The White Phosphorus Debate: WTF?
Jesus, there's so much sarcasm and invective flying around on this issue I can't even tell what's going on. I started following links from RedState, eventually ended up at this from Pandagon, and still don't know WTF the issue is exactly. I'm just posting this because I'm astounded at the anger to information ratio. I finally found the Independent story, and I have to say that calling WP rounds "chemical weapons" clanged off my ear, for what that's worth. I'm sort of a minor military history buff--certainly no expert--but this sounded like an unusual and contentious characterization to me. I think there used to be WP grenades, and they sounded particularly nasty to me, but they're more like, say, napalm than Sarin. Now, napalm is nasty and maybe we shouldn't use it, but we wouldn't classify it as a chemical weapon, would we? We might say that such things are "unconventional weapons" I guess. I mean ALL explosives short of nukes are chemical explosives, aren't they? But we don't count gunpowder or HE rounds as chemical weapons.
I guess one could argue that now that we have the new "WMD" category that WP should go in there...but I'd have to see the argument for that.
Anyway, my initial guess here is that the righties are right about this one--accusations that we used chemical weapons in Falluja seem unfair and unwarranted. There is a separate issue about numbers of civilian deaths, but that seems, well, like a separate issue.
Jesus, there's so much sarcasm and invective flying around on this issue I can't even tell what's going on. I started following links from RedState, eventually ended up at this from Pandagon, and still don't know WTF the issue is exactly. I'm just posting this because I'm astounded at the anger to information ratio. I finally found the Independent story, and I have to say that calling WP rounds "chemical weapons" clanged off my ear, for what that's worth. I'm sort of a minor military history buff--certainly no expert--but this sounded like an unusual and contentious characterization to me. I think there used to be WP grenades, and they sounded particularly nasty to me, but they're more like, say, napalm than Sarin. Now, napalm is nasty and maybe we shouldn't use it, but we wouldn't classify it as a chemical weapon, would we? We might say that such things are "unconventional weapons" I guess. I mean ALL explosives short of nukes are chemical explosives, aren't they? But we don't count gunpowder or HE rounds as chemical weapons.
I guess one could argue that now that we have the new "WMD" category that WP should go in there...but I'd have to see the argument for that.
Anyway, my initial guess here is that the righties are right about this one--accusations that we used chemical weapons in Falluja seem unfair and unwarranted. There is a separate issue about numbers of civilian deaths, but that seems, well, like a separate issue.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:06 PM
13 Comments:
Yes, all weapons short of Nukes (and potentially even those) are chemically based weapons.
Hell, human beings are chemically based weapons (it's sad, but true, but everyone is a marvelous chemical factory).
However, there are sloppy distinctions being made.
In my mind (as a chemist)and taking how it is normally used "chemical weapon" refers to gas warfare (sarine, etc.). I would not categorize WP in there.
But then again, I've never discovered what WMD refers to specifically (beyond a scare phrase).
Nukes: Probably WMD.
Gas warfare: ????.
"Conventional Weapons: How powerful are they?
How do militaries define the weapons and classifications? Anyone know? Or the UN?
White Phosprous: not a chemical weapon.
But it does melt the skin off of anyone it comes into contact with.
Thankfully, it has a insurgent-only saftey mechanism that insures that only evil-doing flesh is melted off of evil-doing bones.
Is there a white phosphorus debate? I'm so behind the curve. How many WMDs fit on the head of a pin?
(Answer, none, because there weren't any.)
:-P
Here's your charge of chemical weapons, by a British newspaper no less, let alone a lowly blogger. If the righties are fighting a strawman, it's because some on the left built it. Also, at Daily Kos, which apparently got their info from that same newspaper.
The reason correct use of the term "chemical weapon" is so paramount is because it has a specific legal definition, since chemical weapons are banned from use in warfare. White phospherous is not illegal even under the Geneva Convention.
As for the allegations of melting flesh, this post, which includes evidence from the NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS would seem to counteract those charges.
As an aside, I'm frankly feeling more and more alienated by the left. I voted for Kerry, but I'm growing more and more sanguine about GWB having won(!!!). The left (sneeringly to the right) claims to be on the side of science, but I'm seeing less and less evidence of that and more evidence of bad argumentation and unsubstantiated vitriol. I know the right isn't innocent either, but as it stands, I'll take the liar over these credulous morons when it comes to national security. (And yes, I know bloggers to the President isn't comparable, but I'm speaking to a dangerous subset on the left that appears to want to cripple the US military any way it can because it is suspicious of its power. This is an attitude that I feel has permeated into the Democratic party proper.)
Ah yes, one reason hyperbole isn't a good tactic: it alienates people like me who care about precise evidence and arguments--and civility above all else. People who use--self-admittedly!--hyperbolic statements accusing our soldiers of wrongdoing in Fallujah sound like cynical opportunists using the the dead to their own end. One reason I appreciate Winston so much is that he rarely falls into this practice.
-ah
Is there something wrong with my screen, or did you just actually post "1) The Democratic party is full of sneering, credulous morons who hate science, spew unsubstantiated vitriol, and want to cripple the military." and "2) Hyperbole is bad."
One of the reasons I'm a Democrat is that our party tends to isolate its extramist fringe . . . more than the Repubs, anyhow. Yes, they exist, and yes, they piss me off, and that's why I'm glad we isolate them. I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe that some random Hippie McBirkenstock type dude has anywhere near the party influence of, say, Pat Robertson?
Christ, man, if we isolated them any more, they'd all start threatening to go vote Green or something. Oh, wait . . .
I actually meant to type "extremist." I'm not a moron, I swear.
Things I agree with here so far, FWIW:
1. There are, in fact, charges that WP is a chemical weapon by some on the left.
2. The more important question is: were horrific weapons used, and were they used indiscriminately?
3. The left has way too many credulous crackpots, many of them anti-military crackpots, for comfort.
4. The Democrats (i.e. what passes for the left in this country) has mostly marginalized their crackpots, whereas the crackpots on the right are very influential on the Republican side.
Also let me add:
The worse things get in the WHite House and in Iraq, the more unhinged and powerful the crackpot left will become. After the embarrassment of the Reagn admnistration came the Political Correctness debacle, which drove legions of sensible people to the right.
I expect the same kind of thing to happen again over the next...oh, let's say 5-10 years.
Agreed, on all counts. I just can't see using the existence of a lunatic fringe as a reason to oppose the Democrats over the Republicans. I mean, give me a break.
I also think the tendency of the "non-loony" left to dismiss anything said by the loony left as anti-Bush paranoia has increased the possibility of the loony left gaining power.
What I mean is that, as things get worse and worse for the Bush administration, many things that were previously dismissed as the crazy rantings of anti-Bush fanatics are turning out to be 100% true. The reasonable left was 100% wrong about Iraq, to use the most glaringly obvious example. That DOES NOT mean that they're wrong about everything else, too, but it sure does make it harder for them to argue that the people who were right about Iraq are wrong about everything else.
This site has a link to the documentary about the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah. The video is 30 minutes and very graphic - really disturbing images. The first scenes are about Vietnam, but then it moves into Fallujah. It has some interesting interviews with US soldiers who fought in Fallujah; they say that white phosphorous was used indiscriminately. It seems we may have used MK77 - something quite like napalm - in the presence of civilians as well. There is also a disturbing allegation that the Pentagon ordered the military to wait to invade Fallujah until after last year's presidential election.
Thanks, Taylor. Will watch it ASAMB (i.e. As Soon As I Have Access to More Bandwidth).
If the claim that we used such weapons indiscriminately is true, then... Jesus... It really is becoming more Vietnam-like by the day.
chemical weapons are banned from use in warfare. White phospherous is not illegal even under the Geneva Convention
According to this,
An incendiary device, white phosphorus is also used to light up combat areas. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians has been banned by the Geneva Convention since 1980.
The United States did not sign the relevant protocol to the convention, a U.N. official in New York said.
I find this weird--aren't you simply not supposed to attack civilians?
Anyway, it seems as though there is a relevant Geneva protocol that the U.S. did not sign. This I think supports the contentions that
(1) WP is relevantly different from chemical weapons
(2) WP is still very nasty stuff
but I invite someone to actually look up the Geneva protocols and see what's going on (I'm feeling lazy).
That IS weird. Maybe it's being contrasted with something like tear gas, and maybe you're permitted to use that? That'd be a pretty damned weird contrast, though...
Ok, I looked it up, and will copy and paste:
1. 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.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
So I guess the idea is that you aren't supposed to use these weapons on civilians (duh), you aren't supposed to drop this sort of bombs on cities, and if you're using incendiaries in cities you're supposed to keep them the hell away from the civilians, which is probably what's at issue.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home