Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News US admited Using WP as a Weapon.

  1. Nov 16, 2005 #1
    Becouse the other forum was closed by evo saying we hadn't any proofs etc etc, i am starting a new one (i hope it wont be closed now.)
    US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.
    The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
    BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
    "Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians"
    "However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."
    Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's sayd "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."
    Ok so all this confirms what art, me, skyhunter and others were saying in the previous thread bu was closed by Evo acusing us of crackpottery....

    Closed Thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98952
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 16, 2005 #2
    It is said that they used gun powder too, to propel projectiles. Gun-powder can be hazardous if swallowed. But the worst chemical used on a large scale was di-hydrogen Mono Oxide. Very dangerous

    So what is this, generating fallatic myths? Warfare is about persuading the enemy to comply with our politics, using well thought out strategy and tactics. And there is a new brigade on the battle fields, the legal advisors, making very sure that something is a legal target before shooting.

    So attempting to discredit the actions by suggesting chemical warfare on citizens is, I think, more a crime in itself.
  4. Nov 16, 2005 #3
    And napalm too

    Here is another link.


    And it's not only white phosphorus:

    "While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene".
    While kerosene is just another grade of petrol, mark 77 is just another grade of napalm.

    And I agree with you that Evo arbitrarily closes threads for the sole reason that she either does not agree or does not understand the topic. Moreover she took one of my posts and quoted half of it, which took it out of context. Then she closed the thread. That is not done and cannot be tolerated from a "mentor". It should be taken serious by the administrators of this board if they don't want to loose credibility. What are the criteria to become a mentor anyway? It seems that the rules are up for a thorough revision. If this thread will get the same treatment, better start looking for another mentor. And/or other members.
  5. Nov 16, 2005 #4
    I hope you still think the same way if the police has to catch a criminal in the house next to yours and for doing that they burn the criminal house, and 10 houses around it, including yours with your family inside...
  6. Nov 16, 2005 #5
    Trying to ridiculize the matter does not help. The chemicals, subject of this thread, are not allowed to be used on people, period. IF the US does not care about this, then be clear about it. If the US does not care about torturing people, then be clear about it. Then the rest of the world will know and draw it's conclusions.
  7. Nov 16, 2005 #6
    It seems in fact, we already got the answer:

    The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B.

    Neither weapon technically contains napalm. The chemical mixture that became known as 'napalm' - a combination of naphthalene and palmitate - was used only in the earliest versions of the weapon.

    Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement. Use of Mark-77 fire bombs is considered legal by the US military.
    Hey, perhaps Saddam can use as defense that he never signed any agreement on the banning on torturing people or being a brutal dictator?
  8. Nov 16, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Threads are rarely closed here, one look at this forum proves that. The other thread was locked because it was going nowhere, it was done in a tabloid fashion and assumptions were made that weren't proven. I had suggested a better way to discuss the accusations. I suggest you go back and read.

    What post are you referring to? I didn't close the thread after a post of yours.

    Closing threads is at the mentor's discretion, I had a lot of support in doing so.

    If you don't like the rules here, please feel free to excersize your right to stop posting here.
  9. Nov 16, 2005 #8
    Thank you Burnsys and Mercator for clarifying. WP is too horrendous for me to even fathom. I mean if the US must kill at least have the decency to use something that inflicts less horror and pain. Have they lost their mind out of frustration with the insurgents or is it the kind of deterrent effect they were after? I do not know any more.
  10. Nov 16, 2005 #9
    I'm waiting for the US and it's army to resume it's role as a force for democracy and humanity. If the most powerful army in the world must use barbaric weapons, outlawed by the UN , then what to expect from the non-democratic forces? I think this is a topic worth of dicussion, whether some people feel uncomfortable with the topic or not.
  11. Nov 16, 2005 #10
    I didn't follow the other thread, but there are reputable (that is, they were not from tabloids) sources indicating that phosphorous was used asa weapon in Fallujah last year. I doubt civilians were specifically targeted, and this detail seems to be the defense that the pentagon is using. But, considering that Fallujah was mostly civilians (population 500,000) and that it was attacked because insurgents were creating a stronghold there, it seems very likely that civilians may have been hit by the phosphorous ('collateral damage.')

    http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/front/story/2906638p-11566424c.html [Broken]

    All headlines:


    I agree that the comparison to gunpowder is not helpful.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  12. Nov 16, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    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.
  13. Nov 16, 2005 #12
    You know what's funny? Legality is not morality.
  14. Nov 16, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    Even funnier is that obfuscation is not clarification but better defined as avoidance.
  15. Nov 16, 2005 #14
    There is a new article on google news that may pertain to this discussion. This does not touch on the "legality" angle but rather the "humanity" angle. Here's one excerpt:

    More Q&A:


    Some of the other questions deal more directly with the legality of the matter.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2005
  16. Nov 16, 2005 #15
    http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm [Broken]
    No one is arguing the legality. In fact the US did not sign the convention. Since might makes right, it is perfectly legal and as you seem to be implying, also moral during the course of military action to melt the skin off of children!
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. Nov 16, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Where in the article does it say the WP was used to kill people? The only use against people mentioned was as a psychological weapon. You guys seem to think that the US is intentionally buring people to death with WP. That is not the case.

    Guys (pretty much everyone in here), you need to start reading what these articles say, not what you want them to say.
  18. Nov 16, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's this kind of thing I want to stop here. It is not being used for this intent as is pointed out (I think it's ridiculous that the guy even brought it up) and unless we stop this tabloid mentality we are not going to be able to have rational discussions. All this does is cause people to start throwing rocks and mud and I am really tired of it. The effects of WP are worthy of discussing without sensationalism thrown in. Let's keep the discussion on a higher level.
  19. Nov 16, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd also like to point out that because so much of politics is opinion, the requirements of this forum are significantly lower than the others when it comes to factual content. But there are limits and saying things that are straightforwardly factually wrong (whether intentional or not) is just not acceptable. This thread is just a repeat of the "shake vs bake" error of the previous one, and that error needs to be stopped.

    The fact that WP is a weapon isn't now and never has been at issue here: it is a weapon and no one in this discussion is saying that it isn't. But calling something a "weapon" does not tell you how, exactly, it is used.
  20. Nov 16, 2005 #19
    First off, it's use is frowned on as any kind of weapon, psychologically or otherwise. Secondly, Col Venable refered to it as a "conventional munition", not a "psychological weapon". Thirdly, it was used to drive people out of 'holes', and so was aimed at people. No-one is saying it was used for the purpose of killing people, but it does kill and it was used on people, and was done so knowing the effects WP has. You were banging on in another thread about Clinton not calling the Rwanda situation genocide so that he did not have to get involved. Seems hypocritical now to argue that since no-one has admitted using it explicitly to kill people then it makes no difference if it does.
  21. Nov 16, 2005 #20
    A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

    Lt Col Barry Venable said earlier denials had been based on "poor information".

    So it wasn't used only for iluminating and smoke!

    Intentionally burning enemy combatants to death??? 100% sure, burning civilians who are close to the enemy combatants very plausible..

    Actualy russ you are the one who must start reading...

    Ok, i would like some of you two to present some proff, valid and factual argument, somenthing, and not only rethoric...

    Prove wrong some of this arguments:

    1-WP melt the skin off of children
    2-Lt Col Barry Venable sayd: US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants"
    3-There are lot's of pictures of people (including childrens) totaly burned..

    It doesnt matter what the intents are, all that matters are the results. so stop with that atitute..

    I you don't want to see reality, please close your eyes, but don't force us to close ours..
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook