Need help. Difference between WP rounds vs. Chemical Weapon

[whyzayker]

Currently in a disagreement with freep type who states that WP rounds do not constitute a "chemical weapon."

[whyzayker]

1. How did this end up here?? I was in GD!

n/t

[Skinner]

2. We had a glitch.

It's fixed now. I'll move this to GD for you.

[whyzayker]

3. Phew! Thanks.

n/t

[obxhead]

4. Officially they are labeled as an incendiary weapon. nt

[whyzayker]

6. So you're saying...

..that due to the "official label" WP rounds are not considered a chemical weapon?

[obxhead]

25. Sorry I'm late getting back....

While anything and everything "official" from within the beltway creates great skepticism in my mind (regardless of party), from everything I've heard and read so far I would put WP in that class.

Now that is not to say I believe it was useful or right in any way to use WP, but I do believe it is incendiary weapon.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. WP lights up a battlefield

as well as burning flesh all the way down to the bone. But because of the lighting aspect, it is called incendiary. I think the way to argue whether or not this is a valid weapon to use is to consider the effects and also to see if it is outlawed by any countries or international bodies.

[AngryAmish]

7. WP is not technically a chemical round

It causes trouble by burning real hot when it comes in contact with air. It produces acrid smoke that is not real nice but the smoke itself is not real toxic (compared to chlorine or nerve gas).

WP is banned by a Hague convention if used as an area effect weapon in civilian areas.

(Everything, including gunpowder and TNT is a chemical. However the chemical weapons banned by either Geneva or Hague Conventions cause injury when inhaled or put on the skin.)

edited to put it "in civilian areas"

[whyzayker]

10. Bear with me here

With the Pentagon acknowledging that WP rounds were "used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - this would violate the Hague Convention?

[AngryAmish]

17. No

May I also add I am NOT an expert in international law or the law of war, so if I am wrong I invite correction.

One can use incendiary weapons against enemy combatants. The US never signed the treaty that outlawed incendiary weapons (ie napalm) against combatants. We are a signatory to using incendiary weapons in civilian areas (no more Tokyo raids).

[wtmusic]

20. US is not signatory

see #19

[Toots]

22. So how would the city of Faluja be labeled

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

19. Not Hague but the 1980 CCWC

"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 (and Protocols)."

Protocol III bans attacking civilians with WP.

Signed by: Albania, Argentina, Australis, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina-Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cypress, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.

NOT signed by the US.

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CCWC.html

[not systems]

8. Pentagon Docs: White Phosphorous Is A Chemical Weapon

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/22/1515228

Pentagon Docs: White Phosphorous Is A Chemical Weapon
New evidence has emerged that the U.S. military used chemical weapons during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. Last week the Pentagon confirmed for the first time that it used white phosphorous as a weapon to attack Iraqi fighters. But the Pentagon rejected claims that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. White Phosphorous is often compared to napalm because it combusts spontaneously when exposed to oxygen and can burn right through skin to the bone. While the Pentagon is denying white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, a newly uncovered Defense Department document, reveals that is just how the military described it when Saddam Hussein allegedly used it a decade ago. A declassified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document reads QUOTE "Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels." Meanwhile a British commander has admitted that he trained his troops in using white phosphorus as a weapon. Until now the British government has maintained it used white phosphorous but only for tactical purposes.

[stop the bleeding]

9. someone posted on here yesterday that a declassified 1995 Pentagon

memo stated that when Saddam used WP the Pentagon classified WP as a chemical weapon, I can't remember where I saw it on DU but it's here, I would check archives this will proove your freep wrong

[whyzayker]

11. It's the '95 memo that started the argument

Freeps reasoning;

"There is a difference between white phosphorous rounds and Phosphorous chemical weapons.
White phosphorous rounds are an incindiary round that can be used to illuminate a firefight, start fires, penetrate and burn very light armor, and of course buildings, the US millitary uses this round in Iraq.
Phosphorous chemical weapons are weapons that are attached to a delivery system such as a missle and sent to the enemy. The phosphorous in those weapons are usually a powder or liquid and the phosphorous is used as a carrier or an activator, this is what Saddam used against his own people.
You are comparing apples and oranges, as usual."

[Wildewolfe]

16. In one of the posts...

... yesterday on the memo, what seems to cause the confusion in peoples minds is that the military refers to WP as "Phospherous Chemical". The used the term to describe WP in typical if unfortunate military jargonese. Add the word weapon after their descriptive and you have an unfortunete and unintended conjunction of the words Chemical (which in this case is associated with phospherous) and weapon. Chemical is NOT a descriptor of the word weapon in that doc from what I read yesterday and posted on it as well.

WP remains a horrid weapon, but it's classified as an incendiary and not a chemical weapon.

[Wildewolfe]

12. The Wikapedia entry defines it best I think...

chemical warfare

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).

Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations, and their production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

---------------------

WP used as a weapon isn't dependant on the TOXIC properties of WP as a chemical to kill. It's using the incendiary properties which is why it's NOT considered a chemical weapon.

[dcfirefighter]

13. I tend to agree with him

though it depends on the tactical usage, I suppose. But the rounds are designed to burn (making them incendiary) and put off a lot of smoke (making them an obscurant).

There is a fine line, I suppose, and WP is near it. It's not designed to be toxic like mustard, soman, sarin, chlorine, phosgene, Lewisite, or VX.

I feel the same way about depleted uranium - it's used because it's cheap and VERY dense. It has toxic properties similar to lead - because it's a heavy metal. At one point, I believe, the DoD was going to phase them out in favor of using Tungsten.

No matter how you cut it, war is nasty brutish stuff. I believe in the maxim "all's fair in love and war" and would focus my energies not on the definition of a chemical weapon but rather why are we engaged in a preemptive war in the first place.

[LeftHander]

14. WP is a "chemical weapon" when used directly against people.

Despite what the paint chip eating right wing military lovers say it is a chemical weapon.

The lovely bit about WP 155 MM howitzer rounds are they can cook people alive when the repeated rounds burst inside a bunker or building. the people that aren't killed by ingesting Phosphorus Pentoxide (a very toxic substance) are driven out by heat and Phosphoric Acid smoke. The key is WP toxicity is not prolonged like Mustard gas. But Phosphorus Pentoxide is just as toxic.

But you will hear over and over agin in 70 years there have been no reported deaths from WP smoke. this is a smoke screen, literally. Because the "smoke" is the by-product of a reaction of Phosphorus Pentoxide (PP) and WP ( dimer ) with air. The PP and WP give off toxic vapor and when atomized by a exploding shell anyone in close proximity to the exloding shell will be killed by either shrapnel or by burning chunks of WP OR by ingesting PP into the lungs. In the end you find bodies that are burned. Not poisoned by chemicals.

WP is a chemical weapon. It's use as a anti-personnel weapons should be criminal. It should be banned.

Look up any Material Safety Data Sheet on google for White Phosphorus or Phosphorus Pentoxide.

Also the 155mm shell was designed to deliver CHEMICAL weapons like nerve and blistering agents, Sarin and Mustard gas.

[BobBoudelangFan69]

15. White Phosphorus (WP) Is A Chemical. Used As A Weapon...

WP can be filled into an explosive round, thus making it a chemically filled weapon.

[Wildewolfe]

18. That's just silly....

... C4 is a chemical that can used the same way and no one here is going to argue it's a chemical weapon. Read the definition of chemical warfare...;p

We need to refocus on the true issues of this war.

1 - How we got here in the first place.

2 - Use of torture

If you want to focus on use of White Phospherous as a weapon against people that's cool. It's not allowed by most of the world anymore (we didn't sign the protocal if I remember right). Focus on it's use against civilians which is immoral as hell.

If you focus on it being a chemical weapon arguing with freeps you just give them the point cause guess what?... you're wrong it isn't one. Focus on the real issue. It's a nasty mean weapon when used that way and it's use on civilians should NEVER be condoned, allowed, or swept under the rug. That's the true issue. If you focus on the other then you lose cause they're right and you blow your own credibility defending the position that it should be classified as a chemical weapon. They can't justify it's use against civilians period focus on that. It's the true issue.

[LeftHander]

21. We went to war because of Chemical Weapons and WMDS

So now we can illustrate the hypocrisy of that positions because we are using chemcial weapons.

It is as important as torture becasue the use of Chemical Weapons is morally repugnent to all but the most rabid of Right Wingers...like freeps.

So when we illustrate the similarities of WP to traditional chemical weapons like Mustard gas their heads explode.


And it reveals their "technical" definitions to be hollow smoke screens hiding the truth.

I for one have found this to be the most caustic issue on my blog. And has raised numerous attacks form the right wing. It goes to core of this war.

I sent e-mail to congress asking the to address this issue.

If we are to be taking the moral highground then WP has no use on our battlefield as a weapon to kill and maime. Used as a smoke screen is one thing but to fire 155mm WP howitzer rounds repetedly into an urban environment when civilians could be present is criminal.

[orwell]

23. WP rounds...

...will kill you.

Chemical Weapons will kill you.

See the difference?

[mod mom]

24. Aimed at insurgents, yet I heard there were thousands of civilians left in

Fallujah. This articles says it was used AGAINST IRAGI INSURGENTS:

<SNIP>

Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.

In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/21phosphorus.html