Quantcast

White Phosphorus? MK77? Napalm?

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
26,535
1,900
seriously. how in the world can this be justified?
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
I so forgot the bees with naplam post. I still laugh at that.

MK77 is simply the name for the 750lbs napalm bomb. Its been used since Korea so its not new. I doubt seriously that it was used as it would have basically melted an entire city block. It was used in the first gulf war to set fire to the oil filled trenches. (Never quite figured out why we had to set them on fire). Anyhoo,

I suspect that someone decided that using WP was a good idea because of the fear aspect. I can't imagine a worse weapon to try and use in urban warfare. The only use I could imagine would be to use it to create smoke screens for concealment. If someone went slap happy it could have made a big fat mess that stuff is ruthless.

I wish that they indicated numbers of casualities because that would give some idea of the extent of use. If its widespread that would certainly mean something different than if it was a few.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Supposedly there are a lot of these photos. The few I've seen would indicate the effect was fairly widespred. There is one long shot down a street and there are burned bodies inthe foreground and similar corpses into the far distance, at least 3 or 4 blocks. The reports at the time also said the use was widespread, and there are reports of both plane based and artillery use. I doubt a shell could cause that scale of damage without destroying buildings right? It seems more likely it would have been dropped to me.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Next Topic: "Jihadi group explodes nuclear device in downtown Labia Minora in retaliation for use of illegal weapons against residents of Falluja."
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,183
1
TN
Changleen said:
Next Topic: "Jihadi group explodes nuclear device in downtown Labia Minora in retaliation for use of illegal weapons against residents of Falluja."
Next topic: Mushroom cloud rises from assrapestan.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
What a positive exchange that was. Now the residents of Labia Minora and Assrapeistan are all dead. Butfukistan isn't too happy about the situation either. In fact they're funding a state sponsored, well backed terrorist group in the US to avenge Assrapeistan's new glass parking lot.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
Since when is willie pete classified as a checmical weapon? I mean using it isn't the greatest thing on earth in fact it is banned at the geneva conventions, even againts millitary targets i believe), but way to over dramatize a situation.

OMG chemical weapons!!!! Some of the euro news agencies are just as biased as fox.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,890
4
Hypernormality
Transcend said:
Since when is willie pete classified as a checmical weapon? I mean using it isn't the greatest thing on earth in fact it is banned at the geneva conventions, even againts millitary targets i believe), but way to over dramatize a situation.
:think:
 
E

enkidu

Guest
N8 said:
This coming from someone who thinks a crusie missile hit the world towers and the pentagon.. :p
Nobody is claiming that world towers were not attacked by airplanes. But the pentagon case is different.

Have you seriously checked the pictures of pentagon attack, N8? ("911 in Plane Site" DVD, for example, has well documented clippings of CNN, Fox News and many other primary sources from that day, September 11th.) The small aperture of the initial impact (about 16 Ft), the lack of explosion upon impact, and the lack of wreckage of a large airplane (44 Ft x 125 Ft of Boeing from tip to tip of the wings and rudder) all do point to a different sort of attack.
 
E

enkidu

Guest
Changleen said:
Oops, sorry, I should have searched. At least the Italian documentary is a new addition. And perhaps the worst effect of this prolonged act of aggression on American psyche is the callousness and apathy towards the use of such weapons to "others". . . even when we profess to love verdant beautiful nature and trails.
 
E

enkidu

Guest
Jorvik said:
They broke the rules first. . .
No. We, USA, broke the rules first.

Not a single Iraqi harmed an American until Bush & Co. unleashed the "shock and awe" massively murderous attacks.

Lies were used to whip up American appetite for the war of aggression, when in fact the ruling Neocons / Likudnicks / Religious Rights were, and still are, methodically executing the blue print of "the principle of preemption" promoted as early as 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and submitted to and accepted by the Israeli Likud government by R. Perle, D. Feith and D. Wurmser in 1996. They were, and still are, the core members governing Dick Chaney's office.

We have to remember that not all Christians and Jews, and in fact most Muslems as well, are power-hungry callous empire seekers.

Just as within a family we have to learn to reconcile and love for the whole family to thrive. We need each other. We can do so much when we learn to nurture and support each other. Going around burning up people, animals, trees and all other living creatures with weapons like Napalm and nuke is NOT the way it should be IMHO.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,183
1
TN
enkidu said:
Just as within a family we have to learn to reconcile and love for the whole family to thrive. We need each other. We can do so much when we learn to nurture and support each other. Going around burning up people, animals, trees and all other living creatures with weapons like Napalm and nuke is NOT the way it should be IMHO.
Whatever Dr. Phil. This is a debate about Napalm, not the war. And its not even really napalm. Its geneva convention approved napalm with bees. Its legal.
Now go rinse off that patchouli.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Changleen said:
Supposedly there are a lot of these photos. The few I've seen would indicate the effect was fairly widespred. There is one long shot down a street and there are burned bodies inthe foreground and similar corpses into the far distance, at least 3 or 4 blocks. The reports at the time also said the use was widespread, and there are reports of both plane based and artillery use. I doubt a shell could cause that scale of damage without destroying buildings right? It seems more likely it would have been dropped to me.
I haven't seen the pictures so its really hard to say. I have seen MK77s used before and they are pretty spectacular and very destructive. I suspect that if it had been napalm the street would be pretty much burned to the ground. In an urban warfare setting it is just unlikely they actually used napalm.

Now most WP shells would be airburst so its possible you would see little or no detonation damage. One shell could cause quite a lot of casualties if there were a lot of exposed people under it.

Again the number of casualities and the spread of them would go a long way in indicating what actually happened and what the intent might have been.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
Changleen said:
C'mon man it's the US Govt...they don't routinely use their heads. I am not saying using willie pete is good. What I am saying is that the left wing media outlets who called them "chemical weapons" simply to cause outrage, is wrong.

Call it what it is, white phosphorous. It is NOT a chemical agent. The US Govt, while burning innocent civilians, is not gassing entire villages.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
4
(11-15) 15:02 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. But they denied an Italian television news report that the spontaneously flammable material was used against civilians.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.

"It was not used against civilians," Venable said.

The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous.

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.

"We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

The authors added, in citing lessons for future urban battles, that fire-support teams should have used another type of smoke bomb for screening missions in Fallujah "and saved our WP for lethal missions."

The battle for Fallujah was the most intense and deadly fight of the war, after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. The city, about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, was a key insurgent stronghold. The authors of the "after action" report said they encountered few civilians in their area of operations.

Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorous. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive.

The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The department later said its statement had been incorrect.

"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.

White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
H8R said:
(11-15) 15:02 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous.

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.
Now that sounds about right.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
N8 said:
Willie Pete is not a banned weapon so what's the big deal? Does it kill people deader or something?
Dude, it smells like garlic. Would you want to die smelling like garlic? I didn't think so.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
26,535
1,900
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

What are its effects?

If particles of ignited white phosphorus land on a person's skin, they can continue to burn right through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning.

Skin burns must be immersed in water or covered with wet cloths to prevent re-combustion until the particles can be removed.

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside.

Long-term exposure to lesser concentrations over several months or years may lead to a condition called "phossy jaw", where mouth wounds are caused that fail to heal and the jawbone eventually breaks down.
and given that it's not banned because the US conveniently didn't sign a treaty using the "it's not illegal! honest!" line is a WEAK excuse. <-- edited for propur englishe
 

The Amish

Dumber than N8
Feb 22, 2005
645
0
Jorvik said:
They broke the rules first. And there has never been a conflict since the first convention in which either side has followed the Geneva Conventions completly.

I say let them burn.
Rules of war. What nonsense. Us casualties probably wouldnt even break the double digits if we didn't have to folow those stupid things. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is winners and losers. If your gonna go to war, kick ass, take names, and bring the boys home. The world couldn't handle the damage we're capable of doing. Display it once and I doubt these sand rats would be in a hurry to f#*k with us again. Look how japan kisses our ass. Thats the power of fear
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Toshi said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

and given that it's not banned because the US conveniently didn't sign a treaty is a WEAK excuse.
Its not banned because of the US not signing it, its not banned because its not banned by that treaty. From the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
26,535
1,900
DRB said:
Its not banned because of the US not signing it, its not banned because its not banned by that treaty. From the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
from same article

How did the US use it?

The US initially denied reports it had used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja in November 2004, saying it had been used only for illumination and laying smokescreens.

However, the Pentagon has now confirmed the substance was used as an "incendiary weapon" during the assault.

It was deployed as a conventional - rather than chemical - munition, the military said, and its principal use was as a smokescreen and to mark enemy targets.

However, the US has now admitted its forces also used white phosphorus rounds to a lesser extent to flush enemy forces out of covered positions, allowing them to be targeted with high explosives.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
DRB said:
Its not banned because of the US not signing it, its not banned because its not banned by that treaty. From the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
Given what the adminstration has said (according to the quote earlier) it doesn't fall within the caveats of incidental incendiary effects to any reasonable understanding. If it is used deliberately as an anti-personnel weapon any effects on those personnel are not incidental.
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
fluff said:
Given what the adminstration has said (according to the quote earlier) it doesn't fall within the caveats of incidental incendiary effects to any reasonable understanding. If it is used deliberately as an anti-personnel weapon any effects on those personnel are not incidental.
Using incendiary weapons as an anti-personnel weapons against military targets are NOT prohibitied by the 1980 Protocol.
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,978
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
DRB said:
Using incendiary weapons as an anti-personnel weapons against military targets are NOT prohibitied by the 1980 Protocol.
We must speak different versions of English. It pretty clearly says using a weapon with an intended incendiary effect is verbotten.


1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells , rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

Dropping Willie Pete on people is far from "incidental incendiary effects" It's using a device against a person with an intended incendiary effect.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,672
0
Feeling the lag
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Quote:
The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
 

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,287
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Reactor said:
We must speak different versions of English. It pretty clearly says using a weapon with an intended incendiary effect is verbotten.





Dropping Willie Pete on people is far from "incidental incendiary effects" It's using a device against a person with an intended incendiary effect.
Really? Again its use against military targets is not prohibited.