U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

[Watchman]

Only for taking the bait at first.

Now get back to the topic.

[yesdachi]

You know, if folks like Adrian II are going to accuse us of chemical warfare, when it's not, WTF is the point? Next time, let's just kill everyone with whatever will do the job most effectively without exposing our own people to any hazard. That way, you can actually have something worth complaining about, rather than having to make crap up. We can say, "sorry, we won't do it again." Should be good enough for the U.N., works for everyone else. And it would have a powerful deterrent effect against the real enemies.

Humm, ok.

Its probably a good thing that the US citizens don’t vote on things like this or half the globe would be glass.

[Tribesman]

You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on. Tsk Tsk very poor attempt here, only shows that you have no glue. (
Actually there was a rather cutting point to that sarcasm Red . Since you are the artillery expert can you enlighten me . Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles , see where gravity comes into it now
For air burst what is the minimum height required to ensure that all the WP is consumed before it reaches ground level (taking into consideration of course that some particles will be accelerated downwards in the blast regardless of the effects of gravity), which of course would be a very important consideration when illuminating a residential area containing civilians and civilian property .
For arrested descent projectiles there is the other issue as well , the unpredictability of the wind .
You see even with the latter there can be some real problems , a prime example of "illumination gone wrong" would be the setting fire of the Church of the Nativity , but of course they tried to blame that on someone else instead of facing up to the ballsups when incendiary/pyrotechnics are used in built up areas .
Perhaps that is why there is a move to regulate their usage under the laws of war (which you are quite fond of) .

Though I do understand from this thread that you do have an issue with the use of these weapons .

Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.
Ouch a touch below the belt with that sword stroke.
Below the belt and highly innacurate , they didn't help the Serbs , but they couldn't help the Bosnians either .
That the trouble that sometimes comes with limited deployments with strict rules , the Dutch had their hands tied on that one didn't they .

[Kagemusha]

I dont like where this thread is going.Its disgusting to kill civilians on purpose.But i cant accuse USA as an nation of this outrage.this should be investigated and the people responsible should be punished.I think it would be good move for US to give acces to UN observers to enter Iraq.If US has nothing to hide what they are doing in Iraq it should be allowed.

[Tribesman]

think it would be good move for US to give acces to UN observers to enter Iraq.
They cannot , its too bloody dangerous over there , thats why they were in Jordan , oh but thats dangerous aswell isn't it

[Kagemusha]

think it would be good move for US to give acces to UN observers to enter Iraq.
They cannot , its too bloody dangerous over there , thats why they were in Jordan , oh but thats dangerous aswell isn't it

Yep life is dangerous.I have hearD that many people have also died in their homes.

[drone]

Hey, I like hearing the Euro point of view on world events. It alerts me to stuff that the normal US news media either overlooks or spins one way or another. I'm no big fan of this war, either in the way it was sold to us or in the way it was prosecuted (on the cheap).

But calling the use of WP munitions in Fallujah chemical warfare is just anti-American ranting. It is not chemical warfare, these are incendiary munitions. War is not nice, it wasn't in ancient times and it isn't now. Severed limbs, burnt bodies, civilian deaths, etc. are nothing new, and will always be the case.

Bringing up Bosnia was a bit off-topic (and quite the master-stroke ), but he was trying to make a point about how certain countries shouldn't assume a moral superiority over the US. I'm not saying we aren't wrong in a lot of cases here in Iraq, but he who is without sin, yada, yada, yada. Some day your countrymen may be involved in a conflict like this, and when push comes to shove, your military will use "distasteful" tactics, because every soldier and commander will prefer to lose fewer troops if possible, regardless of what the politicos say. The insurgency will not be beaten by adhering to the Marquis of Queensberry rules.

This thread seemed to have gotten past the WP hysteria, and into more plausible issues, such as the refugee males. I'm hoping this continues.

[Redleg]

Only for taking the bait at first.

Now get back to the topic.

Tsk Tsk - is that an order -

Maybe you should go join the military. Try asking nicely next time.

[Kagemusha]

Good points there Drone. One reason why the disgusting things in reacent wars feel even more disgusting is that the media will bring lots of it up sooner or later always.I think best way for us to learn something about this,is to watch and listen it carefully and try to avoid the disaster of war unless its absolutely necessary.

[Redleg]

You should keep your sarcasm directed at subjects you have some knowledge on. Tsk Tsk very poor attempt here, only shows that you have no glue. (
Actually there was a rather cutting point to that sarcasm Red . Since you are the artillery expert can you enlighten me . Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles , see where gravity comes into it now

Depends on what round you are speaking of - Illumination rounds have a flare that comes out of the canister on a little parachute. The parachute is suppose to drag it out of the canister. When the parachute does not deploy there is a problem - the predictablity of where the round is going to go - well becomes unpredictable in many ways.

For air burst what is the minimum height required to ensure that all the WP is consumed before it reaches ground level (taking into consideration of course that some particles will be accelerated downwards in the blast regardless of the effects of gravity),

Wrong type of munition - the WP in M825 is a felt wedge it is not designed to be burnt out when it hits the ground - it is ejected out of the canister by a small charge - so the alleceration is not all that great- the spin of the round is suppose to also help cause the felt wedges to eject when the base plate of the round is blown by the time fuse, the canister does an an airburst to spread out the felt wedges so that when they land the smoke builds up into a nice smoke screen. Standard height when I was in Fire direction for this round was around 50 meters. The standard time of burn - if my memory serves me correctly is about 90 seconds - you can not time it to have it burn out before it hits the ground - unless of course your going for about a 10,000 meter Height of Burst. (don't have a TFT so I can only give a WAG estimate on the HOB, but take into account rate of fall - based upon gravity and a 90 second burn rate and you will come up with a more accurate required HOB for what your talking about here)

M110 WP is a ground burst munition. Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump. Acceleration was based upon normal high explosive bursting rounds. The WP in this round is suppose to burn for about 45 seconds - so again to time the burst for it to be consumed before it hits the ground becomes problematic and for use as for a military purpose non extistant.

which of course would be a very important consideration when illuminating a residential area containing civilians and civilian property .

Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.

Doctrine manual extract can be found here

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../3-50/Appc.htm

Artillery Munitions
The field artillery provides effective systems for rapidly placing smoke on distant targets. They use HC, WP, and RP projectiles.

Use artillery-delivered smokes to--

Obscure enemy observers and target acquisition and guidance systems (for example, CLOS ATGMs).
Isolate or segregate enemy formations.
In projecting smoke onto the battlefield, the field artillery uses three types of missions: quick smoke, immediate smoke, and special smoke.

So unless doctrine has changed in the last 5 years - smoke munitions are not used to illuminate anything.

For arrested descent projectiles there is the other issue as well , the unpredictability of the wind .

Predictable and accounted for in MET messages. MET is conducted every 4 hours or more often based upon the weather. It provides a predictable and valid accounting for all weather conditions in the area of the MET station. A MET station would have been located within 25 miles of the guns.

I have fired accurately illumination and smoke rounds in winds up to 30 knots - after that it gets to the point that the use of the munitions is impractical.

You see even with the latter there can be some real problems , a prime example of "illumination gone wrong" would be the setting fire of the Church of the Nativity , but of course they tried to blame that on someone else instead of facing up to the ballsups when incendiary/pyrotechnics are used in built up areas .

You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?

Perhaps that is why there is a move to regulate their usage under the laws of war (which you are quite fond of) .

There is - but its general use language.

Though I do understand from this thread that you do have an issue with the use of these weapons .

Only that you should not use smoke in a city - you never know what will happen. The problem some of you are having is that the terms used by some to include the State Department have lead you astray.

[Soulforged]

If US has nothing to hide what they are doing in Iraq it should be allowed.

Perhaps because they've something to hide. Or perhaps because they don't want anyone else involved, with credit to themselves. Perhaps because an stranger's introduction will make the layolty of Iraq "democratic" government move the pointer to a middle direction. Don't know, but I think it's between the three.

[Red Harvest]

I think the answer to this is: keeping our American noses out of a European problem. What? You wanted us to interfere? We apparently are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

We always are. Usually the criticism can just be shrugged off. However, when folks are trying to make a chemical weapons case out of something like this...it's just ludicrous. It has the exact opposite effect of what they want.

I don't gratuitously rub country's noses in their past, but I will bring up relevant failures to a topic. I acknowledge our own failures, but what happened with those Blue Helmets is exactly why the U.S. has to take such an active role time and again. It is also why we were painted into a corner with Iraq before the invasion.

[bmolsson]

If we say that they are ALL suspected illegal combatants, then there wouldn't be any problem, would there.....

[Tribesman]

You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?

Yeah I work for your government as you may have noticed
Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
But oh no I asked[ I]Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles [/I]
So I obviously don't know any different do I
The incident I mentioned involved magnesium based parachute flares I think .

Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.

But there is no smoke without fire is there Phosphorous burns does it not . Since the allegations are about people being burnt by phosphorous then that is the issue .
Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump.
Now that smoke would really cause quite an illumination would it not

[Adrian II]

LOL

We must have our banter.

Have at 'm, soldier!

[Adrian II]

Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.

Yes, it was. And I did not belong to the 'folks like this'. I am not afraid to criticise my own government.

You, however, subscribe to the razing of towns. You wrote that in post #26. Need I remind you that this is what the Bosnian Serbs were doing in Srebrenica? Of course it's up to you whether you want to belong in the same category.

[Papewaio]

Actually I prefer Batter to Banter.

Hmmmm Beer Battered Fish and Chips.

[Adrian II]

I think the answer to this is: keeping our American noses out of a European problem. What? You wanted us to interfere? We apparently are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Europeans were asked to support the United States in Afghanistan, which they did and are still doing. However, nobody asked the U.S. to interfere in Iraq.

Actually, since 2003 the American approach to terrorism has become a danger to us all, Americans included. If the United States next turns on Iran -- homeland of shiite radicals who virtually 'invented' tactical suicide bombing during their eight year war against Iraq and who are now developing nuclear arms -- the level of escalation becomes such that entire nations will probably be 'razed' in the way of Fallujah.

[Redleg]

You really don't know what an illumination round is do you?

Yeah I work for your government as you may have noticed

Oh I almost missed that one. Very good.

Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.
But oh no I asked[ I]Are these air burst munitions or are they arrested descent illumination projectiles [/I]
So I obviously don't know any different do I
The incident I mentioned involved magnesium based parachute flares I think.

Then your question is irrevelant - since they are both air burst munitions. But I am beginning to get the picture in which you are attempting to paint based upon lack of knowledge. To bad the stupid state department used the wrong descriptions abut what smoke is - smacks of either a cover-up or pure stupidity of the briefer.

Again you don't use smoke to illuminate anything.

But there is no smoke without fire is there Phosphorous burns does it not . Since the allegations are about people being burnt by phosphorous then that is the issue .

The use of the munition in a city was never the issue, that is only a minor side issue to me - War is war after all - the possible lie by the state department (initial issue) and the possible violation of the rules of war by some Military commanders (issue brought forward by Aurlean comments about civilians being turned back) are the real issues as far as I am concerned. The distraction of calling the munitions chemical weapons is the red herring of the discussion which I pursued down the rabbit hole to get to the real issue.

Your not suppose to use it as an airburst - unless you were going after a fuel dump.
Now that smoke would really cause quite an illumination would it not

Yep it lights up the sky for several miles especially when you get to hit a divisional supply point on an artillery raid.

[Kralizec]

Adrian, you're arguing a ridiculous case. It's like saying that using uranium based amnunition is chemical warfare because leftovers of it killed people on the Balkan years afterwards.

Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.

That's a terrible accusation you're making there, and I find it disgusting. Yes we fucked up, but we didn't lend the Serbs a hand killing them. And it wasn't the fault of the troops themselves, either.

[Red Harvest]

You, however, subscribe to the razing of towns. You wrote that in post #26.

Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101. You can't leave things the way it was. They were not facing genocide, etc. They were facing the horrible threat of elections...egads. They were using the city as their launching pad to attack the rest of the country. Funny thing was, other Iraqis didn't feel sorry for them at the time. Now why was that?

And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.

Then again, unlike certain Europeans, I want to see things get done, not just playing pocket pool.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, you're arguing a ridiculous case. It's like saying that using uranium based amnunition is chemical warfare because leftovers of it killed people on the Balkan years afterwards.

This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population. Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian. It was not used to illuminate or mark targets in Fallujah. It was used to 'level' the town as Red Harvest put it.

Those who maintain that everyone in Fallujah had been given 'fair warning' and was 'free' to leave, should think again. They were warned of an impending attack, not an impending Gomorrah.

Besides, what does 'free' mean in a city that is held hostage by some of the most callous warriors the Middle East has seen? Were men of fighting age really free to walk out on the insurgent occupiers who wanted them, either for their support or for their presence as human shields? Are Iraqi women free to walk out on their husbands and fathers? Are children free to walk out on their mothers? The whole notion is just surreal.

[Red Harvest]

That's a terrible accusation you're making there, and I find it disgusting. Yes we fucked up, but we didn't lend the Serbs a hand killing them. And it wasn't the fault of the troops themselves, either.

I didn't say the troops actually killed them. The charge is the one already levelled against them. Just handed them over on a silver platter. It was a morally repugnant thing to do. I would have been ashamed if our own troops had done it. Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses. Yes, I do find them at fault for that. Color it any way you like it, but that is why the blue helmets are not taken seriously by themselves.

[Kralizec]

And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.

Sure, we'd all love Bush and his trigger happy ilk deciding who is and who is not directly tied to terrorists, then watch as they arbitrarily nuke middle eastern nations into oblivion

This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population. Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian.

It wasn't the radiation of the uranium that killed those people (though it probably didn't improve their health, either) but it poisoned them through ingestion IIRC, chemicly.

Anyway...time to get some sleep now. If I can get any

[Redleg]

This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population.

Wrong - Adrian WP rounds are not chemical weapons.

Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian. It was not used to illuminate or mark targets in Fallujah. It was used to 'level' the town as Red Harvest put it.

Again wrong - read what is written by the soldiers - they did not say level the town. It was used to drive out the fighters from their hiding places according to the links provided by Aurelian.

Those who maintain that everyone in Fallujah had been given 'fair warning' and was 'free' to leave, should think again. They were warned of an impending attack, not an impending Gomorrah.

War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.

Besides, what does 'free' mean in a city that is held hostage by some of the most callous warriors the Middle East has seen?

Good to see that your recongize that terrorists hiding behind the cover of insurgency are indeed the most callous of people.

Were men of fighting age really free to walk out on the insurgent occupiers who wanted them, either for their support or for their presence as human shields? Are Iraqi women free to walk out on their husbands and fathers? Are children free to walk out on their mothers? The whole notion is just surreal.

Indeed it is surreal. Calling munitions that are not chemical weapons - chemical weapons is just as surreal.

[Soulforged]

Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101. You can't leave things the way it was. They were not facing genocide, etc. They were facing the horrible threat of elections...egads. They were using the city as their launching pad to attack the rest of the country. Funny thing was, other Iraqis didn't feel sorry for them at the time. Now why was that?

Then you've a serious problem with compassion, don't need to get more complicated in logical basis.
People always look for revenge, this case is no different, that will explain the same Iraquis didn't get worried about other Iraquis. Or was it because they've enough problems already? Difficult choise...

And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.

If there was...I think that the better wat to approach it is to simply remove the causant. But then again I'm not an strategic expert.

Then again, unlike certain Europeans, I want to see things get done, not just playing pocket pool.

So the end justify the means, even if it involves human lives? Ok that's your option, I prefer to be more human.

[Tribesman]

War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.

thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it , bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it , detaining medical personel thats another , killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more , denying access to Red cross/crescent officials , oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets , looting , arson , extra-judicial killings .
But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency .
So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?

Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses.
Yes Harvest , then they would have been illegal combatants and war criminals .
It was a morally repugnant thing to do.
Yep , but unless the Netherland was willing to declare war on one side in a civil war (which is also a crime) then they were constrained by their rules of deployment . It is not the first time it has happened and unfortunately will not be the last .

[Redleg]

War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.

thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .

War has a lot of ifs in it. So your point here is lost in the clutter that is war.

Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .

And what do you think war is - two sides going out in the middle of nowhere and playing pattycake.

Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it ,

Not if the enemy is using it as a cache for their weapons and ammunition. Not if the enemy is occupying it as a command post. Not if the enemy is using it as a defensive position.

bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it

See above.

detaining medical personel thats another

Nope you can detain medical personel who are not in the process of performing their duties in treating medical emergancies.

killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more ,

Only if you captured and disarmed them.

denying access to Red cross/crescent officials ,

A violation of the Geneva Conventions - but not a crime.

oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets

Not if they are being used by the enemy for purposes of storage, command, communications or as strongpoints.

, looting

Looting is against the rules of the army. You got proof or as I suspect you are just throwing that one out there, because of the looting by Iraqi civilians that was not immediately stopped by the military. It seems that some had problems with how the military stopped the looting once they did take action.

, arson

Again got proof of arson -

, extra-judicial killings

Got proof of extra-judicial killings that are not being investigated and the individual who did the killing is not being held responsible.

But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency

Fallujah might or might not have had to be a city fight.

So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?

Well when you look at some of the pictures of the fighting - some are probably dead, some are probably captured, and some got away.

War is Hell Tribesman there is no such thing as a clean war, and there is no war that doesn't have innocents caught in the middle.

Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses.
Yes Harvest , then they would have been illegal combatants and war criminals .

Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.


Edit: Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.

[Kralizec]

Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.

[Adrian II]

Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.

Just about everything went wrong - that is the bottom of it, I'm afraid. An all-round lack of political will, sense of urgency, diplomatic investment, military force, coordination, international support, vision. Of course those 350 Dutchbat with a dozen apc's were no match for 3000 Serbs with tanks, artillery and nothing to lose. Worst thing of all was that the air support which Dutchbat had been promised never materialised. That was when the Serbs realised they could do whatever they wanted.

The final crunch was when they gave Dutchbat a choice between surrender and a massacre of the inhabitants. And they made good on their thread when they started bombing Potocari camp where thousands of Bosnians had fled to. Of course it should not have come to that, the crucial mistakes were made far earlier. Red Harvest is absolutely right that it was nauseating debacle.

EDIT
You remember when the Serbs took some international monitors hostage, shackling some of them to lamp posts and military barracks? That is when NATO should have stopped negotiating and bombed their military headquarters to smithereens. Too bad for the hostages, but they were soldiers and they knew what they had enlisted for. And I bet the Bosnian Serbs would have caved in real fast anyway.

As it happened, the only instance of Blues fighting back was when a French batallion recaptured a bridge on the Bosnian Serbs, losing 23 men in the fight. And that was only because their representative, general Janvier, had enough clout within the UN hierarchy to bang his fist on the table. The UN as it is should never, ever be in charge of a military operation.