Is white phosphorous a chemical weapon?

a reply to: watchitburn

One small correction. BY DOCTRINE, WP is not used against enemy personnel or equipment by the US Armed Forces. It is SUPPOSED to be strictly used for screening troop movements from enemy observation.

In battle, many of these doctrines are thrown out the window due to the exigencies of the moment. (Meaning if all you've got left is a WP grenade, you are sure as hell going to use it against people, if you think it will save your bacon!)

a reply to: Fermy

White Phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon it's an incendiary , it will stick to and burn anything it touches , including people.

Do any of you actually read the links or do you just stick to a mantra?

I mean CompB and Tritonol get their boom from chemical reactions. Are they chemical weapons?

A Mark77 will ruin your day and either burn or asphixiate you in a bunker, tank, or shelled out building. Is it a chemical weapon?

Combat is about killing people. We can dress it up with niceties as much as you want, but being a combatant isn't exactly life insurance. Being on the receiving end of WP is generally considered horrific. It is an incendiary. It is not a chemical weapon. It's a tool in the tool box.

A bunch of bad guys holed up in a building, bunker, or cave protecting an avenue or bridge or cache? WP serves three purposes. One of marks the target for everyone else who might not know where the bad guys are. Second, it empties out that bunker or cave real quick. It's scary. It's a lot easier to kill the bad guys when they are streaming out of the cave, tunnel, bunker, ruins, etc than when they are hiding inside. Third, because it is scary, when the bad guys across the street get hit by WP, you'd be surprised at how many bad guys in the buildings/caves next to them decide they don't want to stick around and fight all that bad anyhow. They make haste in another direction or sometimes just start tying strips of white cloth to their gun barrels.

I'd much rather we not handicap troops deployed and in the field when things get dicey. I also think war is plenty horrific with or without WP being employed. People did in all sorts of horrific ways in combat. It's not pretty. It's hard to pretend they is anything humanitarian about killing people with explosions or bullets instead of WP. Especially if not employing it exposes friendly troops to more danger.

a reply to: BomSquad

Right, right. It's now on paper that it is only used as cover or if it marks where the bad guys are... We are very concerned about our manners, after all All those other things are secondary or tertiary effects from it's employment as a visual marker. If you have any doubts, we'd be happy to refer you to the paper which says that.

You can not compare white phosphorous to what USA did !
Two nuclear Bombs!
people had their Skin foll off from the heat blast.
blinded, radiation poisoning.

Now That Is the Only True weapon of Mass Destruction.
and the worst chemical weapon ever to be Used on Civilians!
oh but You are a american! so you forget all about that!

a reply to: RadioRobert

"marks where the bad guys are"
um! that means you drop it ON the bad guys!

a reply to: buddha

Yep...

originally posted by: Metallicus
There is no nobility in war. It is dirty, ugly and sometimes completely necessary. In war, the only acceptable outcome is to win. Pretending there are ‘rules’ is the luxury of the winner.

Just remember your own words next time a terrorist attack happens on US soil.

a reply to: buddha

And don't forget the enormous amounts of biological and chemical weapons used during WW1 & WW2.

a reply to: gortex

Isn't fire by definition a chemical reaction? LOL

This just shows how absurd this debate is. It's merely a battle of semantics.

Well, if we're going to talk about deadly mass poisoning weapons how about the depleted uranium ammo used by America? That # has far more devastating long lasting effects that most chemical weapons anyway. That's the gift that keeps on giving generation after generation.

www.rt.com...

www.pinterest.ca...

a reply to: WarPig1939

It isn't defined a chemical weapon by US mil standard.

How convenient...

So are you taking back your words? It's fine if you are, but just be open about it.

Because you flat out said "It is not a chemical weapon by any means. It does not cause skin irritation or inhibit inhalation of oxygen", which is wrong on both counts. Unless you're arguing that burning skin and flesh doesn't count as "skin irritation" and arguing that rapidly burning through the oxygen in an area doesn't count as "inhibiting inhalation of oxygen".

When used on people directly or indirectly, white phosphorus is a localized chemical weapon attack.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


Semantics? No, I posted the OP to demonstrate that it can be classified as a CW but we don't get to the stage where warships converge and sabres get rattled when these particular CW's get used by one side. I've said in another post I don't differentiate between methodology of killing, bleeding out in isolation isn't a better way to die. I'm not apologising for war or whatever, just curious as to why the media gets worked into a frenzy about CW as a means to an end.

I believe it's a war crime and proscribed under international law when used against human targets due to burning. Yes Israel appears to have done just that against Palestinians.

a reply to: Fermy

a reply to: Fermy

Might wanna reread what I was responding to.

1. Someone argues that "White Phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon it's an incendiary , it will stick to and burn anything it touches , including people.".

2. Incendiaries are literal fire-starters.

3. Fire is by definition a chemical reaction.

So how is a round that immediately causes an intense chemical reaction on anything it touches not a "chemical weapon"? When using chemical weapons, isn't it the whole point to cause a chemical reaction onto the human target? Some chemical weapons are harmful or fatal when inhaled. But why? Because of the chemical reactions they cause upon contact.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Hi, I understand what a chemical reaction is, it's the term CW that bothers me, as in, what gets classified as such and why some are ok and others aren't. Expanding foam could be a chemical weapon if used in offense. WP is classed primarily as an Incendiary but secondarily as a CW. It's use by one nation was claimed to be for illumination purposes but I've seen at least one picture when it was daylight, being used over civilians. All weapons are equal but some weapons are more equal than others it would seem.

originally posted by: buddha
You can not compare white phosphorous to what USA did !
Two nuclear Bombs!
people had their Skin foll off from the heat blast.
blinded, radiation poisoning.

Now That Is the Only True weapon of Mass Destruction.
and the worst chemical weapon ever to be Used on Civilians!
oh but You are a american! so you forget all about that!

Ask the Chinese or the Koreans how bad they feel for the Japanese.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I believe it's a war crime and proscribed under international law when used against human targets due to burning. Yes Israel appears to have done just that against Palestinians.

a reply to: Fermy

It's only proscribed by the convention if the individual weapon system's primary purpose is to start a fire or burn people. Even if we decided that was the case, then it'd only be proscribed in use against civilians. Or in clearly inhabited "concentration of civilians". Even that clause has a caveat often ignored by the "war crimes" crowd. It reads "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." So if someone undertakes all feasible precaution to only effect the military target, incendiary weapons are just dandy.

Further, the U.S. also stated as a signatory/depositer that they reserve the right to use incendiary in cities if other methods of attack would produce more casualties. I don't think Israel ever ratified it to begin with, so they are exempt under the Convention.

Does all that sound vague and subjective? If does to me, too. That's why nothing ever comes of complaining about it.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Fermy

Might wanna reread what I was responding to.

1. Someone argues that "White Phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon it's an incendiary , it will stick to and burn anything it touches , including people.".

2. Incendiaries are literal fire-starters.

3. Fire is by definition a chemical reaction.

So how is a round that immediately causes an intense chemical reaction on anything it touches not a "chemical weapon"? When using chemical weapons, isn't it the whole point to cause a chemical reaction onto the human target? Some chemical weapons are harmful or fatal when inhaled. But why? Because of the chemical reactions they cause upon contact.

By this logic all explosives and firearms are chemical weapons...