U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[Adrian II]

AdrianII,

I don't see a need to restrict the use of white phosphorous. If you are going to bomb an area/structure, shrapnel is just as indiscriminant. These are incindiaries, not chemical weapons.

Judging by the footage they were bombarding an area the size of Manhattan with clusters of phosphorus bombs, each of which kills every person in a 150 yard radius. Now I understand why civilians were burned to the bone in their beds and buried ever so quickly whilst the media were kept at a distance.

If this documentary is not a total fake, and it does not look like it, then this was chemical warfare, Red Harvest, exactly as the insurgents have claimed all along. The only thing about it that is incendiary is the use of this stuff as a weapon in the built-up areas of a town. The U.S. Army has tried to deny it, has tried to destroy available footage, has tried to pressure soldiers who wanted to tell the truth and taken their websites off the air.

Interesting stuff as well about the 'accidental' deaths of non-embedded journalists who were working of the story of Fallujah just when they were killed. Others had their Fallujah footage destroyed. Well, we have been there before in this forum in connection with the killing of the Spanish cameraman.

[Redleg]

White Phosphorus is standard protocal for marking targets for Airstrikes. It has a blast radius of about 50-100 meters with scrapnel going as far as other artillery rounds have been known to go - up to 400-500 meters depending on the terrian.

Will it burn a city down if used in the a way not consistent with marking targets - yep - it will burn through just about anything.

Now I won't get into the hype about the article - since I have not read the complete thing - I will only comment about what I know of standard pratice of the United States Army while I was in. Other information that might be of use.

There is no treaty that I am aware of that the United States has signed that classifies this type of munition as chemical warfare.

The use of smoke as chemical warfare is one of the negotating games that the former USSR used to when discussion Nuclear and Chemical weapons during the Cold War. It was a political point concerning all smoke muntions which the United States has several types. One being HC smoke which if its dense enough will cause you permament harm or even death.

White Phosphorus Felt Wedge - which lays a nice smoke screen quickly because of the White Phosphorus being in Felt Wedges - burns a lot slower and even thicker then the explosive shell.

White Phosphorus High Explosive - just what it means it blows up sending a large and quickly building smoke cloud. Standard use is for marking targets for aircraft, initial build of battlefield smoke screen, and for destroying enemy fuel dumps.

Now what the Mark 77 is I really can't remember because it has been a number of years since I have called in Airstrikes or planned fires on a target - what I do know is that it is not a white phosphorus based bomb - I image it is one of the new generation of fuel-air incendary bombs. Not Naplem and not white phosphorus.

[Papewaio]

Wiki is useful to get the jist of something if not the indepth accuracy:

The Mark 77 is a US 750-lb (340-kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb that carries 110 gallons (415 litres) of a fuel gel mix that is the direct successor to napalm.

Mk-77s were used by the US Marine Corps during the First Gulf War. Approximately 500 were dropped, reportedly mostly on Iraqi-constructed oil filled trenches. Thirty Mk-77s were also used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The US has not signed this agreement although they did retire use of napalm. The Mk-77 is the only incendiary bomb currently in use by the United States military. Another incendiary weapon - white phosphorus - is allegedly being used as an incendiary weapon in the current Iraq War. White phosphorus or 'Willie Pete' is used primarly as a smoke-screening agent. Only the US and Russia continue to invent and use gelled fuel bombs.

[Red Harvest]

If this documentary is not a total fake, and it does not look like it, then this was chemical warfare, Red Harvest, exactly as the insurgents have claimed all along. The only thing about it that is incendiary is the use of this stuff as a weapon in the built-up areas of a town. The U.S. Army has tried to deny it, has tried to destroy available footage, has tried to pressure soldiers who wanted to tell the truth and taken their websites off the air.

That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary.

You won't gain any sympathy from me for Fallujah. Folks had ample warning to get their butts out. The enemy had to be hit and removed. Civilians get killed in war. If you target the concentrations of the enemy or strategic targets, you can never be certain that civilians won't be killed. Doesn't mean I don't have sympathy for civilians, but some of these "civilians" were the family (and extended family) of insurgents using their own city as safe haven. If they are going to use these areas as battle zones, then the areas are going to end up destroyed, simple as that. Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.

[Husar]

I don´t know with whom to agree, I think there´s some truth in most statements. Well, on one hand RH is right, because I often wonder what civilians are doing in a warzone? Why don´t they flee BEFORE the enemy comes? I can´t really tell, I´m lucky and happy to have grown up in peace, I personally would just try to get out, before the bombs come falling on my house, staying there till the last minute doesn´t save my house anyway.

On the other hand, seeing those pictures of people completely burned and whatnot, I really felt sorry for them and think their deaths were most likely very painful.
Now if I say those women chose to stay there, what about their children?
And whose fault is it? the US´s for using those weapons or the mother´s for staying there with her child? and what if the US had used more conventional methods?
Had they saved lives by that or would there just be people not burned but with bullets in their heads?

Well, I don´t think I´ve got any good answers so I´ll just throw these thoughts into the round and go to sleep aswell.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'm with Red Harvest on this.

Yeah me too. Red when I call you a liberal or a democrat at least you are in the mold of a Lieberman or a Truman. When push comes to shove at least you stand with America.

[Kralizec]

What annoys me is not the fact that they're using arms like these- wich, in some cases, could be very effective and might be legitimate if care is used- but the fact that they're lying about it.
It's just like the CIA prison network. The Bush administration fervently denies that they torture their captives, but meanwhile Cheney tries to get the senate to make exceptions for the CIA when they're trying to ban certain forms of torture.

If you're doing something controversial wich you believe is justified, at least have the guts and moral fibre to be honest about it.

[Slyspy]

What annoys me is not the fact that they're using arms like these- wich, in some cases, could be very effective and might be legitimate if care is used- but the fact that they're lying about it.
It's just like the CIA prison network. The Bush administration fervently denies that they torture their captives, but meanwhile Cheney tries to get the senate to make exceptions for the CIA when they're trying to ban certain forms of torture.

If you're doing something controversial wich you believe is justified, at least have the guts and moral fibre to be honest about it.

Bingo, and there we get to the heart of the matter. Many people, including myself, would find the "my country, right or wrong" attitude slightly easier to adopt if they felt their government was being honest with them.

[Xiahou]

I got through about 10 minutes of the "documentary" and then gave up- there's no way anyone can get anything useful from that. Im not saying it's claims are false, but the film is clearly skewed- I've seen enough propaganda on both sides to recognize when Im being fed a line and not being told the whole story.

If that case is going to be made it's going to take some better evidence.

[Strike For The South]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8548707.stm

[Myrddraal]

Horrible stuff. Saw it on the TV news, not for the squeamish. Poor kids.

[Kagemusha]

More "great" benefits of depleted uranium ordinance?

[Xiahou]

That is not chemical warfare, it is incindiary.

Indeed. Sarin is a chemical weapon. VX and mustard gas are chemical weapons. This is not. Lets try and keep the spin in check.

[solypsist]

US denies using white phosphorus on Iraqi civilians

so now we have two conflicting reports. while i'm less inclined to believe in sensationalist media, the current u.s. administration doesn't have the best record when it comes to telling the truth, either.

also, the use of white phosphorus in an urban area like Falluja is banned by an international treaty: Protocol III of the CCWC. Which the United States is not a signatory of.

[Adrian II]

Holding a sympathetic city "hostage" deserves a very harsh response--like levelling it and leaving only the historic mosques.

Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).

[Xiahou]

Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).

Again, how the hell is it chemical warfare? (that's if its true to begin with- which is less than clear.)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Phosphorous burns. Just like gunpowder. I guess that means we better ban gunpowder if its 'chemical warfare'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

I love this attitude.

1. It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
2. We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
3. Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
4. That report is a lie, it is sensational
5. Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
6. 'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
7. Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice

I bet before this day is over the list grows longer.

[Xiahou]

I love this attitude.

1. It isn't a chemical weapon, it is conventional
2. We didn't use it, because that would be chemical warfare
3. Of course we used it, serves those insurgents right!
4. That report is a lie, it is sensational
5. Our government denies they are lying, so why bother reporting it?
6. 'Weapons of mass destruction? Isn't that why we are there in the firs... ?' Shhht! Stfu!
7. Quick, wheel out the anti-Italian prejudice

I bet before this day is over the list grows longer.

And I just love it when people deliberately mischaracterize arguments to score points.... *cough* strawman *cough*

That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.

Someone is on an anti-American bent tonight....

[Aurelian]

Wikipedia has an interesting article on white phosphorus. It calls white phosphorus "weight for weight" the "most effective smoke-screening agent known", and it discusses its various advantages, particularly for use in grenades and mortar bombs. I have to wonder to what degree it was being used for smoke-screening in Fallujah. It is also used as an incendiary. The State Department claims it was only used for spotting, but I can see how the PR types could be making that claim since:

"the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. The United States is among the nations that have not signed this protocol."

Even though we haven't signed the protocol, I'm sure that the US government wouldn't want to advertise its use of white phosphorus near concentrations of civilians. Bad for our image and all. That's why they said the military only used it for aerial spotting.

If they were lying, it would be about par for the course. Apparently, as Adrian II mentioned, the US misled the UK government on its use of MK-77 firebombs:

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The London Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position." LINK

Like I said, about par for the course. The US military reminds me of Maxwell Smart: "Would you believe that we've never used incendiary weapons in Iraq? No? Well, would you believe that we've only used them for aerial spotting? No? What if I told you we only used them against one insurgent standing alone in a field?"

This is from the Wikipedia article on Fallujah:

"Reports by the Washington Post suggest that US armed forces used white phosphorus grenades and/or artillery shells, creating walls of fire in the city. Doctors working inside Fallujah report seeing melted corpses of suspected insurgents. The use of WP ammunition was confirmed from various independent sources, including US troops who had suffered WP burns due to 'friendly fire'."

"Democracy Now!" covered this story today. They broadcast part of the documentary, and their website has a transcript. LINK

On the issue of white phosphorus as a "chemical weapon": It's not officially considered a chemical weapon even though, strictly speaking, it is a chemical used as a weapon. It's still plenty nasty.


Reply to an earlier post:

Big flaw in that. They are not illegal. - Red Harvest

I must not have said that clearly enough:

d) A denial that US forces have used outlawed weapons in Fallujah or Iraq... but they previously stated that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when used against military forces.

By that, I meant that the State Department denied the use of "outlawed weapons"... which was a meaningless statement because they already told us that napalm, Mark-77 firebombs, and phosphorus shells are not illegal when you use them against military targets.

I realize that they are not illegal under US law if used in that context.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't think it comes under CBRN as it is an element not a chemical. Also no chemical detection kit that I know of looks for phos as a risk.

So I would have to say that it's not CW.

On another note, the army also has to follow rules that they're not allowed to deliberately blind opponents e.g. using lasers to burn out retinas, but it is perfectly ok to shoot them in the head, go figure

[Ser Clegane]

I don't think it comes under CBRN as it is an element not a chemical.

Chlorine would also be a pure "element" - however, I am pretty sure that chlorine gas would be considered to be a CW (I could be wrong though)

Also no chemical detection kit that I know of looks for phos as a risk.

That's probably because white phosphorous is actually a solid (under normal pressure it would evaporate at 280°C), which means that it is rather unlikely that you have some phosphorous "leakage" like you would have it for a gaseous or volatile chemical.

[Ja'chyra]

That was kind of my point Ser

[Red Harvest]

Even if all the inhabitants had been 'warriors', it was still chemical warfare. It was a war crime. And this after the cessation of 'major hostilities' (Bush dixit).

That is nonsense. It is NOT chemical warfare, it is incindiary. It destroys/kills by combustion, not by producing a poisonous inhalable cloud. If combustion qualifies as chemical, then you can eliminate any explosives or gun powder.

It is not a war crime. Furthermore, we are not a signatory to that treaty. After reading this, I don't propose we ever sign it either.

[Adrian II]

It destroys/kills by combustion, not by producing a poisonous inhalable cloud.

You are ill-informed. It does produce poisonous clouds that kill on inhalation, causing deep internal burns just as it causes deep external burns.

Furthermore, we are not a signatory to that treaty. After reading this, I don't propose we ever sign it either.

That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.

[Red Harvest]

You are ill-informed. It does produce poisonous clouds that kill on inhalation, causing deep internal burns just as it causes deep external burns.

BURNS = COMBUSTION in this case Mr. "Ill-informed." Burning is what it does. Sheesh.

That doesn't matter because your country does not stick to its basic international commitments anyway.

You mean like NATO? Or liberating your nation?

It is attitudes like you are exhibiting right now that keep us wary of participating more in global treaties like this. Your abuse of the system is abhorrent to us.

[Ser Clegane]

BURNS = COMBUSTION in this case Mr. "Ill-informed." Burning is what it does. Sheesh.

From the Wikipedia article:

Burns to persons struck by particles of burning WP are usually much less extensive than napalm or metal incendiary burns, but are complicated by the toxicity of phosphorus, the release of phosphoric acid into the wounds,and the possibility of small particles continuing to smoulder for some time if undetected.

While white phosphorous does not seem to be officially classified as a chemical weapon in the relevant treaties, it can certainly be argued that this classification does not fully reflect the effects that white phosphorous has.

The "ill-informed" comment seems a bit haughty in this context.