Is white phosphorous a chemical weapon?

originally posted by: Plotus

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.

Finally, someone who 'Gets It'. War is to decimate the enemy so badly that they surrender or are annihilated.

NOOO!

Wars are for liberation, and nation building, stability, and because we respect everyones culture.

Get off the fake news already!

You would have to been in one to give an answer of value. I do suspect your sarcasm. a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: RadioRobert

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...

Hence the absurdity of this stupid false outrage where it's ok to mangle, burn, and choke civilians to death with one form of weapon, but wrong with another.

a reply to: Fermy

We seem to be in agreement here. Not sure what the issue is? Here's my opinion from a similar discussion yesterday (HERE) and here's one of my more blunt posts on it from yesterday (HERE) which includes the following:

If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm anti-war. So whether civilians are killed by drones, M-16's, baseball bats, tank rounds, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, torture, suicide bombers, nuclear fallout, or chemicals, IT'S ALL EQUALLY REPULSIVE TO ME! Unlike you frauds, I don't pretend that it's unethical to murder civilians with one set of tools yet completely ethical to murder them with others.

As for white phosphorous, I'm arguing that it's a localized chemical weapon when used against humans. The reason I'm saying this is a battle of semantics is because it all comes down to how people define "chemical weapons", and the preposterous reasonings behind why some substances are considered "chemical weapons" and why others are not, even if they have similar effects on the human body.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Agree

a reply to: WarPig1939

So youre saying that a chemical (P4) that is so thermodynamically unstable that it combusts in our regular atmosphere and burns at 5000 degrees F enough to break down bone and melt skin away is unable to cause skin irritation?

Are you alright? Do you need a doctor?

originally posted by: gortex
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.

See thats where youre half right.

If its used as an ignitor, illuminator, or to be used as a smoke screen it is a "incendiary"

Now if its used on civilians or in civilian areas or used through its chemical action on life processes that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans IS considered a chemical weapon.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

Nailed it.

Does anyone recall Phossy Jaw and the matchstick workers in the latter 19th century?

Not pretty. Not pretty at all.

The question in OP title is a bit ambiguous though. Are we talking white phosphorous as is, in it's chemical form, or "white phosphorous device" used in like the earlier posters said for smokescreening etc?

I do ask on that front, because I am ignorant - what else is used in that device? (the smokescreeny thingo)

originally posted by: WarPig1939

It is not a chemical weapon by any means. It does not cause skin irritation or inhibit oxygen intake. I've been in the military 13 years so I would know.

Acha-jigga-what?

OXYGEN:


SKIN IRRITANT:
open & then click "Images"

a reply to: RadioRobert

Combat is about killing people

Combat is about putting the enemy out of action.

Killing the enemy does that but is not the best endpoint.

Wounding the enemy takes more of the enemy out of action then killing them.
It ties up medics doctors and other medical personal.
It increases supply needs for support of the wounded.

This is more important then killing them.

You would be crazy not to think this stuff couldn’t be used as a chemical weapon.

a reply to: ANNED

Eh, sometimes. Not every enemy puts much investment in retrieving and treated wounded in the field.

There are some psychological advantages to weapons that main instead of kill, though. Easier to sell a hero's death than a life of disfigurement at the squad level. Especially when certain enemies think martyrdom in jihad is a ticket to paradise. Like I said, lots of people decide they aren't that interested in fighting after all when certain weapons are deployed.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

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.

Thanks for clarification. Good info. Yes that does leave a lot open to interpretation.