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

[kelly keltner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[michaeledward]

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.

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]

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

So is napalm.

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-ii-art1_12212001.htm

We are not signatory to any of it anyways.

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
Definitions


For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
   (b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
   (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
   (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

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

 

[Tgace]

Is napalm a chemical weapon?

 

[Tgace]

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]

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
Article 1

Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:

Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.

Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

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]

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]

You were a chem soldier werent ya Techno?