News Did the US Use White Phosphorus as a Weapon in Falluja?

[Mercator]

Well, there is the obvious out that the US is not making civilian populations the object of attack. That's contingent upon the word 'attack' excluding accidental damage, but still, it does do so. Then again, as you've pointed out, the fact that a particular act is legal doesn't make it right. Obviously, the spirit of this law is to shield civilians from having to suffer the effects of these weapons.

I'm more looking at " It is prohibited under all circumstances ". That would include attacks where the chances for colateral damage are high, no?

 

[Art]

The article in the OP only adresses one of the objections that we had about your claims; that WP was fired at targets. We, or at least I, asked for the proof that it was fired at targets. Now you have proof of at least this. The problem is that we already knew and agreed that WP smoke was used against the combatents. Smoke bombs are incediaries in that they burn in order to create smoke. Anything that burns is classified as an incendiary. Anything that produces smoke most likely burns and therefore is an incendiary. Our point is whether or not the devices used were designed to burn their targets really. We don't see why there is an issue with whether or not some WP may have gotten onto and burned some of the enemy combatents as a side effect if the soldiers were just going to shoot and kill them one moment later.
The other point of contention was the effect on the civilian population. I believe we all agreed that the collateral damage seen due to the use of WP so extensively was unacceptable. The only point which most of us took issue with was here...
The idea that US forces intentionally targeted and intentionally killed civilians and did not care if they killed civilains.
All else aside I don't doubt that this was the major bone anyone had to pick with what you had to say.

Here's why I think what I do.

1) WP is an indicriminate weapon. It's kill radius is very large.
2) Fallujah is a civilian city using indiscriminate weapons kills civilians which just brings us back to the 'are they stupid or just not care' discussion.
3) Once the city was ringed many civilians were not allowed to leave before the assault began
4) The US claimed to have killed ~1200 insurgents. There is no way to prove or disprove this figure but the circumstantial evidence suggests differently. The insurgents claim most of them left when they knew an assault was coming. The insurgents have a cemetary especially for fighters killed. They added only 95 bodies after the assault on Fallujah
5) Pictures of dead civilians including babies.
6) In the previous assault on Fallujah 600 civilians were killed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-11-fallujah-casualties_x.htm
7) Pictures of Iraqis shot dead in their beds in their homes.

The above paints a picture of an army on a killing spree. If it's not like it looks then it is up to the military to prove otherwise and their recent litany of lies in relation to their use of WP certainly doesn't do their credibility any good.

 

[Mercator]

This says it better:
Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."
Leave out the melting body image and you have a very precise statement of the issue. Now is that anti-American ranting? No, it's a disucssion on an issue that should lead to a better use of American power in the world.

 

[Evo]

This says it better:
Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."
Leave out the melting body image and you have a very precise statement of the issue. Now is that anti-American ranting? No, it's a disucssion on an issue that should lead to a better use of American power in the world.

Now *that's* the kind of post I would like to see here.

It's not inflammatory. It addresses the issue. It makes an intelligent proposal and backs up the reasoning behind it.

This is the type of post that would make someone stop and think instead of just lashing out.

 

[Mercator]

Now *that's* the kind of post I would like to see here.

I wish I always could be to the point like this, but that's a problem when English in fact only your third language. I see that with many posters here, which does not mean that they have nothing to say.

 

[jimmie]

the fact that a particular act is legal doesn't make it right

Now is that anti-American ranting? No, it's a disucssion on an issue that should lead to a better use of American power in the world.

Unfortunately, 'Amercian power', with the intent to preserve itself, has chosen that it is better to consistently do actions that are "legal", regardless if those actions are "right".

 

[Evo]

I wish I always could be to the point like this, but that's a problem when English in fact only your third language. I see that with many posters here, which does not mean that they have nothing to say.

You speak English so well, it's hard not to think of you as American.

 

[kat]

Mercator...makes a a statement regarding the legality of the United states using WP.

outlawed by the UN ,

I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful..

Yes, yes..I think this is probably the key to the whole subject. Please...quote the applicable U.N. "law" in regards to WP.
Oh, and while you're at it..maybe you should also find a good definition of what a U.N. Protocal is and how and to whom it applies.

Then Skyhunter..you reply:

No one is arguing the legality

Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding the legality of the use of WP. It can not be outlawed unless there is a law against it.. whether anyone is arguing the legality I don't know..but I do know I've requested Mercator to quote the applicable law that makes it outlawed. Once he's done that I might want to argue the legality..but until he does..it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned.

In what way was what I said obfuscation? You were making the claim that the use of WP is not illegal, and by implication, that there is nothing wrong with it.

You appear to be confused..therefore, I mispoke..it's not obfuscation..it's ignorance. You were obviously ignorant of the fact that...I..was not.. the person making a claim...Mercator is the person who made a claim.

Read the links. If you want to discuss the UN protocol, please go ahead and start your own thread. Good try though.

You are the one who brought them up..and yet you appear to not understand how they are applied and which are binding and which are not and in what matter they are and to whom..or you would not have said it was "outlawed by the U.N."

 

[loseyourname]

I'm more looking at " It is prohibited under all circumstances ". That would include attacks where the chances for colateral damage are high, no?

You have to look at what is prohibited under all circumstances, and that is making civilians the target of an attack. In other words, there are no circumstances in which it is legal for an army to make a civilian population the object of an incendiary attack. It says nothing whatsoever of doing anything else that has an effect on a civilian population, however, such as unintentionally burning them with weapons targeted at some other group.

Now that you mention English is your third language, I think it's understandable that you misunderstand this. Word order is extremely important in English syntax.

That said, I don't want to get too into the legality claim, because that just brings us back to my original point from the other thread. It seems like the opponents of US policy want to make too strong of a claim, and in doing so, they end up weakening their own case. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the US actually broke any law here, so trying to advance that claim is probably going to fail. In failing, however, we ignore the larger issue that civilian populations are being killed and severely mained by US actions. This is something that needs to be minimized, if not completely stopped (which is just unrealistic), regardless of whether or not it is legal. Even if we cannot bring charges against the military for this, they should still revisit and change the way they approach tactical situations in an urban setting. There is reasoned discussion to be had on this issue, but screaming "war crime" (not to say that you are, but the ones that do are the ones that are heard loudest) is not it.

 

[Mercator]

Mercator...makes a a statement regarding the legality of the United states using WP.
I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful..
Then Skyhunter..you reply:
Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding the legality of the use of WP. It can not be outlawed unless there is a law against it.. whether anyone is arguing the legality I don't know..but I do know I've requested Mercator to quote the applicable law that makes it outlawed. Once he's done that I might want to argue the legality..but until he does..it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned.
You appear to be confused..therefore, I mispoke..it's not obfuscation..it's ignorance. You were obviously ignorant of the fact that...I..was not.. the person making a claim...Mercator is the person who made a claim.
You are the one who brought them up..and yet you appear to not understand how they are applied and which are binding and which are not and in what matter they are and to whom..or you would not have said it was "outlawed by the U.N."

Quote of my own:
Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." You mean outlawed is not the same as prohibited? OK, you win, can we go on now?
And again if you want to derail the thread into a lecture on the workings of the UN: not with me.

 

[Mercator]

You have to look at what is prohibited under all circumstances, and that is making civilians the target of an attack. In other words, there are no circumstances in which it is legal for an army to make a civilian population the object of an incendiary attack. It says nothing whatsoever of doing anything else that has an effect on a civilian population, however, such as unintentionally burning them with weapons targeted at some other group.
Now that you mention English is your third language, I think it's understandable that you misunderstand this. Word order is extremely important in English syntax.
That said, I don't want to get too into the legality claim, because that just brings us back to my original point from the other thread. It seems like the opponents of US policy want to make too strong of a claim, and in doing so, they end up weakening their own case. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the US actually broke any law here, so trying to advance that claim is probably going to fail. In failing, however, we ignore the larger issue that civilian populations are being killed and severely mained by US actions. This is something that needs to be minimized, if not completely stopped (which is just unrealistic), regardless of whether or not it is legal. Even if we cannot bring charges against the military for this, they should still revisit and change the way they approach tactical situations in an urban setting. There is reasoned discussion to be had on this issue, but screaming "war crime" (not to say that you are, but the ones that do are the ones that are heard loudest) is not it.

If civilians are in an area and that area is attacked with these weapons, then they are de facto the target of the operation. Not the primary target, but a target none the less.
But I agree, let's leave the legal discussion to the lawyers. My point is still, why on Earth does the US not ratify the UN protocol? Why does the most powerful army in the world have to use these weapons, don't they have better, less controversial means? In a way, by using these things, the US military demonstrates it's weakness: as long as a war can be waged on a high technological level, no problem, but when it comes down to direct confrontation, it seems that the dedication of the enemy can only be broken by using this kind of weapons. Now, even if you're a hardliner is THAT the message you want to send to the enemy? Do you want them to copy you and start using napalm-like substances in addition to car- and suicide bombs?
These suicide bombers don't care if innocent bystanders are killed when they attack their targets. That's barbaric. We should not do the same.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Frowned upon by whom?

Civilised nations who don't use it (i.e. pretty much everyone except America).

Again, so what? That nitpicking over terminology doesn't change how it was actually used.

No, but your description of it is chosen to obfuscate how it was used. By terming it a 'psychological weapon' it is clear that you are attempting to mislead people into thinking it did not physical harm, or was used in a way that physical harm was not a natural consequence.

Well, kinda, but close enough.

No, dead on. Again, you might protest that it was aimed at 'the hole containing the people' but however you put it, it was used against people.

Au contraire. While some are not explicit, some - most importantly the person who started this thread - are explicit that they believe that the US is intentionally killing peope with WP. So you (and patty, and others) need to be more precise in your statements of your opinions because you have not, until now, made that distinction clear.

You couldn't have missed my point more. I was not defending anyone when I said no-one is saying it is used to kill people - I was attacking the US military! I was saying THEY are not coming out and stating how it is used without spin.

Burnsys started this thread, so by arguing for his position without making it clear that you don't share his opinion, it is your fault if your opinion is misunderstood.

That's a typical black and white view, like Republican and Democrat, good guys and bad guys, with us or against us. It's also utter BS. I'm not arguing anyone's position but my own. I'm not obliged to second guess what conclusions you'll jump to just to rationalise your position. Go ahead. You might feel better but you sure as hell won't convince anyone but yourself.

You shoot yourself in the foot when you say things like that. While politically we are polar opposites, I know you are easily intelligent enough to argue your position convincingly. Telling me that if I don't state what my argument isn't then you are justified in assuming my argument is something I haven't stated is too easy. For me, that is.

It makes a big difference, under the law, what the intent was. The intent and the specifics of the legal definitions are the main reason we are discussing this issue!

It has already been stated several times by both sides of the argument that there is no legal reason the US military should not use WP. The point is it is now clear that they are using it in a way prohibited by pretty much the rest of the international community. In other words, it's barbaric.

Just so everyone else is crystal clear on what side you are arguing, this is what Burnsys is arguing, and if you don't agree, you need to say so before arguing on his behalf: To paraphrase, Burnsys believes that the US is intentionally killing enemy combatants with WP and may be intentionally killing civilians with it.

That wasn't my original argument at all, but okay I'll bite. If the US military is using a weapon on people, for whatever justification, that they know will almost certainly kill those or some of those people, then yes they are intentionally killing "enemy combatants". Your argument is wholly based on the fact that no-one in the military is admitting using WP for the purpose of killing ECs. It's not much of an argument.

I'll go one further, and you'll either love or hate this. Since "enemy combatants" is the term used by the US to describe anyone it wants to treat in a manner that, were they recognised as soldiers or civilians, would be prohibited, then since they are using WP against, at the very least, "enemy combatants", they are using it against civilians. Albeit civilians with bombs. And probably civilians without bombs too.

=====================================================

This just about sums it up, I think:

We don't see why there is an issue with whether or not some WP may have gotten onto and burned some of the enemy combatents as a side effect if the soldiers were just going to shoot and kill them one moment later.

Who here agrees with this? Should it be OK to burn someone alive if you intend to shoot them anyway?

 

[Art]

BTW for the self proclaimed chemistry expert who ridiculed my claim that WP produces an exothermic reaction when in contact with water; here's what the US gov't says

If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces...

also

White phosphorus is fat-soluble

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1642575,00.html

Here's another interesting quote from the same article

Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.

 

[Gokul43201]

You speak English so well, it's hard not to think of you as American.

(cough) Of course you meant : "You speak English so well, it's hard to think of you as American."

 

[kat]

Quote of my own:
Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." You mean outlawed is not the same as prohibited? OK, you win, can we go on now?
And again if you want to derail the thread into a lecture on the workings of the UN: not with me.

It's only prohibited if you've ratified it. The united States has not signed it. If you want to argue using lies and rhetoric you should not be surprised when someone challenges you to support your statements. If you want to argue on a purely moral ground then don't make hyperbolic statements regarding the United States breaking laws that don't exist.

 

[Art]

It's only prohibited if you've ratified it. The united States has not signed it.

Nobody has claimed the US signed the protocol so why not drop this silly strawman argument.

If you want to argue using lies and rhetoric you should not be surprised when someone challenges you to support your statements.

Duh... What is this irrelevant rant about?

If you want to argue on a purely moral ground then don't make hyperbolic statements regarding the United States breaking laws that don't exist.

There is a world outside the US and in that world there are laws so the laws do exist. The fact that America chose not to sign up to them and flouts the international will of civilised countries as expressed in the quoted UN protocols does not make their actions any less reprehensible.

The statement about flouting the international will might be familiar to you. It was used often when the US were justifying the invasion of Iraq.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Seconded. Atrocities are atrocities, legal or not. The right-wingers keep coming back to the fact that it is legal, presumably because they cannot argue the basic issue that it is barbaric. Oh, and that the US lied about its use in the first and second places.

 

[kat]

Nobody has claimed the US signed the protocol so why not drop this silly strawman argument. Duh... What is this irrelevant rant about? There is a world outside the US and in that world there are laws so the laws do exist. The fact that America chose not to sign up to them and flouts the international will of civilised countries as expressed in the quoted UN protocols does not make their actions any less reprehensible.
The statement about flouting the international will might be familiar to you. It was used often when the US were justifying the invasion of Iraq.

Hello...maybe you should follow the thread..his rant was that it was unlawful..."outlawed". It is only prohibited by a treaty..which if not ratified does not prohibit the use of. The U.S. did not ratify the protocal. It is not illegal. Again, as I stated above, if he wants to argue on a moral ground..fine..he did not. This type of response, combined with that I displayed previously with several replies by various members showing a lack of ability to respond to what's being debated is why this forum has degraded to the point that it's a laughing stock. I do wish Evo would clean it up as she continues to say she will.

Having said this, if all agree no "law" was broken and the protocal is not applicable on a legal basis, then I'm very glad to drop the matter.

 

[kat]

Seconded. Atrocities are atrocities, legal or not. The right-wingers keep coming back to the fact that it is legal, presumably because they cannot argue the basic issue that it is barbaric. Oh, and that the US lied about its use in the first and second places.

I don't know why the "right wingers" keep coming back to anything...I do know that my question on what "law" made it "outlawed" is what came to this discussion. So, perhap.."right wingers" keep coming back to the fact it is legal is because the "left wingers" keep charging that it is illegal. Lying brings refutation. It's a bit deceptive to lie and then charge the person who refutes that lie to be doing anything other then..correcting the lie.

 

[Skyhunter]

I ask him to clarify which U.N. law it is that makes it unlawful..
Then Skyhunter..you reply:

No one is arguing the legality

Skyhunter, evidently you're selectively reading because you appear to have missed Mercators statement regarding the legality of the use of WP. It can not be outlawed unless there is a law against it.. whether anyone is arguing the legality I don't know..but I do know I've requested Mercator to quote the applicable law that makes it outlawed. Once he's done that I might want to argue the legality..but until he does..it's really a mute point as far as I'm concerned."

It's use is outlawed by the UN, Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Since the US is not a signatory no one here is arguing that the US did anything illegal.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't know why the "right wingers" keep coming back to anything...I do know that my question on what "law" made it "outlawed" is what came to this discussion. So, perhap.."right wingers" keep coming back to the fact it is legal is because the "left wingers" keep charging that it is illegal. Lying brings refutation. It's a bit deceptive to lie and then charge the person who refutes that lie to be doing anything other then..correcting the lie.

Not really. WP is prohibited by international protocol... for those nations who are signatories to that protocol. The US is not banned from using WP since it did not ratify it. All your doing is jumping on people for not wording things carefully enough to... avoid being jumped on by you. How pointless.

Everyone else was able to infer the meaning of "outlawed" in its context. You, however, see a member who does not naturally speak English misuse or under-qualify the word and don your battle armour. Perhaps if you could manage your right-wing rage a little better you might see that's kind of pathetic.

 

[Burnsys]

Are we talking to a f&·$%&ing wall here?
i will repeat for the 3rd time.

The intent and the specifics of the legal definitions are the main reason we are discussing this issue!

Maybe you are discusing the legal definitions, becouse it's the only way the bush administration and you can get away with it, it's mk77 not napalm!

I will repeat again and again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnsys
It doesn't matter what the intents are, all that matters are the results. so stop with that atitute..

The fact that it's legal doesn't change the fact that civilians and childrens are being burned alive.

 

[TRCSF]

It's only prohibited if you've ratified it. The united States has not signed it. If you want to argue using lies and rhetoric you should not be surprised when someone challenges you to support your statements. If you want to argue on a purely moral ground then don't make hyperbolic statements regarding the United States breaking laws that don't exist.

So are you telling me that if Saddam Hussein used the excuse "but I never signed the protocol banning the use of nerve gas" that you'd say, "well, I guess he's got a point, no harm, no foul."

God, I can never believe the nerve of some people. We start a war because (or so they say) Saddam used banned weapons "on his own people." And then we go and us banned weapons on those same people, and these people than make excuses for doing it.

 

[Art]

It seems the US might yet find itself in the dock over this;

The 1977 first protocol to the Geneva Conventions could be invoked. The United States has signed but not ratified the protocol which relates to the 4th Convention which considers the treatment of civilians.

Article 35 of the protocol makes it clear that the use and methods of use of "weapons of warfare are not unlimited." Any weapon or use of weapon that causes "superfluous or unnecessary suffering" is outlawed. The indiscriminate use of phosphorus on a civilian population would be covered.

Breaches of the Geneva Conventions are brought by individual countries and are usually heard by the United Nations at Security Council level, or in the International Court of Justice.

Peter Carter QC, an expert in international law and chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said the latest US admissions raised serious concerns about whether white phosphorus was indiscriminately used against civilians. He called for an independent inquiry, possibly through the United Nations, into the use of white phosphorus in Iraq.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327543.ece

 

[Informal Logic]

This type of response, combined with that I displayed previously with several replies by various members showing a lack of ability to respond to what's being debated is why this forum has degraded to the point that it's a laughing stock. I do wish Evo would clean it up as she continues to say she will.

If members thought this forum was a laughing stock, then why does membership continue to grow? And if the forum is "cleaned" up, would that be done in a biased way or a fair way? BTW - I think the new look is great.

Back to the topic, under the Bush regime all US policy has become unilateral, or in the words of Dubya, "you are with us or against us” (i.e., screw you world). The list of international laws the US believes it is above is so long that the argument about legality is a waste of time.

 

[Bystander]

WP: white phosphorus; one of several allotropes of elementalphosphorus.
Elemental: uncombined with other elements.
White phosphorus combines spontaneously with atmospheric oxygen, self-heating to the ignition temperature, at which time rapid combustion takes place, combustion temperature exceeds 2000 C, forming phosphorus pentoxide, m.p. 563 C, sublimes at 347 C, no pressure specified (in dry air).
Metaphosphoric acid, HPO₃, forms on solution of P₂O₅ in water, and also forms on heating orthophosphoric acid [H₃PO₄ to 316 C. Metaphosphoric acid reacts slowly with additional water at temperatures less than 213 C to form orthophosphoric acid. There is a third hydrated form, pyrophosphoric acid, H₄P₂O₇ observed between 213 and 316 C when heating orthophosphoric acid. Metaphosphoric acid will coagulate egg white, and it is reasonable to extrapolate this property to other proteins. The ortho- and pyro- acids do not exhibit such activity.
Selected heats of combustion and reaction with water (per kg(P)): formation of P₂O₅, 24.7 MJ/kg(P); formation of metaphosphoric acid, HPO₃, 30.1 MJ/kg(P).
_____________
Estimation of tissue properties vis a vis charring, "melting the skin," psychological or morale effects.
Sp. ht. ~ 4kJ/kgK; the body is 70% water, and the remaining bioorganics do not have a significantly different sp. ht..
Charring temperature? Shall we take Bradbury's book? 451 F is equivalent to 233 C, 506 K. Body temperature is 37 C, or 310 K. Enthalpy of vaporization of water is 2.4 MJ/kg. Mass of the human skin and affected near surface tissues is going to be taken as 15 kg.
______________
We are now prepared to do the energy balance on the "atrocity." The energy will be cacluated as the sum of the energies to raise 1 kg tissue to the b.p. of water, the energy required to evaporate 70% of the mass as water, and the energy required to raise the dry residue to 500 K. From 310 K to 373 K, ΔT = 60 K (I'll be rounding in favor of the "Nuremburg tribunal), and the heat per kg is 0.24 MJ. Evaporating 0.7 kg water takes another 1.68 MJ. Raising the remaining 0.3 kg from 370 to 500 K requires another 0.2 MJ. Total heat necessary to char tissue is 2.1 MJ/kg.
Heat available from production of metaphosphoric acid from 1 kg P is 30.1 MJ/kg; dividing by char heat, 30.1/2.1 = 14.3 kg(charred tissue)/kg(P).
We'll take burns over 20% of the body as having a 50% mortality rate, and cut that in half given the "chemical" complications that can arise. Now we can kill 70 people with a single kg(P) if we get perfect partitioning from our delivery system.
_______________
Delivery systems: we've got the 120 mm mortar, and the 155 mm howitzer, and a couple different WP rounds for each. Didn't find actual filler capacities for either, too much Fallujah spam to sort through, so we'll pack 'em the way college kids used to pack VWs and phone booths --- call it 10 kg/mortar and 30 kg/howitzer round.
Bursting charges may or may not be designed to mimic casualty radii of VT fused fragmentation bursts --- it would drive gunners and observers nuts if they weren't, since the most common use is as a "marker round" for adjusting fire. 120 mm has got a casualty radius of probably 30 - 40 m, and we'll call it 25 m. The 155 we'll call 50 m (105 mm from the Nam era was good for a football field). Our phosphorus delivery rates for the two systems are then 10 kg/(π x 625 m²) and 30 kg/(π x 2500 m²), 5 g/m² for the mortar, and 4 g/² for the howitzer.
______________
Our victims then have to have been within 25 or 50 meters of 20 - 25 mortar or howitzer impacts or airbursts, given that we give them a 1 m² cross section. No one holds still in the vicinity of a target drawing that sort of attention. Shoot up the whole area? Okay, takes an impact density of 0.01 mortar round/m², or 0.003 howitzer round/m² to get the phosphorus delivery rate up to what's required (100 g/m²). Three to ten thousand rounds per square kilometer, and the Fallujah map http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah-imagery-forces.htm covers something like 10 km² if we take the "contested area" as being encompassed by the marked start lines and the E-W highway. Hundred thousand WP mortar rounds? Thirty thousand 155 mm WPs?
________________

Aerosol effects: Just how toxic is the smoke cloud. Mass of air into which the two systems burst is, again we'll cater to the tribunal and use small radii estimates, (4/3)π15625 m³ x 1 kg/m³, 65,000 kg for the mortar round, and 500,000 for the howitzer. We'll cut these in half for ground bursts. One kg(P) will yield 2.3 kg(P₂O₅, or 2.6 kg(HPO₃). The metaphosphoric acid is the heavier, and average mass concentrations are 800 ppm for mortar, and 300 ppm for howitzer ground bursts.

How dangerous is this concentration? I haven't got Sax or Patty's at hand. http://www.omega23.com/Professional_zone/Industrial_Hygiene_and_Toxicology.html
http://books.mysic.ca/0442004974++Hazardous+Chemicals+Desk+Reference
For anyone who wants to hunt 8 hr. threshholds.

The "knockdown" (respiratory arrest so pronounced that the victim suffocates --- without actually inhaling any of the gas into the lungs) concentration for H₂S is 500 - 1000 ppm depending upon individuals and exposure histories. Exposure times at 50 -100 ppm should be limited to minutes. Time to severe, splitting, top of my head's coming off headache at ppm levels vary from 10 min. to all day long. Olfactory threshold varies from parts per trillion to 10s of parts per billion. Hydrogen sulfide is more toxic than hydrogen cyanide, but considered less hazardous because of the low detection threshhold.

Is phosphorus pentoxide or phosphoric acid in the same category of toxicity as cyanide or hydrogen sulfide? Not by several orders of magnitude.

"Corrosive" (or other reactive) effects: The metaphosphoric acid denaturization of protein is probably the biggest hazard. Every one who has struck a kitchen match and had the wind shift to blow the fumes into the face, nose, and eyes has experienced a pretty good approximation of what a WP smoke cloud is going to do. Clouded vision, the eyes are rather amazing at sluffing damaged cells from the sclera, that clears quickly, runny nose, pulmonary edema, coughs out in a day or two, unless you're a smoker and snorting kitchen matches several times a day.

________________

Tactical Doctrine: WP is used as a marker round (adjusting fire, and in the days of the Nam, pre-GPS, navigation), an incendiary for igniting fires in flammable stores, for screening (hiding our movements from the bad guys), or blocking (putting the bad guys in the fog). Sometimes the mention is made that it's NOT an anti-personnel weapon, sometimes it's left as an exercise to the tactics student to realize that it's useless as an anti-personnel weapon; a disciplined force is going to ignore it as no more than a nuisance to visibility, which is what it is. The odd burns requiring specific treatment are no more severe than what occurs changing barrels on M60s barehanded, accidental ignition of smoke grenades in cargo pockets of clothing, but do serve to p*ss them off to the point that you'll wish you had some real anti-personnel weapons.
_________________

International Law: the cold war begat the nuclear arms race, begat MAD, begat fear of Armageddon, begat straightforward diplomacy regarding strategic policies, begat exchanges of specific information regarding conditions under which first use of nuclear weapons was part of war plans, begat disclosure of NATO and Warsaw Pact policies that use of chemical or biological weapons would be regarded as grounds for first use, begat treaties, conventions, and resolutions outlawing chemical and biological weapons.
That's the easy part --- chemical weapons were useless in WW I, and no one since has come up with any means of employing the damned things that is reliable enough to justify maintaining chemical capabilities. The wind shifts and you're done. So everyone smiles, signs the treaty, and starts thinking about where to spend the money that used to go toward maintaining a useless capability.
Now, for the hard part: WW II introduced the world to "modern total war," unconditional surrender, logistical targets being extended to include the "economic base" (civilian population) supporting belligerent forces, and just plain gratuitous malice. If we can ditch useless weapons, can we ditch the idea of direct attacks on "economic bases?" Put 'em out of the arms busines, or taxpaying, but let's not deliberately target civilians or non-combatants. Added benefit being, if economies are not totally destroyed, post-conflict recoveries are facilitated.
What's this got to do with WP? Good intentions outran reality. Incendiaries work. Weapons that work remain in service. Is it nasty stuff? Yeah. Can the burns cause serious problems if not treated properly? Yeah. Can it melt people? Only if you break open a round and "butter" them like an ear of corn with the stuff.

 

[Art]

WP: white phosphorus; one of several allotropes of elementalphosphorus.
Elemental: uncombined with other elements.
White phosphorus combines spontaneously with atmospheric oxygen, self-heating to the ignition temperature, at which time rapid combustion takes place, combustion temperature exceeds 2000 C, forming phosphorus pentoxide, m.p. 563 C, sublimes at 347 C, no pressure specified (in dry air).
Metaphosphoric acid, HPO₃, forms on solution of P₂O₅ in water, and also forms on heating orthophosphoric acid [H₃PO₄ to 316 C. Metaphosphoric acid reacts slowly with additional water at temperatures less than 213 C to form orthophosphoric acid. There is a third hydrated form, pyrophosphoric acid, H₄P₂O₇ observed between 213 and 316 C when heating orthophosphoric acid. Metaphosphoric acid will coagulate egg white, and it is reasonable to extrapolate this property to other proteins. The ortho- and pyro- acids do not exhibit such activity.
Selected heats of combustion and reaction with water (per kg(P)): formation of P₂O₅, 24.7 MJ/kg(P); formation of metaphosphoric acid, HPO₃, 30.1 MJ/kg(P).
_____________

etc. etc... Well first I'd like to congratulate you on your discovery that WP does react with water in an exothermic reaction and then I'd like to add a couple of points. First seeing as how we are not actually made of pure water have you considered it's effects on body fats seeing as how it is soluble in fatty tissue?
The other more telling point I would like to make is best illustrated by relating a story from some years back when I was working for a Fortune 500 company.

I was at a meeting where the quality manager was complaining that the pallets which held the very expensive electronics we manufactured were breaking. The engineer, who held an MA in engineering, who was in charge of pallet design had prepared well for the meeting and produced a voluminous document full of technical information to prove the pallets wouldn't break. Needless to say he didn't get too far as the 'proof of the pudding' as they say 'is in the eating'. The damn pallets broke and that was the unavoidable fact.

The reason for my digression is probably obvious by now. It doesn't matter how pretty you paint it the fact remains people were killed by WP in Fallujah. They have the pictures, the doctors' testimony and eyewitness reports to prove it. Like our engineer it seems there are variables you obviously haven't allowed for.

Of course there could be another reason entirely for the charred corpses and the people whose skin melted off them such as perhaps a sudden outbreak of SHC (spontaneous human combustion) but following Occram's razor it seems more logical to opine that the WP was to blame.

 

[pattylou]

Here's a detail that seems important to me, at the end of the video clip in this link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/17/white.phosphorous/

The military says that they:

...took pains to remove most of the people before the siege ... and when the siege began ... most of the people there were either insurgents or their sympathizers.

Correct me if I am wrong --- but the original war was to get OBL and terrorists. Now we're in Iraq, we've justified attacking 'insurgents,' many of whom (if I understand correctly) weren't 'terrorists' before we arrived and many of whom have no interest in terrorizing us (ie attacking us ala al quaeda.) If I understand correctly, the current crop of insurgents are only interested in getting rid of us from their homeland. Not terrorists, at least as terrorist was defined 3 years ago.

Somehow it has become part of our war identity now, to focus on insurgents, instead of terrorists. This is not particularly "news."

But what does strike me as newsworthy, is that we are willing to un-focus on who we attack, further, to include "the insurgents' sympathizers." The quote above is from the military, according to the clip.

We seem to be happy to say that anyone that was burned, and wasn't an insurgent, was a sympathiser. Why do we call these people sympathizers? By simple virtue of the fact that they were in Fallujah during the attack (nevermind the myriad reasons why some people wouldn't leave)! Furthermore, because they were "sympathizers," they also are fair game for WP fallout.

If we are now happy to allow "sympathizers" to be subject to WP, what else will be OK down the road? The sympathizers' families? (They will, after all, sympathize with the sympathizers.) The families' neighbors?

At what point do we collectively agree that we are talking about civilians? Why does it seem like the target in this aggression keeps shifting, and that some people seem to not realize that this is the case?

 

[Bystander]

etc. etc... Well first I'd like to congratulate you on your discovery that WP does react with water in an exothermic reaction (snip)

One more time ---
"WP: white phosphorus; one of several allotropes of elemental phosphorus.
Elemental: uncombined with other elements.
White phosphorus combines spontaneously with atmospheric oxygen..."
Not with water, with atmospheric oxygen. The OXIDE reacts with water. The oxide is NOT elemental phosphorus.

 

[Art]

One more time ---
"WP: white phosphorus; one of several allotropes of elemental phosphorus.
Elemental: uncombined with other elements.
White phosphorus combines spontaneously with atmospheric oxygen..."
Not with water, with atmospheric oxygen. The OXIDE reacts with water. The oxide is NOT elemental phosphorus.

I'm sure you are trying to make some kind of killer point here but seeing as how we live on a planet with oxygen in abundance and plenty of moisture available in IMH layman's O it would seem to me the oxidisation step would take place quite readily and somehow I doubt WP takes as long to 'rust' as oh, say iron. In fact to the person affected the temporal element of the transitional phase would probably not even be observable assuming somebody who's skin is melting is objective enough to care about such details. In fact the US military didn't even deem this little nugget of information worthy of mention in their safety sheet

"WP releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces...

Presumably you are simply trying to justify your contradiction of my post from a few days ago wherin I stated that WP and water produce an exothermic reaction. Well bearing in mind battles are not fought in airless vacuums and Fallujah is not a city under the sea populated by mer-men the presence of oxygen is presumed and the term WP in the context used referred to the weapon not the elemental substance. A simple admission that you were wrong would have sufficed.
BTW could the effect of WP (or it's oxide) reacting with and dissolving in fatty tissue be likened to melting by a non-chemist observer?
Just another thought; seeing as how per your mail above burning WP generates a temp of 2000 C and bearing in mind steel melts at ~1300 C isn't it likely that this would create self supporting combustion of the fatty body tissues should burning WP come into contact with skin?

 

[Evo]

If members thought this forum was a laughing stock, then why does membership continue to grow?

She is referring to politics, not PF as a whole. Although membership of PF has skyrocketed, the number of posters in politics has decreased and I've received numerous complaints about the quality of posts here.

And if the forum is "cleaned" up, would that be done in a biased way or a fair way?

I have expressed what is not going to fly here a number of times, that is tabloid, sensationalist type posts. These are unnecessarily inflamatory and make it impossible to have reasonable discussions. I don't care what point of view the poster has, if they use these tactics the posts are going to be deleted. This isn't the online version of the National Inquirer.

 

[edward]

It is all about intent

One more time ---
"WP: white phosphorus; one of several allotropes of elemental phosphorus.
Elemental: uncombined with other elements.
White phosphorus combines spontaneously with atmospheric oxygen..."
Not with water, with atmospheric oxygen. The OXIDE reacts with water. The oxide is NOT elemental phosphorus.

Just more obfuscation. The point is, did we use white phosphorus with the intent that it would kill people. The fact that it did indeed kill people is quite relevant. and obvious.

There was a little know Chemical weapons conference held at the UN in 1993. It became effective in 1997, and yes the USA did sign on to it.

Chemicals used for smoke screens may be poisonous if used in sufficiently high quantities, but are not classified as CW agents because their primary purpose is for generating a vision barrier and not to poison.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Mager.html

The intentional use of excessive WP to burn and poison both insergents and non combatants in an inhumane way was in violation of the purpose of this convention. For that matter it was in violation of everything that this country is supposed to stand for.

The whole WP issue in Fallujah boils down to intent. And it appears that the USA did cross the line on the use of WP. Tactically, we did not need WP to illuminate because of our night vision capability. WE only used WP for smoke during two break throughs. It was also used as an initial screen on the perimeters of the city as our tanks first moved into place.

I posted links to this on the thread that was closed.

So in fact what was done was to fire excessive and intense ground burst barrages of WP into areas of the city and then use the smoke provided as a target for HE dropped from the air. The result was that the HE drove the WP into a chemical firestorm that penetrated every, crack ,crevice and person that it contacted. In essence as the military referred to it, SHAKE AND BAKE.

 

[Art]

I have expressed what is not going to fly here a number of times, that is tabloid, sensationalist type posts. These are unnecessarily inflamatory and make it impossible to have reasonable discussions. I don't care what point of view the poster has, if they use these tactics the posts are going to be deleted. This isn't the online version of the National Inquirer.

Yet funnily enough the BBC today gave credit to posters such as the members here who raise these contentious issues for 'outing' the US over it's lies re the use of WP.
The BBC specifically mentions the unearthing and posting of the article in the army's Field Artillary magazine which was referenced on the previous thread by one of the posters here as the catalyst which forced the pentagon to 'fess.
Seems like not everybody thinks the issues being raised and the info being unearthed are National Inquirer junk.

The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare.
The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".
The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.
'Shake 'n Bake'
This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm
Personally I believe we all deserve a pat on the back. Perhaps it was this forum which first highlighted it.

 

[pattylou]

She is referring to politics, not PF as a whole. Although membership of PF has skyrocketed, the number of posters in politics has decreased and I've received numerous complaints about the quality of posts here.

This is off topic, and I apologise for that.

I don't know if a pm woud be more appropriate, or a new thread, or a GD thread... ? So, again, apologies for being off topic.

I'd be curious about the following:

1. If you were to chart or graph the number of posters in politics, how much of the claimed decrease would you actually see compared to a year ago, and how much "variance" would there be in any particular data point? (in other words, how do you know that participation at any given point - ie now, really represents a trend or not.)

(Anecdotally, I have noticed you and Andre participating on PWA more, lately - and of those who participate less - well some of them have been banned! heh.)

2. Do the complaints tend to come from one "side" of the political divide or the other?

From my personal experience, I am participating less than several months ago --- Because the general trend in the country is towards demanding accountability on Iraq from the leaders, and sinking approval. IOW, I feel less of a need to voice my perspective, so ... I participate here *less* than 3 months ago.

If this sort of trend is common, it could explain the 'fewer contributions' that you mention, at least from "my side" of the debate.

It might also explain the 'numerous complaints' since emotions are probably running fairly high.

I don't think you can look at participation on such a charged forum as politics, in isolation of the incredibly politically dynamic country that we are living in at the moment. People post because of world events; thus world events affect the nature and frequency of posts.

There are several posters I have considered complaining about in the past, but haven't (too much effort required.). In general, I would like to see references for claims, and I am not particularly concerned if the references are 'tabloid' or not - because I can ascertain that for myself. But if no reference is given at all, then no weight can be given to the opinion expressed. An unreferenced post is worthless. I expect people to back up their positions, and if they don't, I expect them to do so upon request. If they still don't, I consider complaining, but have not as yet.

In short, this is the most divisive president/administration we have had in decades (since before the internet). A political forum is likely to reflect this, in the resulting volatility. I don't know the nature of your complaints, but thought I may as well throw in my 2c.

 

[Evo]

Yet funnily enough the BBC today gave credit to posters such as the members here who raise these contentious issues for 'outing' the US over it's lies re the use of WP.

Every one of my posts about the quality here has stated that it is NOT the issues posted, but HOW they are posted. Huge difference. There is an intelligent, mature way to approach a subject, then there is a tabloid way of approaching a subject. No more tabloid posts here.

 

[Evo]

This is off topic, and I apologise for that.
I don't know if a pm woud be more appropriate, or a new thread, or a GD thread... ? So, again, apologies for being off topic.
I'd be curious about the following:

I plan to post a sticky when I have a chance to put something together, I'm too swamped right now.

1. If you were to chart or graph the number of posters in politics, how much of the claimed decrease would you actually see compared to a year ago, and how much "variance" would there be in any particular data point? (in other words, how do you know that participation at any given point - ie now, really represents a trend or not.)

I don't have access to the numbers, I know we've had an increase of maybe 8,000 or more members for the forum and fewer posters here than when I took over, so it's going in the wrong direction.

2. Do the complaints tend to come from one "side" of the political divide or the other?

No, actually it's fairly even, most that have left aren't really on one side or another. They feel that this forum is no longer a place they want to be, which is sad.

What is so funny is that most here probably have no clue what I think. I'm not republican, am afraid of the religious right, didn't vote for Bush. Oh, did I mention that I used to date the former president of the SDS? Students for a Democratic Society? The one that took over from Tom Hayden? Did I mention that I was a volunteer at Pacifica radio for several years, and was on their monthly newsletter, that I was there when we were bombed by the Ku Klux Klan? Did I mention that I was next to Arlo Guthrie singing on the PBS show "The Great American Dream Machine" about the bombing? (I did look great in my denim workshirt ) Give you guys some clues?

I *do* have a problem with the level of some of the posts I've been seeing lately. Valid issues that could have been discussed rationally were reduced to non-stop bickering due to how they were presented.

Anyone, that spouts out something as a hard fact, when it is not, I have a problem with, and I will challenge them. Present the facts accurately, and do not present personal opinion or speculation as fact. Present your case in a non-inflammatory, well thought out manner that invites thought and discussion. Is this too much to ask?

 

[edward]

Next Week In The Tabloid Gazzette

Every one of my posts about the quality here has stated that it is NOT the issues posted, but HOW they are posted. Huge difference. There is an intelligent, mature way to approach a subject, then there is a tabloid way of approaching a subject. No more tabloid posts here.

EVO RUNS AWAY WITH PRINCE CHARLES

sorry I just couldn't resist

 

[Evo]

EVO RUNS AWAY WITH PRINCE CHARLES
sorry I just couldn't resist

I'd ban you, but aside from this one infraction, you aren't guilty of tabloidism. New word, like it?

 

[edward]

I'd ban you, but aside from this one infraction, you aren't guilty of tabloidism. New word, like it?

I do like it. I think I once used the term Carl Rovian.

 

[pattylou]

No, actually it's fairly even, most that have left aren't really on one side or another. They feel that this forum is no longer a place they want to be, which is sad.

Thanks for the clarification(s).

Hmmm... although there may be something that you as a moderator/admin/whatever-the-title-is can do, I'd certainly keep in mind that we were really --- pretty united under Clinton. Now, we're divided. How could such a change in our country not manifest on political forums?

Heck, some of my best friends were even christian back then.

Things have gone downhill in the country in terms of being a "united" states of america. Now we have, in the senate, behaviors such as members who compare the other side to hitler, members who call the other side the party of "white christians," and just generally people rallying around marginal issues that are incredibly inflammatory (abortion, intelligent design, etc)...

Depending on when you took over the PWA forum, I'd offer the idea that a lot of the change you see has nothing to do with your moderation (or very little) and more to do with what is going on in the country.

-Patty

p.s. in fact, one political forum that I left before I came here, was rapidly becoming a feeding-frenzy-free-for-all. Another that I visitied briefly in that time frame, was the same. You've heard the comparisons (whether deserved or not) between our present state and Viet Nam, or even Hitler. There is a perception that this country is in the sort of political upheaval now, that it only experiences on the order of once every 40 years. It may be unrealistic for members (or admins or whoever) to expect you to maintain a level of complete rational calm among contributors.

 

[Bystander]

(snip). ... we live on a planet with oxygen in abundance and plenty of moisture available in IMH layman's O it would seem to me the oxidisation step would take place quite readily

The moisture is irrelevant to the oxidation. The "ready" oxidation is the property that makes phosphorus useful as an incendiary.

and somehow I doubt WP takes as long to 'rust' as oh, say iron.

The kinetics of the reaction are a function of surface area. Run down to the hardware store and buy yourself a small package of "four ought" steel wool (used for hand rubbing steps in furniture finishing); take it outdoors on a windless day, prop it, sans wrapper, off the ground by sticking 3 toothpicks in it as a tripod, and touch a match to it (you might want to use pliers or an extension to hold the match). Please don't do the experiment near (say 2 - 3 meters) anything you don't wish to set on fire --- guess that means wear old clothes.
White phosphorus when expelled from shells by the bursting charge may be in either the liquid or solid phase (function of storage temperature, cold gun, hot gun firing conditions, time of flight (heating from atmospheric drag)). If liquid, it will be in a spray of droplets having some size distribution that's no doubt been studied. Anything over a few mm is going to be broken up by aerodynamic braking forces as it moves toward the limit of the burst radius. If solid, ignition might be delayed by ms while aerodynamic drag and autooxidation eats the fragments to the ignition temperature, at which time the heat evolved melts the interiors of the solid fragments rapidly; and, we're back to liquid droplets. The droplets ignite quickly, and the combustion proceeds at a rate determined by diffusion of oxygen to the droplet, and diffusion of phosphorus pentoxide vapor away from the droplet --- in terms of droplet radius, 10s, maybe 100s of μm/s. A mm droplet is going to burn for 10 s to a minute, so long as elemental oxygen is available. The reaction with atmospheric moisture takes place within several cm of the drop as the vapor cools below 200 C, or thereabouts. This is the white smoke cloud, an aerosol of micron to submicron metaphosphoric acid particles scattering light.
The difference between the combustion of the steel wool and phosphorus is that the products from the steel are solid, even at the combustion temperature, allowing freer diffusion of oxygen to the fuel, whereas for the phosphorus, the phosphorus pentoxide product is in the vapor phase at the combustion temperature and in expanding away from the droplet hindering diffusion transport of oxygen.

In fact to the person affected the temporal element of the transitional phase

It's the oxidation step --- call it the oxidation step.

would probably not even be observable

This is the most observable effect to the victim, getting a hole burned into your hide with not a red hot, but a white hot poker. Does get one's attention. The ten seconds to minute burning time for the mm droplet is increased by the fact that oxygen transport is blocked by the victim's flesh except for one side. Gives a sputtering effect --- as things cool, more oxygen moves in, heats up, blowing phosphorus pentoxide out, cools, ...

assuming somebody who's skin is melting is objective enough to care about such details. (snip)
BTW could the effect of WP (or it's oxide) reacting with and dissolving in fatty tissue be likened to melting by a non-chemist observer?

Elemental phosphorus is lipid soluble. The metaphosphoric acid is not. You have the mm droplet of elemental phosphorus sputtering at the bottom of a dime size, dime diameter deep hole in your arm, back, leg, whatever --- it's hot, and percolating through char, destroyed tissue, and damaged tissue to tissue that is still live. If the live tissue adjacent to the wound includes fatty tissue, elemental phosphorus, will dissolve in it. If you wish to call the dissolution process a reaction, yes, there is a reaction. If you are asking if there is a chemical reaction, no, there is not. The metaphosphoric acid being produced by combustion of the droplet in the wound may be coagulating (denaturing) proteins in the wound, but they were already cooked.
"Melting?" No. Not in any sense that a chemist uses the word.
Fatty tissues being fatty tissues, fat soluble materials remain in the body for long time spans; in the case of elemental phosphorus, there are a number of slow chemical reactions possible, none of which are desirable. Fatty tissues are not well aerated; there may be slow production of diphosphorus tetroxide, P₂O₄, which hydrolyzes to phosphorous acid, which is toxic. It's conceivable that phosphine is produced, PH₃, also toxic.
Incomplete debridement of affected tissues from phosphorus burns can leave phosphorus in tissues; delay in treatment of wounds can allow phosphorus in fatty tissues to diffuse over a larger area surrounding the wound. Either event leaves the victim chronically poisoned. Over time this leads to fossy jaw, and whatever other occupational diseases were observed in matchmakers --- no, not Tevi, them little sticks pyromaniacs love. Does the medical profession actually know how to treat phosphorus burns? In principle, yes. In practice, I haven't seen studies of "diffusion rates of elemental phosphorus in fatty tissues," in the literature --- haven't looked, but that's one that would have caught my eye in the chemical literature.
At any rate, this is the "humanitarian" reason behind international discussions on use of phosphorus in an antipersonnel role, not "melting" people.

Just another thought; seeing as how per your mail above burning WP generates a temp of 2000 C and bearing in mind steel melts at ~1300 C isn't it likely that this would create self supporting combustion of the fatty body tissues should burning WP come into contact with skin?

Experiment(s) were done in the concentration camps during WW II for "disposal" purposes with the intent of finding conditions under which "self-supporting combustion" could be achieved. Various stacking arrangements were tried, and the bottom line is that there is insufficient heat transported downward from the flame and exhaust gases of such a fire to vaporize the combustibles at the rate necessary to support sustained combustion.
Getting back to the current discussion, the tissues in the immediate wound area do vaporize and combust, but the heat necessary for the vaporization is coming from the phosphorus combustion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Bystander, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that WP is not likely to cause much damage and is not very likely to result in death? Or are you simply pointing out that it is not very reliable in regards to use as a weapon directed at a target?

I think that we would have to agree that these WP smoke munitions, regardless of how effective as a direct weapon, can result in collateral casualties.
Mostly the effect that has been focused on here and in news articles is the burning but the smoke is definitely toxic. If the smoke got into a building or room and the occupants were afraid to exit the building they may have allowed themselves to be suffocated and killed. I remember someone mentioning ashen gray bodies without burn marks on them. I wonder how many of the civilian casualties were simply smothered.

 

[Art]

Although originally my argument against the use of WP as a weapon was based on the morality of the issue rather than the legality it seems it might very well be illegal (even in the US) too.
It certainly appears the US army deems the firing of WP at human beings to be illegal.

The ST100-3 Battle Book published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth in July 1999, notes in chapter 5: "Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

And here is a well thought out argument as to why the way WP was used in Falluja causes it to fall into the category of chemical weapons.

CONFIRMED: WP is a CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties
<snip> Under this [Chemical Weapons] Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/10/84846/024
The full article is worth a read. Although some here have maintained the US have done nothing illegal becuse they didn't sign Protocol 111 it's conclusion is that the US are in breach of conventions they have signed.

 

[Art]

Every one of my posts about the quality here has stated that it is NOT the issues posted, but HOW they are posted. Huge difference. There is an intelligent, mature way to approach a subject, then there is a tabloid way of approaching a subject. No more tabloid posts here.

I and I'm sure all others would agree with this in principle but unfortunately if you look back with an open mind I think you will find it is often the super mentors who are the worst culprits. Here is a quintessential example of what I mean.
To begin bear in mind my earlier reference to the BBC crediting the unearthing of the article in the army's Field Artillary magazine with the about face by the pentagon on it's use of WP and now look at what happened when Burnsys cited it

From Russ-

No. Reread the quotes you just posted. They do not say that the WP was used to kill people.

From you -

For example Burnsys misunderstanding why WP is classified as a munition.

From you

Read this again. First of all it says "We used improved WP for screening missions " then "and saved our WP for lethal missions", well which was it? And by saving WP for their "lethal missions" only means they used the properties of WP (smoke, illumination) to help them when they were on critical missions. No where does it say that WP was used to kill anyone.
If people here can't stick to what is written without making up outlandish scenarios, I will lock the thread. Stick to the facts, please.

(BTW fyi 'improved WP' is actually a different munition to WP) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/AMMO972/sld035.htm

From Russ

In both cases, it was talking about WP (just different kinds), and in both cases, the use was for creating smoke, not to kill people.
Read it again: the WP shakes, the HE (high-explosive) bakes. The high explosive, not the wp, was used to kill people.
Screening and scaring. That's it. No killing.

As you can see some members (including yourself) were aggressively defending the pentagon's stated position at that time (illumination and screening) and claiming that Burnsys was, quote "making up outlandish scenarios".
Since then on the basis of the exact section of the article Burnsys quoted and his precise interpretation the pentagon has been forced to issue a retraction and admit they did use WP as an anti-personnel weapon. The international media has also taken it up and it has created a storm of controversy.
The point being Burnsys was right about the validity of his referenced article and right about it's meaning. He was attacked without any facts or sources being quoted, purely on the basis of personal opinion (and wishful thinking) and this by the people complaining about the quality of debate on this forum.

From your mail above and your comments related to Burnsys' post it would appear that in the future posts such as his will be deleted based on a subjective opinion of what is
credible / sensationalist and what is not. In this particular case what proved to be the final nail in the pentagon's coffin would have been lost to the members here.

Perhaps rather than censor posts a viable alternative would be to create a sub-forum in the PWA area to host the more controversial threads so those who like their politics flavoured vanilla can enjoy the PWA forum without tripping over threads that offend them?? It might also be interesting to see which area attracts the most members.

 

[Bystander]

Bystander, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that WP is not likely to cause much damage and is not very likely to result in death? Or are you simply pointing out that it is not very reliable in regards to use as a weapon directed at a target?

Glimmers of understanding?
Damage: as a marker round, near zero; as a smoke round, near zero; as an incendiary device used against a non-flammable target, near zero; as an incendiary device used against a flammable target, high.
Probability of fatalities: marker over a "personnel" target, high; marker over an unpopulated/unstaffed target, near zero; smoke covering disengagement, low; smoke covering a "move in for the kill," who knows, "they" can use it to bail out; incendiary against a highly flammable or explosive target, again depends on who's nearby or not.
Reliability: it goes where you send it and does what phosphorus does when it gets there --- that's "reliable."
As an anti-personnel weapon? I abhor analogies. I particularly abhor bad analogies. That said, I'm reduced to constructing a bad analogy: "It's a little like the opening phase of a bullfight, jabbing the animal with banderillas to irritate him." Difference being that the animal wasn't looking for a fight, as opposed to an armed conflict situation,. Dependence upon phosphorus ("the banderillas") to kill the opposing force leaves the matador using his bare hands rather than a sword to kill the bull. It's stupid, motivates the bull, and gives the bull a great chance to win the fight.
(snip)

Mostly the effect that has been focused on here and in news articles is the burning but the smoke is definitely toxic.

"The dose is the poison., -- Paracelsus. You lock yourself in a one room cabin, close the damper on the fireplace, and set a nice phosphorus fire to warm the place up, yeah, you're in trouble.
"...the smoke is definitely toxic." The confidence of this assertion, not just yours, but in other words by other people elsewhere in this and other threads, is intriguing. If "The Guardian" hadn't started such a myth, the Psy-Ops people at DoD would have had to.
"What in the hell has he been smoking, and what's he talking about?" Easy. WP is useless as an anti-personnel weapon. It is useful for dislodging people from protected positions in trenches, foxholes, bunkers, and buildings, exposing them to effective anti-personnel weapons. As a hostile force becomes more familiar with its effects, the psychological utility of WP as a dislodging agent diminishes --- the hostile troops become disciplined enough to stay put, treat their burns, and breathe through wet rags. Fallujah was a year ago. The Marines are near the Syrian border, and running into some tough fighting. Is "shake and bake" not working for them as well as it used to?
(snip)

 

[Art]

Bystander - The pictures of charred corpses, the doctors' testimonies from the hospitals in Falluja and the eyewitness reports would appear to disagree with your theoretical view of the effects of WP but rather than get bogged down in 'it kills people - no it doesn't - yes it does - ad infinitum we shall wait and see what the investigation from the Iraqi health ministry reports or better yet hopefully the UN will send a team to investigate.

It is interesting to see that you appear to be supporting the view that the US used chemical weapons in contravention of the CWC (a convention they did sign) i.e. they were using WP for it's toxic effects which is an illegal use under the convention.

Is this a correct summation of your position?

 

[Bystander]

Bystander - (snip)It is interesting to see that you appear to be supporting the view that the US used chemical weapons in contravention of the CWC (a convention they did sign) i.e. they were using WP for it's toxic effects which is an illegal use under the convention.
Is this a correct summation of your position?

No. (lengthening to 10 characters)

 

[Art]

No. (lengthening to 10 characters)

one extreme to the other. Brief but 'illuminating' Anyway nice to see your opinion and your list of reasons to justify holding it.

 

[edward]

one extreme to the other. Brief but 'illuminating' Anyway nice to see your opinion and your list of reasons to justify holding it.

This is kind of like the pentagon's position. NO, er maybe, NO, actually YES we did it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Bystander - The pictures of charred corpses...

I strongly doubt thoses charred corpses had anything to do with WP. That's not how WP burns look. Some of those pics look just like natural decay after death, and some others, like flame burns.

WP burns are characterized by tiny bullet-hole like charred entry tracts, not widespread burning.

Nevertheless, there's no denying the fact that the State Dept. lied repeatedly to cover up the use of WP.

(sometime, I'll dig up a source for my above assertion)