Conventional vs. Unconventional vs. Chemical weapons.

[icarus]

If 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 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.

Comments

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yeah.