It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks Details White Phosphorus Use

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
There has been much controversy regarding the use of white phosphorus in Iraq and Gaza, but it wasn't until 2009 that Western military forces admitted its use in Afghanistan. Under the Geneva Convention, white phosphorus must be used only for illumination or to provide smoke screens and out of heavily populated areas. Below are the reports of its use in Afghanistan from the Wikileaks documents.

NB I can only find reports from 2008 and 2009, nothing before detailing its use. The report descriptions make it difficult to determine whether white phosphorus was being used in a direct or indirect way, nor the population density of the targeted areas. The reader should determine their own opinion.



At 0802Z, TF Eagle Assault reports a SWT (2x OH-58 were engaged by unknown number of Anti Afghan Forces with SAF at 41R QQ 25100 85200, 5.2km Sperwan Ghar DC, Kandahar. Friendly Forces returned fire with 3xWP (white Phosphorus) rounds. There was no damages to Aircraft. ISAF tracking #07-232.




SAF #10-105 TF RED CURRAHEE(COP HAFT ASIAB) POSSIBLE POO SITE At 1110z NDS REPORTS THAT COP HAFT ASIAB IS GOING TO RECEIVE ROCKETS ON TIME DELAYS. At UPDATE: 1122z COP HAFT ASIAB FIRES 6 X WP 120mm AT POSSIBLE POO SITE GRID VC 63905 52274. UPDATE: 1143z COP HAFT ASIAB EOM FOR 120mm. FIRED 6RDS OF 120mm WHITE PHOSPHORUS. NSTR. FRIENDLY FOLLOW UP: SUMMARY: 6RDSx120mm WHITE PHOSPHORUS FIRED EVENT CLOSED (1150z)Event Title
9 0933Z Zone:null Placename:ISAF #09-1131 Outcome:null UNIT: 4/D/1-32 IN S- 2-3 AAF A-SAF L (F)- 42SXD 81869 42563 L (E)- IVO 42SXD 842 434 T- 0933Z U- 4/D/1-32 R- SAF/CCA WHY: CONDUCTING CIED PATROL FROM FOB FORTRESS TO FOB JOYCE DOG 46 WERE ENGAGED BY 2-3 AAF. DOG 46 RETURNED WITH .50 CAL. CCA ARRIVED ON STATION AND ENGAGED AAF WITH 1 X WP AND 10X 30MM. NO BDA. NFTR TIMELINE: 0933Z: RECEIVED SAF 0934Z: PALE 51/54ON STATION 0944Z: PH 51 ENGAGING ENEMY 0951Z: PH 51 OFF STATION ******0952CLOSED****** SUMMARY: 1 X SAF 0 X INJ 0 X DMG AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE NO BDA 10 X 30MM 1 X WHITE PHOSPHORUS 100 X .50 CAL




At 0801Z 02DEC09 TF STRYKER reports TF ROAM was engaged by EF with an RPG IVO 42SUA0790091200. While conducting a mounted patrol consisting of 5xUS Vehicles 1151 with 3 x ANA 1151 and 1 x ANA ranger they were attacked with an RPG while on RTE Jaguar. The patrol returned fire and the enemy force broke contact US and ANA attempted to reengage. CAS arrived on station and stayed on station for approx 30 min to search the area no positive ID of enemy forces. no BDA *** ADDITIONAL CAS REPORTING *** ASOC reported that CAS to TIC A09 went KINETIC in RC South (Zabul Province) with 3 x White Phosphorus rockets at 42SUA 1020 9320. No CIVCAS concerns. 12#0131.02


Edits to say: There is a rogue smiley in one of those quotes and can't edit it out. I have no idea how it got there, must a clicked/pressed something by accident. Please ignore it.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by LarryLove]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by LarryLove]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by LarryLove]




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Phos (both white and red) is often used on ops. They are used to provide immediate large areas of smoke cover for various reasons.


The first report doesn't state what type of WP was used. Was it from a mortar/arty/hand/heli/vehicle discharger? It doesn't state enemy damages or casualties, nor does it state the reason behind the discharge.

The second report actually describes 2 incidents. The first states how WP was used to neutralise rockets that had been set on time delays to attack a friendly position. This means that there were no enemy forces in the area. It is probable the WP was used to destroy the munitions through burning, as this would be more effective than HE. In the second incident a friendly call sign was engaged and returned fire with a .50 cal. CCA (helicopter) support arrived and fired 10x30mm cannon rounds and 1xWP rocket, probably to provide cover from view to allow FF to extract. No big deal.

The third describes how a US/ANA patrol came under fire from EF. It then describe how CAS (Close Air Support) fired WP at an undefined area. It does not state the reason. It DOES state that there were no civvies in the area. The WP was probably used to allow extraction and to deny weapons for further use. No big deal.

The idea that WP is being used to engage EF as standard is pretty daft when you consider the other systems available to ground and air forces that are much more effective. Why would a helicopter use WP to engage when a 37mm flechette round (carried as standard) will be so much more effective? Why use only WP to cause enemy casualties when so many other systems are available, yet don't fire a single shot from them (such as implied in scenarios 1 & 3)?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


Thank you for your assessment of the reports. Your descriptions put them into much better context. Reading and trying to understand these reports is a nightmare without understanding military terminology and tactics.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


That's no problem mate. Not your fault.

I understand your point about terminology. Too many people jump to conclusions about various subjects without knowing or being able to work out the circumstances surrounding them. I only notice the military ones because that is my background. If it wasn't then I'd probably not understand a fraction of these reports.

For example if I put this in front of most people;


Event Title
9 0933Z Zone:null Placename:ISAF #09-1131 Outcome:null UNIT: 4/D/1-32 IN S- 2-3 AAF A-SAF L (F)- 42SXD 81869 42563 L (E)- IVO 42SXD 842 434 T- 0933Z U- 4/D/1-32 R- SAF/CCA WHY: CONDUCTING CIED PATROL FROM FOB FORTRESS TO FOB JOYCE DOG 46 WERE ENGAGED BY 2-3 AAF. DOG 46 RETURNED WITH .50 CAL. CCA ARRIVED ON STATION AND ENGAGED AAF WITH 1 X WP AND 10X 30MM. NO BDA. NFTR TIMELINE: 0933Z: RECEIVED SAF 0934Z: PALE 51/54ON STATION 0944Z: PH 51 ENGAGING ENEMY 0951Z: PH 51 OFF STATION ******0952CLOSED****** SUMMARY: 1 X SAF 0 X INJ 0 X DMG AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE NO BDA 10 X 30MM 1 X WHITE PHOSPHORUS 100 X .50 CAL


They wouldn't understand most of it properly.

I break it down as this


Event Title
9 0933Z


Incident title ref no. D9 at 0933 local time


Placename:ISAF #09-1131


ISAF code indicating where it happened.


UNIT: 4/D/1-32 IN S- 2-3 AAF A-SAF L (F)- 42SXD 81869 42563 L (E)- IVO 42SXD 842 434


Callsigns and type of units involved


T- 0933Z U- 4/D/1-32 R- SAF/CCA


Time call happened from who and for what.


WHY: CONDUCTING CIED PATROL FROM FOB FORTRESS TO FOB JOYCE DOG 46 WERE ENGAGED BY 2-3 AAF. DOG 46 RETURNED WITH .50 CAL. CCA ARRIVED ON STATION AND ENGAGED AAF WITH 1 X WP AND 10X 30MM. NO BDA. NFTR


Why the request for support was made. A counter-IED patrol callsign Dog 46 were moving from Forward Operating Base (FOB) Fortress to FOB Joyce. During this patrol it came under fire from 2-3 Anti-Afghan Forces (AAF) members. A Helicopter gunship support arrived on scene and engaged the enemy with 10 rounds from its 30mm cannon and a white phos rocket. No bomb damage assessment was made and there was nothing further to report.


TIMELINE: 0933Z: RECEIVED SAF 0934Z: PALE 51/54ON STATION 0944Z: PH 51 ENGAGING ENEMY 0951Z: PH 51 OFF STATION ******0952CLOSED******


The timeline from first call to end of mission. Call was made at 0933, airframe arrivesd at 0944, enemy located and engaged at 0951, mission ended at 0952.

All pretty easy once you get used to it. However many people just see a random jumble of letters, abreviations they don't understand and a couple of phrases they do (like WP for white phos) and jump to magical conclusions. Unfortunately this is where much of the sensationalised events we see in the press are derived from.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to put the terminology into context. It has helped greatly when reading the documents. Cheers.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
Edits to say: There is a rogue smiley in one of those quotes and can't edit it out. I have no idea how it got there, must a clicked/pressed something by accident. Please ignore it.


The rogue smiley is a by product of ATS bbcode...in the place of the smiley, the following characters should be - :D

Hit quote on my post to view how to insert characters to bypass the automation...


Edit to eliminate a misleading period.

[edit on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:22:43 -0500 by MemoryShock]




top topics
 
0

log in

join