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

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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 ‘shake and bake’ 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’t any “nice” 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]

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]

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]

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

Rich Parsons
MaArtial Talk
Assistant Admin

 

[arnisador]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

Rich Parsons
Martial Talk
Assistant Admin

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.



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

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]

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.



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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.