US used Chemical weapons in Iraq
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentleman Aviator
If white phos is a "chemical weapon" then so is any High Explosive. Getting blown to bits is "particularly nasty" also ... let's get real - if you want expertise in chem warfare, ask Saddam ..... while you can....
Ach, more media hype..... ok so white phos is perhaps not the most pleasant of weapons, granted, but neither is being shot with 556? At the end of the day, shouldn't be firing either at civvies, but both are fairly targetable so shouldn't really be that much of an issue.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh please. WP is not a chemical weapon. It is not a "weapon of mass destruction."
Is it nasty? Yup. So is a 2000 lb high explosive bomb. I'm told by reliable sources that both will ruin your whole day.
Is it nasty? Yup. So is a 2000 lb high explosive bomb. I'm told by reliable sources that both will ruin your whole day.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chemical Weapons?
Shame on you. Starting a thread with a title like that is no better than the inaccurate sensationalist media rubbish that we see all too often.
If you're going to report it, get it right. Clown.
Shame on you. Starting a thread with a title like that is no better than the inaccurate sensationalist media rubbish that we see all too often.
If you're going to report it, get it right. Clown.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere only we know
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vecvechookattack..
I have only been visiting this forum for a few weeks, however it would apear that every time I read a post from you, it seems you talk total rubbish! Just an observation.
I have only been visiting this forum for a few weeks, however it would apear that every time I read a post from you, it seems you talk total rubbish! Just an observation.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More ill informed media sh1te. Phosphorus may be a chemical element but the term 'chemical weapons' refers to such things as nerve agents and blister agents, not incendiaries or high explosives, as we all know.
Reminds me of a similar piece of trash journalism about 18 months ago. Some Mirror hack (or similar) heard a whisper of the use of DU in armour piercing rounds in Iraq. Next day's chip wrapper was consequently up in arms about the British use of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Reminds me of a similar piece of trash journalism about 18 months ago. Some Mirror hack (or similar) heard a whisper of the use of DU in armour piercing rounds in Iraq. Next day's chip wrapper was consequently up in arms about the British use of nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the description of willie peat as a chemical weapon, the other thing that I find annoying in the pink ole commie media reporting is the "used against civilians" issue. So what is wrong with the use of weapons against those civilians who are insurgents or terrorists?
The media should remember that it is civilians who pose the current threat to our western democracies.
The media should remember that it is civilians who pose the current threat to our western democracies.
Not Bothered
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max - The definition of a chemical weapon is based on it's use and effects . The purpose of white phosperous is effectvely to smoke people out with drifting clouds of the stuff . Used against civilians it's deemed as a chemical attack. Regards depleated uranium - it's used to bombard artillery shells to alter the molecular structure and effectively increase it's hardness.
The long term effects of the inhalation of depleated uranium
round dust is a matter of concern. The Mod in the case of GW1
veterans was more than strident in denying the possible effects
on servicemen charged with inspecting Iraqi tanks that had been targeted with DU rounds
Regards the difficulty in targeting insurgents when mixed with the civilian population - that doesn't in anyway justify the use of WP directly against civilians. If you argue the point that you cannot tell the difference between the civil population and the
insurgents you get yourself into almost the same position of Saddam Hussain. He is going on trial for the murder of failed
asassins and villagers back in 1982 - can he use the same defence that he couldn't tell the difference between the two but it was vital to retain his sovereign rights and the security of the nation.
Tony Blair got us into this war - his men really need to get a grip of the media and try and make something positive out of this mess.
The long term effects of the inhalation of depleated uranium
round dust is a matter of concern. The Mod in the case of GW1
veterans was more than strident in denying the possible effects
on servicemen charged with inspecting Iraqi tanks that had been targeted with DU rounds
Regards the difficulty in targeting insurgents when mixed with the civilian population - that doesn't in anyway justify the use of WP directly against civilians. If you argue the point that you cannot tell the difference between the civil population and the
insurgents you get yourself into almost the same position of Saddam Hussain. He is going on trial for the murder of failed
asassins and villagers back in 1982 - can he use the same defence that he couldn't tell the difference between the two but it was vital to retain his sovereign rights and the security of the nation.
Tony Blair got us into this war - his men really need to get a grip of the media and try and make something positive out of this mess.
Chemical Weapons Confusion
How about this then Riley:
PARIS (Reuters) - French security forces fired tear gas to disperse youths in Lyon on Saturday in the first sign of unrest in a city center after more than two weeks of civil disturbances in outlying suburbs of towns and cities.
Are they using chemical weapons against there own populace? By the way the grenades get quite hot and can burn the flesh...
LJ
PARIS (Reuters) - French security forces fired tear gas to disperse youths in Lyon on Saturday in the first sign of unrest in a city center after more than two weeks of civil disturbances in outlying suburbs of towns and cities.
Are they using chemical weapons against there own populace? By the way the grenades get quite hot and can burn the flesh...
LJ
> Riley Dove
'Regards depleated uranium - it's used to bombard artillery shells to alter the molecular structure and effectively increase it's hardness.'
I don't think that's right is it? I thought DU rounds were a very specific armour piercing round. Made from DU which is harder / denser than tungsten and reacts exothermicaly with armour?
The issue with DU rounds was the 'dust' created as a side effect of their use on armour. The argument being this dust was hazerdous to health. I'm not sure if it is proven that the dust is harmful or if it is suspected that the dust is harmful.
A better informed person on here can prolly clarify.
'Regards depleated uranium - it's used to bombard artillery shells to alter the molecular structure and effectively increase it's hardness.'
I don't think that's right is it? I thought DU rounds were a very specific armour piercing round. Made from DU which is harder / denser than tungsten and reacts exothermicaly with armour?
The issue with DU rounds was the 'dust' created as a side effect of their use on armour. The argument being this dust was hazerdous to health. I'm not sure if it is proven that the dust is harmful or if it is suspected that the dust is harmful.
A better informed person on here can prolly clarify.
Load Toad:
Yes, DU is used in armour piercing sabot rounds from MBTs, such as the Chally 2 or ABRAMS. It is used in the direct fire role (i.e. from tanks, not artillery) and it is never (AFAIK) used in artillery shells, as all such shells are explosive in nature, rather than relying on kinetic enerygy.
Good article about the concern over dust from DU:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...2003185213.htm
Quick summary: In short, the problem arises in that DU is radioactive (can't remember whether its alpha particles? A-level physics was a long time ago!) but the emissions are effective over only an extremely short distance and easily stopped (thin sheet of metal, or anything really...) and hence the problem arises when it is inhaled or ingested and results in cancer of the lung or similar.
Yes, DU is used in armour piercing sabot rounds from MBTs, such as the Chally 2 or ABRAMS. It is used in the direct fire role (i.e. from tanks, not artillery) and it is never (AFAIK) used in artillery shells, as all such shells are explosive in nature, rather than relying on kinetic enerygy.
Good article about the concern over dust from DU:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...2003185213.htm
Quick summary: In short, the problem arises in that DU is radioactive (can't remember whether its alpha particles? A-level physics was a long time ago!) but the emissions are effective over only an extremely short distance and easily stopped (thin sheet of metal, or anything really...) and hence the problem arises when it is inhaled or ingested and results in cancer of the lung or similar.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't profess to be an expert on DU, but recall reading an article in the "serious press" which stated something like DU had caused more deaths of Iraqi civilians Post GW1 that had been killed by Saddam's regime... effective medical treatment was stopped from getting into the country under the terms of the UN blockade. Now, while the radioactive effect of DU may be perceived as easily controlled, if you're an Iraqi civilian wandering through an area containing shell debris... you are unlikely to consider wrapping yourself in tin foil.
But this is getting off the point about Phospherus... which you probably couldn't give a FCUK about whether it's classified a "chemical weapon" or not if youre on the receiving end.
But this is getting off the point about Phospherus... which you probably couldn't give a FCUK about whether it's classified a "chemical weapon" or not if youre on the receiving end.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim,
Assuming that is a troll, but if not -
Using WP (and the reports we have seen are likely just the tip of the iceberg) in a city, where some 150,000 people remained (males of fighting age were NOT allowed to leave), but where anyone who did remain was automaticly declared to be an insurgent.....get my drift.
Then of course, something about us holding the moral high ground, setting an example, proving ourselves to be a world apart from Saddam, etc etc.
On second thoughts, this clearly is a troll. Well done! 
Assuming that is a troll, but if not -
So what is wrong with the use of weapons against those civilians who are insurgents or terrorists?
Then of course, something about us holding the moral high ground, setting an example, proving ourselves to be a world apart from Saddam, etc etc.
The media should remember that it is civilians who pose the current threat to our western democracies.
White phosphorus as a weapon comes in more than one guise. The 'Willie Pete' grenades of the Vietnam era used the phosphorus as a weapon itself. Lumps of the stuff flew every where, stuck to the enemy and spoiled their day. These are now banned. However, WP is used legally in smoke grenades by most armed forces. The smoke is harmful to breathe which is why it's not used in training.
DU is mostly used for it's mass. It's nearly twice as dense as lead. More mass = greater energy = greater kill probablility. It is also very hard and has a tendancy to splinter into sharp shards on impact. It is pyrophoric and will burn if exposed to temperatures above about 700 degrees C. DU is also used in armour, the keels of sailing boats, formula 1 cars and the mass balances of aircraft including the B747 which has aboout a tonne of the stuff! Undisturbed, it can sit around being harmless for ages (it has a half life of 4.5 billion years!), it doesn't give out much radiation . But smack it hard into something or ignite it and it can release some of its mass into energy - i.e. radiate again. Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation will be released, but not in large values. the major danger comes from the Alpha particles. If concentrated in a small space, such as a burned out tank they are massively dangerous - especially if someone subsequently enters the tank for a look and pinch a bit for a souvenir. Although Alpha particles have a hard time penetrating the outer dead layer of your skin, if ingested they can really damage your health.
DU is mostly used for it's mass. It's nearly twice as dense as lead. More mass = greater energy = greater kill probablility. It is also very hard and has a tendancy to splinter into sharp shards on impact. It is pyrophoric and will burn if exposed to temperatures above about 700 degrees C. DU is also used in armour, the keels of sailing boats, formula 1 cars and the mass balances of aircraft including the B747 which has aboout a tonne of the stuff! Undisturbed, it can sit around being harmless for ages (it has a half life of 4.5 billion years!), it doesn't give out much radiation . But smack it hard into something or ignite it and it can release some of its mass into energy - i.e. radiate again. Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation will be released, but not in large values. the major danger comes from the Alpha particles. If concentrated in a small space, such as a burned out tank they are massively dangerous - especially if someone subsequently enters the tank for a look and pinch a bit for a souvenir. Although Alpha particles have a hard time penetrating the outer dead layer of your skin, if ingested they can really damage your health.
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 17th Nov 2005 at 13:46.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To DW
I am afraid I have to disagree, we had - and AFAIK still have- three types of grenade:
the L2A2 HE Grenade
the No.80 White Phosphorus Smoke Grenade
the No.83 Coloured Smoke Grenade
The No.80 is a bursting WP grenade producing an instant smoke screen by 'bursting' a lump of WP. It has been in service since at least WWII. The coloured smoke grenades are used for signalling as in:
Hello AlphaWhiskey Blah this is 20Bravo, smoke my position.
AW blah: I see yellow smoke.
20B: Yellow is correct.
For those of you with an extensive vid collection the australian film The odd angry shot has a text book use of the No.80 grenade as an anti-personnel weapon.
Every army in the world uses WP for smoke because it produces an 'instant' screen. Its AP effects are equally well understood. IIRC WP is classed as an incendiary and not a chemical weapons, so the report is technically inaccurate.
Turning to the issue that started this thread, targetting rules apply to any weapon including if they existed 'health and safety approved fluffy bullets'.
The rules actually say (paraphrased):
As the law stands the USMC were perfectly entitled to 'shake & bake' the insurgents. That innocent civilians were harmed is an unpleasant reality of war that western forces more than anyone in the world take steps to avoid.
EG
I am afraid I have to disagree, we had - and AFAIK still have- three types of grenade:
the L2A2 HE Grenade
the No.80 White Phosphorus Smoke Grenade
the No.83 Coloured Smoke Grenade
The No.80 is a bursting WP grenade producing an instant smoke screen by 'bursting' a lump of WP. It has been in service since at least WWII. The coloured smoke grenades are used for signalling as in:
Hello AlphaWhiskey Blah this is 20Bravo, smoke my position.
AW blah: I see yellow smoke.
20B: Yellow is correct.
For those of you with an extensive vid collection the australian film The odd angry shot has a text book use of the No.80 grenade as an anti-personnel weapon.
Every army in the world uses WP for smoke because it produces an 'instant' screen. Its AP effects are equally well understood. IIRC WP is classed as an incendiary and not a chemical weapons, so the report is technically inaccurate.
Turning to the issue that started this thread, targetting rules apply to any weapon including if they existed 'health and safety approved fluffy bullets'.
The rules actually say (paraphrased):
Military operations must be directed only against military objectives, and indiscriminate attacks, as defined, are prohibited.
Recognising that there may well be some civilian casualties arising from attacks on military objectives, the law stipulates that attacks are indiscriminate if they may be expected to cause civilian losses, either material or personal, which would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage
Recognising that there may well be some civilian casualties arising from attacks on military objectives, the law stipulates that attacks are indiscriminate if they may be expected to cause civilian losses, either material or personal, which would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage
EG
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when has surrounding a town, ordering the occupants to leave - except "males of military age" - and pounding it with explosive and incendiary artillery been proportionate?
It appears more akin to a 18th century siege or the Second World War tactics of the Nazis.
Well done the US of A! Of course it's not the politicians whose backsides are on the line as a result of deceitful and incompetent decisions now, is it?
It appears more akin to a 18th century siege or the Second World War tactics of the Nazis.
Well done the US of A! Of course it's not the politicians whose backsides are on the line as a result of deceitful and incompetent decisions now, is it?