US Army Intel Specialist Admits Torture in Iraq; Marines, Navy SEALS also Torturing

[Drake Tungsten]

I just don't know why you thought WP could be classified as a chemical weapon in certain circumstances. It's a conventional weapon, not a chemical one. There are instances in which it may be used in an illegal manner (deliberate incendiary attack on civilians, for example), but it isn't a chemical weapon.

[KrazyHorse]

You don't understand the difference between a chemical burn and a thermal burn?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Because your argument applies equally well to phosgene, assuming it was used in an area which was only occupied by armed opposition.

Problem is that is unlikely to be the only case. Combat is going to happen in populated areas.

Gas can not be directed. WP can.

[Drake Tungsten]

You don't understand the difference between a chemical burn and a thermal burn?

The relevant international law pretty clearly states that WP is a conventional weapon, not a chemical weapon. The manner in which it burns people doesn't have anything to do with that.

With that out of the way, doesn't WP cause both chemical and thermal burns?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I just don't know why you thought WP could be classified as a chemical weapon in certain circumstances. It's a conventional weapon, not a chemical one. There are instances in which it may be used in an illegal manner (deliberate incendiary attack on civilians, for example), but it isn't a chemical weapon.

It's nasty **** when the target is people and not an open field for smoke. I understand some people thinking it should not be used, but at the same time, they should think of the effect of a 1000lb bomb, or a 120mm or 155mm shell exploding near a human body. That's not pretty either.

[Drake Tungsten]

I understand people not wanting it to be used, but that's no excuse for accusing the US of using "chemical weapons" when they make use of a completely legal and common conventional munition.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You don't understand the difference between a chemical burn and a thermal burn?

I've been both chemically burned and thermally burned. They both suck.

[notyoueither]

So how about those dead civies in Fallujah, eh? What difference does it make if the end result is still dead civilians, especially when, as noted, there are several chemical weapons banned that are non-lethal and don't have wide areas of effect (due to ineffectual methods of spreading them)?

As noted above, the ban does not apply to use vs combatants, even in populated areas, and furthermore, the US has not agreed to any bans of the said weapons in the first place.

You might as well ban war from your POV.

Any time combatants mix with populations, people are going to die. Directed weapons, like WP, might result in fewer civie losses, actually, because without advantages in close quarters a superior force is more likely to bombard (arty and air) and make things really unpleasant for any people living in the area.

[KrazyHorse]

Specifically:

Exposure and inhalation of smoke

The dilute phosphoric acid in the aerosol cloud may be mildly irritating to the eyes but with normal field concentrations and exposure it is not harmful; extended exposure can lead to damage of lungs and throat. The smoke may also contain traces of unburnt phosphorus. A respirator usually provides adequate protection.

Exposure to incendiary agent

Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns, but are complicated by the toxicity of phosphorus (50 mg being the average lethal dose, LD50), the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds, and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected.

From the Wikipedia article you linked to.

If you're using smoke from oxidation of WP as an airborne irritant or you're using WP as an incindiary against human targets (during which you will inflict chemical burns and possibly tissue poisoning in additional to the thermal burns caused by the heat from the combustion) then you're employing it as a chemical agent.

My feeling is that WP is not banned by the Geneva conventions due to its substantial non-infringing uses (as a smokescreen, for instance). When you start to use it to get around the Geneva Conventions (for instance, even tear gas is prohibited for use against enemy combatants) is when you start to step into a grey area.

Taken on its own, is the use of white phosphourus as an irritant morally repugnant? No, depending on the situation. Neither is the use of phosgene necessarily morally repugnant. Dead is dead. Wounded is wounded.

Do I have misgivings about weakening the prohibitions against any form of chemical agent for fear that this will lead to escalating use of these agents? Yes.

I'm not certain where the use of WP lies in this. It doesn't repulse me in the same way as torture allegations do, but I fear the long-term consequences.

[Dinner]

I know our incendiary granades issued with vehicles (to disable the vehicle to prevent capture by the enemy) are all WP granades. You're supposed to put the incendiary granade on the hood of a Humvee so that it would burn through the engine block or on top of a radio to prevent the enemy capturing a working frequency hopping radio with the current encryption fill.

Would the anti-WP people agree that is a legit use of WP?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The relevant international law pretty clearly states that WP is a conventional weapon, not a chemical weapon. The manner in which it burns people doesn't have anything to do with that

See my above post.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Would the anti-WP people agree that is a legit use of WP?

I don't know if I'm going to be considered anti-WP or not. I understand that it has significant legitimate military uses. I have no problem when it is used as such. When it begins to be employed as a chemical agent simply because it's possible to get away with using it as such is when I start to wonder.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I understand people not wanting it to be used, but that's no excuse for accusing the US of using "chemical weapons" when they make use of a completely legal and common conventional munition.

Mercury fulminate is a completely legal and common conventional munition. It appears in explosive shells of all sorts, fuses etc. If I take a thousand gallons of it and pump it into an underground aquifer which is supplying fresh water for a thousand combatants holed up in a fort have I not just employed it as a chemical weapon?

[Drake Tungsten]

See my above post.

I saw it and I think the reason NYE and myself might be misconstruing your position is that you really don't seem to have one...

Mercury fulminate is a completely legal and conventional munition. It appears in explosive shells of all sorts, fuses etc. If I take a thousand gallons of it and pump it into an underground aquifer which is supplying fresh water for a thousand combatants holed up in a fort have I not just employed it as a chemical weapon?

If isn't defined by international law as a "chemical weapon", then no. There are scores of legal weapons that are both "chemical" and "weapons", but that doesn't make them "chemical weapons" in the generally accepted sense of that term. Those weapons that are classified as "chemical weapons" are done so by treaty.

[DRoseDARs]

I'm in the same camp: WP has legitimate uses, but can be egregiously misused.