We've been using white phosphorus for decades, mainly as the intended screening and illuminating munition, but sometimes as an anti-personnel munition.
This has nothing to do with the current administration's incompetence or psychopathy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
US.-led forces appear to be using white phosphorus in populated areas in Iraq & Syria
- Thread starter AcademicSaucer
- Start date
We've been using white phosphorus for decades, mainly as the intended screening and illuminating munition, but sometimes as an anti-personnel munition.
This has nothing to do with the current administration's incompetence or psychopathy.
Boiling water and wood also cause severe burning in contact with skin because they're hot. Once the white phosphorus is done burning, the smoke cools down. I'm not saying white phosphorus is harmless, I'm saying that white phosphorus was not used here to kill people en masse.
The US doesn't use it on people, it's a tool used to obscure the battlefield like illumination rounds (grenades, rockets, etc) are used to illuminate. I know from my military experience so feel free to share yours.
And by your definition, H2O is a chemical agent. When inhaled in large quantities it causes suffocation and death.
The currently policy of the US military is to not use it on people. Mostly because it's not as effective as other means. However the US military certainly has used it before on enemy combatants, by their own admission.
You're right though, defining it as a chemical agent using so broad a definition is ridiculous.
superdeluxe
Member
I'll wait for more info before I can make a judgement, seems like this could have been used legitimately
Holy shit the gymnastics here.
I gave you a quote from US colonel saying they use it on people, from the BBC.
Melissa McCarthy is that you?
It's not gymnastics, it's how the US uses it.
Yes, it's been used in the past against people, but that's against current military policy.
I don't believe that for a second. They claimed the same thing before, in that very same link even. US lies out of its ass constantly. Complete hypocrites and no better than Assad.
The gymnastics being water is a chemical weapon to downplay the effects of white phosphorus on people.
Are you 12? Hitler just butchered millions of people with death chambers.
Dumb reference.
He's quoting Sean Spicer
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Even if used on people it's not in the same category as chemical weapons when you're talking something like sarin gas. Still, it shouldn't be used on people.
Oh yeah I forgot Sean said that lol.
Instead of being a jerk and saying "Wow you guys are stupid" maybe read what I said.
They did not use white phosphorus as a weapon this time.
This time meaning the actions in the article. If they WERE using WP as a weapon, I would not be OK with that.
Gotta love the people who explain every inhuman, murderous shit the US does away with "IT'S TRUMP, GUYS", as if the US isn't doing everything an imperialist global power looking out for its own interests does usually for many decades now.
It NEVER was. How can anyone after studying the history of just the Vietnam War, let alone countless other wars, interventions and meddling in other, democratic countries affairs, still believe this? There are no "good" and "bad" guys in geopolitics. But apparently the myth spun decades ago based on the US contributing the least of all major nations fighting against Nazi Germany still puts in good work. And even the intervention in Western Europe was certainly not just done because the US just had such a big heart.
It NEVER was. How can anyone after studying the history of just the Vietnam War, let alone countless other wars, interventions and meddling in other, democratic countries affairs, still believe this? There are no "good" and "bad" guys in geopolitics. But apparently the myth spun decades ago based on the US contributing the least of all major nations fighting against Nazi Germany still puts in good work. And even the intervention in Western Europe was certainly not just done because the US just had such a big heart.
Sure, I agree we can't take what they say at face value, but it's use in this particular case doesn't make any sense. As a psychological tool it's rather ineffective here because it's being used against extremists who are trapped in one area surrounded by and with civilians. As a way to harm or kill mass numbers of enemy combatants it doesn't make sense because White Phosphorus has never been effective for that.
We know ISIS employs snipers to shoot escaping civilians. We know White Phosphorus is most effective as a screening tool. So the explanation given simply makes sense. Being angry about using it in this way is a waste of time if you ask me.
Correct, I should have specified current policy. I have helped mix and load napalm for training exercises as well as received training to load and arm NBC munitions on aircraft while being told it will never be used. Many people would be surprised to know how many aircraft in the US arsenal are capable of dropping a nuclear bomb.
It burns the skin to the bone and suffocates the victims.
The only reason US gets away with it is because they didn't sign a treaty:
Imperfected
Member
You're obviously going to believe whatever you want, but put simply:
There is no reason to use WP as an anti-personnel weapon against targets in this situation. The use in other conflicts was either due to a lack of more effective options (ie, WW2, when motolov cocktails were still issued by many forces), or in scenarios where dense forest and wooden structures meant that spreading fires from wide-area carpet bombing could create enormous amounts of damage.
There are no forests and very few primarily wooden structures in the combat area. The pictures shown are nowhere near enough WP to constitute a carpet bombing. That would be entirely ineffective against soft targets.
No one is saying they wouldn't do it because they're saints. They're saying they wouldn't do it because it would be ineffective and they have far more powerful and deadly means of indiscriminately killing large groups of people.
No, we get away with it because no one will stop us.
Our internal policies match (and sometimes exceed) that of other weapons treaties, but even if they didn't and we said "Yes we dropped WP on ISIS" nobody would stop us from doing it again.
We aren't doing it because it's not effective in the current conflict.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Sarin is a nerve agent. I mean, yes, warfare is inhumane generally but there are distinctions for reasons. Firebombing burned skin to the bone, burns lungs from smoke inhalation and causes asphyxiation; it's inhumane and cruel but it's not in the same category as chemical warfare
The area of burning and hot white phosphorus does that, yes.
According to the wikipedia article people have been linking in this thread, once the smoke has dispersed and cooled it's no more harmful that fuel-oil smoke.
"Smoke inhalation[edit]
Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) has the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m3, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m3.[81]"
If the US really wanted to burn the area, they'd use napalm. I'm not saying "water is also a dangerous chemical" because I'm enjoying my "gymnastics", but because anything that is really hot or on fire causes burns on contact with skin. Yes, white phosphorus is dangerous and they need to be careful in civilian areas.
You know what else is dangerous? A 7.62mm chunk of copper-clad lead with a steel core travelling at close to 3,000 feet per second and weighing nearly 10 grams. That's what ISIS snipers are shooting people with, and that is the most logical reason that the US would use white phosphorus.
It is in the chemical weapon category if it's used on people, which it is.
Even US intelligence classifies it as such.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ite-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html
The hypocrisy is not surprising but it is disgusting.
Even US intelligence classifies it as such.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ite-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html
The hypocrisy is not surprising but it is disgusting.
Evil Monkey DTT
Banned
waveuponwave
Member
There is a lot of arguments about the semantics of what defines a chemical weapon or not in this thread. The real issue at hand is that it was used in close proximity to civilians. If the US forces wanted everyone dead there are a lot better ways to do it. Like I said earlier in the thread, I've seen the result of what happens when someone receives a direct hit to the face by white phosphorus. It's not pretty and inhumane, but not as effective as a bomb or bullet.
The smoke spreads through buildings, that's a lot more effective than a bullet.
Why not just use a bomb? It doesn't inflict as much terror - admitted as a reason for its use by US Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable (quoted above already).
The same reason Assad might use chemical weapons, instead of just a bomb, which he also has.
Scum.
What's a long time? 10 years? We did hear about it. At the very last ground invasion. No changes have been made to policy since.
Why would you use a bomb to provide a smokescreen? You would be terrible leading any kind of military.
It's not just used as a smokescreen, read the thread.
Hell read, the post you quoted, senior US military official contradicts the state saying that excuse is 'based on poor information', admitting it is used on people to terrorise and flush out enemies.
In this case it sure seems like it was.
If you're firing it in the middle of the desert, where there are no buildings, to block the view of snipers etc - that's one thing. When you're firing it all over populated areas, that's a chemical weapon attack.
It's used in both Syria and Iraq, what's "this case" exactly?
They fire it on populated areas, having the smoke flood through all the buildings. It's in the title of the damn thread. There are multiple videos in the link in the OP.
Are you just here to try and excuse chemical weapon use?
It's used in both Syria and Iraq, what's "this case" exactly?
They fire it on populated areas, having the smoke flood through all the buildings. It's in the title of the damn thread. There are multiple videos in the link in the OP.
Are you just here to try and excuse chemical weapon use?
nah, it's ok when the good guys are using them.
The amount of shit he got for this is amazing, even tho this is the one time I actually agreed with him.
Also, fuck white phosphorus and any country that uses it (among others: US, Russia and Israel)
Do you realize the smoke isn't actually toxic (and is actually a smokescreen) or do you just want to keep believing that even the smoke is toxic?
From the way your posts come across, it's like you don't even know that it's only hot when it creates the smoke (much like every firecracker smoke "bomb") and the smoke is just a thick cloud to obscure vision.
No game will make you feel like more of a piece of shit than this one.
The claim that it's not that toxic is based on a wikipedia page with an out of date link.
The same organisation as the original source used says this:
- https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp103.pdf
Whereas:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4441902.stm
So it melts the skin to your bone, ignited with contact to air and sticking to the skin. Blistering the throat and lungs.
But it's not a chemical weapon or toxic!
When it's used on people, it's a chemical weapon. And when you're firing it in populated areas as they are, it's going to hit people. Which is actually the point, despite other claims, as validated by senior military (linked in above post) and by infantry:
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111600374.html
The US uses chemical weapons on people.
further reading: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq
And that game is?
You're claiming white phosphorus smoke isn't toxic.
It contains phosphorus oxides that have a hazard class of 8 (out of 9) and produce horrific effects on people.
Who's the ignorant one?
Lots of gymnastics. But, you are probably more likely to join or support terrorist if the wp "accidentally" killed/hurt your brother/sister/child. But im sure if they are just explained why it wasn't the worse way to die, they'd feel better.
If WP is our answer to sniper fire, it's no wonder this thing will be yet another chapter in this decades long pointless "war"
it's use just makes a bad look. Especially when friends like Saudi, are using it on people on yemen.
If WP is our answer to sniper fire, it's no wonder this thing will be yet another chapter in this decades long pointless "war"
it's use just makes a bad look. Especially when friends like Saudi, are using it on people on yemen.
Even Israel claims it stopped using white phosphorus (after images like this were circulated):
QuantumZebra
Member
As a flag-waving American, no, no we are not.
The "good" America ceased to be when we elected a deranged man-child with dreams of being a dictator into the White House.
Yes, because before President Trump America was "good". That's the best joke in here.
Similar threads
- Locked