misspelled words." Larry the Cable Guy


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If anyone is responsible for making the country less safe, it's you through your torturing of the language and disingenuous propaganda.


 
Martial Mods ... 

Is this **** acceptable?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 18, 2005)

NO.

I would prefer if all of you calm down, and act civil to one another.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Martial Mods ...
> 
> Is this **** acceptable?


 
For the record, it wasn't ME that started the "YOUR line of argument is making the 'country less safe'.   


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> just hope to hell, all the Muslems in the world understand your argument.
> 
> There are one billion of them, and the pictures they see on their news media are not filtered.
> 
> George W. Bush is creating more terrorists, making the country less safe because of the use of WHite Phosphorus; because of continued torture of captives; because of a general lack of obeying the laws of being a decent human citizen.



However, I apologize to you, michael, and the moderator if it appeared I was being uncivil.  My intent is to pursue the argument, not you personally.

My point is, and let me make this very clear, this is a NON-ISSUE until certain individuals decided to make it an issue for political purposes.  There is no, and I repeat NO quantifiable difference between getting shot, getting blown up and getting hit with a WP grenade.  If I had to decide which of the three would be the LEAST desireable, I would be hard pressed to pick.  Again, I defy anyone to create a quantifiable difference that makes WP a "Chemical weapon", while gunpowder and high-explosives are not.  

Once again, WP produces terminal effects by turning chemical potential energy into heat through a reaction with air, bullets produce terminal effects by turning chemical potential energy in to heat, producing expanding gases that produce kinetic energy by pushing a projectile out of a barrel, and explosives produce BOTH kinetic and thermal energy by converting chemical potential energy.  

It is clear, Michael, that no one has yet provided a quantifiable difference.  Again, I have no interest in engaging in a personal ad hominem debate, as I am quite content to stick the original topic "WP: Chemical weapon?".  I think I (and others here) have clearly shown that WP can only be qualified as a chemical weapon by the broadest and most far reaching definition of the word "Chemical weapon" possible, and, further, that expanding and torturing the definition of the word to the point pretty much makes EVERY weapon, short of a baseball bat, a chemical weapon (and I guess you could argue that a baseball bat becomes a chemical weapon if you figure that the terminal effects are caused by chemical reactions being turned in to kinetic energy in the human body). 

I do like the assertion that Arab news media isn't "filtered", that's pretty funny.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 19, 2005)

Is napalm a chemical weapon?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Is napalm a chemical weapon?


 Lets see....reacts with oxygen to produce heat through a chemical process......causes burns and terminal injury....it's toxic to the human body....EUREKA....It's must be a chemical weapon. :shrug:  

Now, Tgace, you and I jest, but the sad reality is...Some clown will probably use the argument I just made to claim that Napalm IS a chemical weapon.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2005)

Napalm? If used against people, maybe...it's incendiary, but like a flamethrower it's based on a chemical reaction. (As Mr. Parsons pointed out, mostthings are.) There is an exception of some sort of flamethrowers, is that right? Why aren't they considered chemical weapons--because it's only the flame, not the chemicals, that are actually in contact with the enemy?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 20, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Napalm? If used against people, maybe...it's incendiary, but like a flamethrower it's based on a chemical reaction. (As Mr. Parsons pointed out, mostthings are.) There is an exception of some sort of flamethrowers, is that right? Why aren't they considered chemical weapons--because it's only the flame, not the chemicals, that are actually in contact with the enemy?


 Again, the point is that it is not the toxic qualities of Napalm of WP that is being exploited, it is the heat of the chemical reaction.  The only way that an argument can be made that WP and Napalm are chemical weapons, is to claim that "Fire" should be classified as "Toxic".  

Again, we are stuck on the point of whether "Fire" should be defined as "Toxic".  If we answer in the affirmative, we open a whole NEW can of worms.  We can define what is toxic, and hence a toxin, as being 

"A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins."

or we can go with a broader meaning

"Anything that is injurious, destructive, or fatal"

http://www.answers.com/toxin

The former, however, negates WP being a toxin, the later, on the other hand, makes EVERYTHING pretty much a toxin.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon



> Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) *using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.*
> 
> Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force. The offensive use of living organisms (such as anthrax) is considered to be biological warfare rather than chemical warfare. However, the use in war of toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g., toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or saxitoxin) is considered as chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).





> There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:
> 
> Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. (Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins and is known for its long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.)
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2005)

So, although a fire may be started chemically, it's not toxic...OK, I get it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> So, although a fire may be started chemically, it's not toxic...OK, I get it.


 Well, if you want to call it toxic, simply because it's "Bad for you" and call WP a chemical weapon, because it's "toxic" and produced by a chemical processes, we're back to calling bullets and explosives chemical weapons.  I'll let you tell me if you think fire is "toxic" or not.  Then we can argue about whether or not ever soldier who fires a gun is using a "chemical weapon".


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2005)

This .... from the Pentagon .... you know the building with 4 sides, and a spare ... 




> IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED *PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS* AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. []IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, *IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS* AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.​




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

Hey, but what would they know ...


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/17/answers_about_white_phosphorus/



> Answers about white phosphorus
> November 17, 2005
> 
> Q. What is it?
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This .... from the Pentagon .... you know the building with 4 sides, and a spare ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hey wait, Im cornfused now... So what you are saying is that Iraq DID have chemical weapons all along???


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm



> *WP - the arguments*
> 
> So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

Everything you ever wanted to know about incendiary weapons.



> The 1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons deals specifically with the Use of Incendiary Weapons, and their use against civilians.
> 
> The United States is not a party to this Protocol.
> 
> According to an analysis by the US Department of Defense's office for Arms Control Implementation and Compliance, "incendiary weapons have significant potential military value, particularly with respect to certain high-priority military targets. Incendiaries are the only weapons which can effectively destroy certain counter-proliferation targets such as biological weapons facilities which require high heat to eliminate bio-toxins. To use only high explosives would risk the widespread relase of dangerous contaminants with potentially disastrous consequences for the civilian population. Certain flammable military targets are also more readily destroyed by incendiaries. For example, a fuel depot could require up to eight times the bombs and sorties to destroy using only high explosives rather than incendiaries. Such an increase means a significantly greater humanitarian risk of collateral damage. The United States must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-high priority military targets such as these at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality which governs the use of all weapons under existing law."


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 21, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hey wait, Im cornfused now... So what you are saying is that Iraq DID have chemical weapons all along???


 
Technopunk .... 

How could you possibly confuse *ME *with a classified document from the Pentagon. That ain't me claiming anything .... that is the whatagon ... and theoretically, someone with enough know-how to be able to get their lunatic rantings 'classified'.

And, of course, this classified document from the Pentagon is dated *PRIOR* to President Clinton's attacks on Iraq's Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear program facilities in 1998.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 21, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Technopunk ....
> 
> How could you possibly confuse *ME *with a classified document from the Pentagon. That ain't me claiming anything .... that is the whatagon ... and theoretically, someone with enough know-how to be able to get their lunatic rantings 'classified'.
> 
> And, of course, this classified document from the Pentagon is dated *PRIOR* to President Clinton's attacks on Iraq's Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear program facilities in 1998.


 
Well, what I meant is that you were using the document that said Iraq had them and used them as chemical weapons to support the idea that Willy Pete was a chem weapon... but that admits then that Iraq had chem weapons if that were the case...

*But *I did miss the date.  My bad.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 21, 2005)

Its hair splitting...call it what you want, its not illegal by any treaty we are signatory to.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/20/special_reports/perspective/18_50_0711_19_05.txt


> *Fallujah: Feels like the first time*
> In April 2004, staff photojournalist Hayne Palmour and I were embedded with Camp Pendleton-based Marines in Fallujah.
> 
> We had been there since March and documented the violence as it climaxed with the slaying and desecration of four American contractors.
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 22, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its hair splitting...call it what you want, its not illegal by any treaty we are signatory to.
> 
> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/20/special_reports/perspective/18_50_0711_19_05.txt


 Some people seem so persistent, even when obviously in error.  It is a sight to see.  I guess hair splitting is the last stand of the obviously wrong.


----------

