![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusIf we're going to argue against the use of particular weapons in Iraq, we need to know the difference between one type and another.
In this article Italian Satellite TV to Broadcast Evidence of US Use of Chemical Weapons on Civilians![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wildernessguru points out they are confused about the differences between conventional, unconventional, and chemical weapons. He understands why they're mixing up their terminology -- it's a left-leaning article -- but he has some corrections:
Unconventional weapons - usually means things like nuclear weapons
Conventional weapons - mortar shells, artillery, etc.
Chemical weapons - gas weapons, such as mustard gas.
Biological weapons - things like anthrax
Both White Phospherous and Napalm are conventional weapons. In fact, all bombs have chemicals in them. That's how they explode.
White Phospherous
White Phospherous is used in mortar bombs, howitzer rounds, artillery shells, and WP bombs. It's also used in unguided rockets as a warhead.
At night it's used for illumination, particularly with aircraft for target marking, where you shoot a rocket at a target -- then the warhead explodes and gives off a lot of smoke and light. The pilot can then follow up with high explosive ordinance or what-have-you.
It's normal to use white phospherous. WG wonders if they used WP as a cluster bomb in Fallujah? Or possibly set it up as an airburst weapon (where it just explodes in the air and rains down)? He says as far as he knows all WP bombs are completely indescriminate, i.e., unguided = freefall = civilian casualities (especially in a built-up neighborhood. WG quote: "fuckin' A... That's outrageous.")
The injuries they describe sound like they could have come from the heat of white phospherous. (Anyone hit directly would have been incinerated.) That's likely why there were burns without burning their clothes. WP is magnesium-based and burns super-hot, then goes out in a second.
Why White Phospherous and not HE (high explosives)
wildernessguru says that choice of white phospherous bombs over high explosives is a cagey one. They can use a lot more of it because WP leaves buildings standing: most of the structures in Fallujah would be made of plaster and other materials WP doesn't burn. That's one reason to use napalm as well. If the US military had used traditional high explosives, Fallujah would be flattened.
MK77 Napalm
wildernessguru is much more shocked at the possibility they'd use napalm in a civilian neighborhood. (If they did. He's not entirely convinced that it happened since Italy's president is desperate to be re-elected and the biggest obstacle to his campaign is his former support of the war in Iraq.)
The trouble with documenting the use of napalm is that you have to actually see it dropped. It doesn't damage buildings the way normal high explosives do.
Napalm is a completely indescriminate weapon. The description of MK77 from fas.org (Federation of American Scientists: Military Analysis Network):
The containers of napalm bomber are very light and fabricated of aluminum, with a capacity for about 75 gallons of combustible gel. They lack stabilizing fins, and consequently acquire a tumbling motion on being dropped that contributes to the scattering of the combustible gel over a wide area.
If used around civilians there is no possible way to avoid high innocent casualties. WG: "If they used napalm, whoever gave that order should be shot."
The article here emphasizes white phospherous and downplays the use of MK77, so I'm not convinced napalm was used or if the military is just accused of using it. Either way, WG suspects that the US military was unable to sort the civilians from the insurgents in Fallujah, so they said "fuck it" and treated everyone as combatants.
In this article Italian Satellite TV to Broadcast Evidence of US Use of Chemical Weapons on Civilians
wildernessguru points out they are confused about the differences between conventional, unconventional, and chemical weapons. He understands why they're mixing up their terminology -- it's a left-leaning article -- but he has some corrections:Unconventional weapons - usually means things like nuclear weapons
Conventional weapons - mortar shells, artillery, etc.
Chemical weapons - gas weapons, such as mustard gas.
Biological weapons - things like anthrax
Both White Phospherous and Napalm are conventional weapons. In fact, all bombs have chemicals in them. That's how they explode.
White Phospherous
White Phospherous is used in mortar bombs, howitzer rounds, artillery shells, and WP bombs. It's also used in unguided rockets as a warhead.
At night it's used for illumination, particularly with aircraft for target marking, where you shoot a rocket at a target -- then the warhead explodes and gives off a lot of smoke and light. The pilot can then follow up with high explosive ordinance or what-have-you.
It's normal to use white phospherous. WG wonders if they used WP as a cluster bomb in Fallujah? Or possibly set it up as an airburst weapon (where it just explodes in the air and rains down)? He says as far as he knows all WP bombs are completely indescriminate, i.e., unguided = freefall = civilian casualities (especially in a built-up neighborhood. WG quote: "fuckin' A... That's outrageous.")
The injuries they describe sound like they could have come from the heat of white phospherous. (Anyone hit directly would have been incinerated.) That's likely why there were burns without burning their clothes. WP is magnesium-based and burns super-hot, then goes out in a second.
Why White Phospherous and not HE (high explosives)
wildernessguru says that choice of white phospherous bombs over high explosives is a cagey one. They can use a lot more of it because WP leaves buildings standing: most of the structures in Fallujah would be made of plaster and other materials WP doesn't burn. That's one reason to use napalm as well. If the US military had used traditional high explosives, Fallujah would be flattened. MK77 Napalm
wildernessguru is much more shocked at the possibility they'd use napalm in a civilian neighborhood. (If they did. He's not entirely convinced that it happened since Italy's president is desperate to be re-elected and the biggest obstacle to his campaign is his former support of the war in Iraq.) The trouble with documenting the use of napalm is that you have to actually see it dropped. It doesn't damage buildings the way normal high explosives do.
Napalm is a completely indescriminate weapon. The description of MK77 from fas.org (Federation of American Scientists: Military Analysis Network):
The containers of napalm bomber are very light and fabricated of aluminum, with a capacity for about 75 gallons of combustible gel. They lack stabilizing fins, and consequently acquire a tumbling motion on being dropped that contributes to the scattering of the combustible gel over a wide area.
If used around civilians there is no possible way to avoid high innocent casualties. WG: "If they used napalm, whoever gave that order should be shot."
The article here emphasizes white phospherous and downplays the use of MK77, so I'm not convinced napalm was used or if the military is just accused of using it. Either way, WG suspects that the US military was unable to sort the civilians from the insurgents in Fallujah, so they said "fuck it" and treated everyone as combatants.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-08 11:44 pm (UTC)Either way, thanks for posting and for the links!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-08 11:48 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 12:07 am (UTC)But, thank you again (and WG as well!) for the information. It's very helpful to have the terminology straightened out for me.
Teh board is the official FOX messageboard for Firefly. It's at http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly, if you're interested. Lots and lots (and lots) of political, philosophical, religious and other discussions happening in the OffTopic section. Very opinionated but mostly civil regulars, too, which is nice. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 01:35 am (UTC)Though I would clip and post the quote from WG on the distinction between the various types of weapons in a nutshell (conventional, unconventional, chemical, biological). www.fas.com is designed for people who already know the basics and there aren't any pithy summations like that.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:49 am (UTC)This clarifies a great deal. No mention is made of the use of MK77. The US was dropping WP bombs. They claim to be using as smoke for cover to which both the Army Specialist (and
It's clear that Army Specialist knows he's bluring the line between "chemical weapons" and "conventional weapons." He quotes the Geneva convention's definition and it seems to be broader than the standard military definition of chemical weapon.
He clarifies that the WP bombs are chemical weapons in that WP is indiscriminate: the US military knew there would have to be lots of civilian casualties, based on the nature of the weapon.
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-08 11:50 pm (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 02:06 am (UTC)Fucking war.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:59 am (UTC)What they dropped was white phosphorous bombs. The effects are:
And what we watched through this documentary are the color close-ups of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, again, clothes remaining largely intact, but skin dissolved or caramelized or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
The weapon is indiscriminate, as WG said, definitely one that will effect a large number of civilians.
WG looked up the figures and there were 30-50,000 civilians in Fallujah, with 3,000 insurgents.
The "is WP a chemical weapon" debate is immaterial. The weapon is horrific. It was clearly used on everyone in Fallujah, civilian or not (and based on the numbers, more likely to hit civilians than insurgents).
Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:46 am (UTC)Makes me wonder why they needed all those weapons in the first place if they didn't even go there.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 09:51 am (UTC)Icarus
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 10:03 am (UTC):|
no subject
Date: 2005-11-09 10:23 am (UTC)