2nd Gear
My selfishness does allow me to rejoice at the huge drop in gas prices in the past few weeks. 
every cloud has a silver lining! 
(Still friggin expensive here though)
(Still friggin expensive here though)
1st Gear
Much can be learned from Hitler and the people around him:
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Hermann Göring
Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
ORIGINAL: Hermann Göring
Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
In wich country are the citizens told they're being attacked, and critics denounced as unpatriotic?
In the US... To a degree.
Senior Member
A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. People read one little item, and think they know it all.
OK, for straightening out a few little issues here...
1) WP has always been, and still is, a perfectly legitimate weapon, with a long history of battlefield use. It's certainly nasty stuff, but doesn't kill you any deader than HE/Frag.
2) US doctrinal use, as mentioned before, is for target marking and screening purposes. Illum is possible, I guess, but I was never taught that one. That something is doctrine, however, does not prohibit non-doctrinal use, as long as no legal prohibitions are broken. As stated before, there are no prohibitions, either that the US is a signatory to or not, against the use of incendiary munitions, with certain restrictions. These are "No air delivery of incendiaries in civilian areas". (i.e, they want to avoid re-runs of Dresden/Tokyo). And 'No attacks of any sort where civilians are the object of the attack'. This is common sense, and also covered by the Geneva Convention. The rules do specifically authorise the use of incendiaries in a civilian environment when there is a valid military target. Such as a bunch of insurgents in a house.
3) With reference to the 1995 report cited a few pages back,
I refer you to NATO Manual FM 8-285: TREATMENT OF CHEMICAL AGENT CASUALTIES AND CONVENTIONAL MILITARY CHEMICAL INJURIES
WP is categorised as a Conventional Military Chemical (legal), but not a Chemical Agent (Evil). The curse of similar sounding names.
At the risk of going into details, from Chapter 8, Smokes: (Chapter 7 is `irritants` like tear gas, and WP doesn`t even make it into that section)
"Field concentrations of the smoke may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.
Treatment. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid. For treatment of thermal injury due to large particles of burning WP, see paragraph 9-4 b.
Prognosis. No permanent injury results from exposure to WP smoke.
It should be noted that the Part Two of the FM (Conventional Military Chemicals) also covers such things as vehicle exhaust fumes, sewer fumes and ammonia from industrial accidents, which lets you know how 'evil' the Powers That Are consider WP fumes.
I believe the main focus of the charge is the use of weapons against the Kurdish Populace, more than the exact nature of the weapons.
The main mistake the US made was that some spokesman who wouldn't know a HE mortar bomb from an artillery illum shell got caught unprepared by the pointed question and made an uninformed statement instead of referring the question to those who actually knew something about the situation.
NTM
OK, for straightening out a few little issues here...
1) WP has always been, and still is, a perfectly legitimate weapon, with a long history of battlefield use. It's certainly nasty stuff, but doesn't kill you any deader than HE/Frag.
2) US doctrinal use, as mentioned before, is for target marking and screening purposes. Illum is possible, I guess, but I was never taught that one. That something is doctrine, however, does not prohibit non-doctrinal use, as long as no legal prohibitions are broken. As stated before, there are no prohibitions, either that the US is a signatory to or not, against the use of incendiary munitions, with certain restrictions. These are "No air delivery of incendiaries in civilian areas". (i.e, they want to avoid re-runs of Dresden/Tokyo). And 'No attacks of any sort where civilians are the object of the attack'. This is common sense, and also covered by the Geneva Convention. The rules do specifically authorise the use of incendiaries in a civilian environment when there is a valid military target. Such as a bunch of insurgents in a house.
3) With reference to the 1995 report cited a few pages back,
Quote:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS
I refer you to NATO Manual FM 8-285: TREATMENT OF CHEMICAL AGENT CASUALTIES AND CONVENTIONAL MILITARY CHEMICAL INJURIES
WP is categorised as a Conventional Military Chemical (legal), but not a Chemical Agent (Evil). The curse of similar sounding names.
At the risk of going into details, from Chapter 8, Smokes: (Chapter 7 is `irritants` like tear gas, and WP doesn`t even make it into that section)
"Field concentrations of the smoke may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.
Treatment. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid. For treatment of thermal injury due to large particles of burning WP, see paragraph 9-4 b.
Prognosis. No permanent injury results from exposure to WP smoke.
It should be noted that the Part Two of the FM (Conventional Military Chemicals) also covers such things as vehicle exhaust fumes, sewer fumes and ammonia from industrial accidents, which lets you know how 'evil' the Powers That Are consider WP fumes.
I believe the main focus of the charge is the use of weapons against the Kurdish Populace, more than the exact nature of the weapons.
The main mistake the US made was that some spokesman who wouldn't know a HE mortar bomb from an artillery illum shell got caught unprepared by the pointed question and made an uninformed statement instead of referring the question to those who actually knew something about the situation.
NTM
ok.. back to this.. So where does this leave WP as stated in the US military 'Battle book' which reads...
US Command and General Staff College.
Fort leavenworth
kansas
Battle book.. Check chapter 5, on the use of Fire support. As has been said, WP may be used for smokescreens, etc, but not against personell. this is the issue, not whether it is OK to use as a smokescreen, etc
So who is right? Or has there been a subtle change after the US decided it wanted to use it?
As for WP not being nasty, and requiring no mediacl treatment...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nitions/wp.htm
It says...
Quote:
4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.
This is from 4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.
US Command and General Staff College.
Fort leavenworth
kansas
Battle book.. Check chapter 5, on the use of Fire support. As has been said, WP may be used for smokescreens, etc, but not against personell. this is the issue, not whether it is OK to use as a smokescreen, etc
So who is right? Or has there been a subtle change after the US decided it wanted to use it?
As for WP not being nasty, and requiring no mediacl treatment...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nitions/wp.htm
It says...
Quote:
White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.
Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.
Some nations recommend washing the skin with a 0.5-2.0% copper sulphate solution or a copper sulphate impregnated pad. Wounds may be rinsed with a 0.1%-0.2% copper sulphate solution, if available. Dark coloured deposits may be removed with forceps. Prevent prolonged contact of any copper sulphate preparations with the tissues by prompt, copious flushing with water or saline, as there is a definite danger of copper poisoning. It may be necessary to repeat the first aid measures to completely remove all phosphorus.
yup... Nowhere near teargas is WP... it can be used as an incediary as well... no harm there then...White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.
Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.
Some nations recommend washing the skin with a 0.5-2.0% copper sulphate solution or a copper sulphate impregnated pad. Wounds may be rinsed with a 0.1%-0.2% copper sulphate solution, if available. Dark coloured deposits may be removed with forceps. Prevent prolonged contact of any copper sulphate preparations with the tissues by prompt, copious flushing with water or saline, as there is a definite danger of copper poisoning. It may be necessary to repeat the first aid measures to completely remove all phosphorus.
Senior Member
ORIGINAL: Toff_the_Toffee
ok.. back to this.. So where does this leave WP as stated in the US military 'Battle book' which reads...
Unfortunately, and to the embarassment of Ft Leavenworth, it leaves it as wrong. It's amazing how many 'urban legends' have reached official codification status, even among the Army's schools. For example, an almost identical quote can be made about the use of the .50 cal machinegun: The urban legend says that you can use it against equipment, not people. (So aim at helmets, body armour, ammo pouches...). This is utter codswallop, but is still occasionally taught. For the WP case here, a similar claim is made, but so far nobody, even those with an axe to grind, have actually come up with a citation of where it actually is illegal. This includes FM 27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare), which specifically mentions that weapons which use fire (eg tracer, incendiary, napalm) are not illegal for use against personnel. I should add that an FM has the force of military law behind it (It's issued 'by order of the Secretary of the Army'), whislt the Student Text in question is a local publication put out by the schoolhouse.
Just to be sure, I also spent an hour rooting around the 6-series FMs (Artillery), and while I found nice big warnings about illegal use of nukes, and interesting data on mixing WP with other rounds depending on required effect, it seems that Ft Sill doesn't have an objection to the use of WP in a general way either.
I will wager that the Command and Staff college will be revisiting that chapter in light of current events.
As for WP not being nasty, and requiring no mediacl treatment...
Now, now. Don't misquote me. You will note that my point 1 stated 'it is nasty stuff'. And it certainly requires medical treatment if the stuff lands on you, it burns. A lot. I quoted the effects of the fumes/smoke that a lot of people are claiming is poisonous and kills people. (Indeed, the FM extract cited refers to a different chapter for the treatment of the burn injuries caused by WP)
NTM
ok.. back to this.. So where does this leave WP as stated in the US military 'Battle book' which reads...
Unfortunately, and to the embarassment of Ft Leavenworth, it leaves it as wrong. It's amazing how many 'urban legends' have reached official codification status, even among the Army's schools. For example, an almost identical quote can be made about the use of the .50 cal machinegun: The urban legend says that you can use it against equipment, not people. (So aim at helmets, body armour, ammo pouches...). This is utter codswallop, but is still occasionally taught. For the WP case here, a similar claim is made, but so far nobody, even those with an axe to grind, have actually come up with a citation of where it actually is illegal. This includes FM 27-10 (The Law of Land Warfare), which specifically mentions that weapons which use fire (eg tracer, incendiary, napalm) are not illegal for use against personnel. I should add that an FM has the force of military law behind it (It's issued 'by order of the Secretary of the Army'), whislt the Student Text in question is a local publication put out by the schoolhouse.
Just to be sure, I also spent an hour rooting around the 6-series FMs (Artillery), and while I found nice big warnings about illegal use of nukes, and interesting data on mixing WP with other rounds depending on required effect, it seems that Ft Sill doesn't have an objection to the use of WP in a general way either.
I will wager that the Command and Staff college will be revisiting that chapter in light of current events.
As for WP not being nasty, and requiring no mediacl treatment...
Now, now. Don't misquote me. You will note that my point 1 stated 'it is nasty stuff'. And it certainly requires medical treatment if the stuff lands on you, it burns. A lot. I quoted the effects of the fumes/smoke that a lot of people are claiming is poisonous and kills people. (Indeed, the FM extract cited refers to a different chapter for the treatment of the burn injuries caused by WP)
NTM
2nd Gear
If the conversation keeps up like this, I think I may be ready to attend a military promotion board. [&o]