Comments for Newly Declassified Data Reveals Insurgent Use of White Posphorus

Newly Declassified Data Reveals Insurgent Use of White Posphorus

2009-05-11T16:42:11Z

Posted by David M for The Armorer

COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE- 101 out of Bagram, Afghanistan has released information indicating that they believe that the Taliban have been using White Phosphorus munitions that they have been stockpiling.

Via a CJTF-101 Press Release
RELEASE # 002

Declassified data reveals insurgent use of white phosphorus

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (May 11, 2009) – Today, CJTF-101 has declassified a report of 38 events in which insurgents have used or stockpiled white phosphorus munitions in the Regional Command-East area of operations.

The declassification and release are in response to claims that insurgents do not use, nor have access to, white phosphorus.

The data, obtained from incident reporting from February 2003 through the present, show that insurgents have stockpiled and used white phosphorus against personnel in both indirect fire attacks as well as Improvised Explosive Devices.

ISAF and Coalition forces use white phosphorus in compliance with rules of engagement and international law.

White phosphorus is employed for obscuration, marking targets, illumination, as well as destruction of unoccupied bunkers, buildings and weapons systems, and the destruction of otherwise flammable materials such as ammo and petroleum products.

It is used as a smoke-producing agent common to the arsenals of many nations, and is classified as conventional ordnance. It is not designed for use against personnel and is neither an incendiary weapon nor a chemical weapon.

CJTF-101 reports that within the Regional Command - East the means of white phosphorus use and access by insurgents can be identified in three way:

1) improvised explosive devices,
2) indirect fire attacks, and
3) ordnance caches or UXO

Since 2003 reports indicate that the enemy has stockpiled and used white phosphorus in attacks as recently as the week of May 4, 2009.

...It should also be noted that these instances have occurred in nearly every province in RC-East, which demonstrates the wide availability of white phosphorus to insurgents. Finally, it is important to note that insurgent stockpiles do not necessarily derive from old Soviet-era left-behind stocks; the white phosphorus munitions found in these 38 events have their origins in a wide range of countries. Also, the vast majority of white phosphorus rounds found in listed caches were determined to be in serviceable condition...

Via a declassified public release by the CJ2-Foreign Disclosure Office:]]> 1. Improvised Explosive Devices using White Phosphorus:
(U) 1.1 On 5 FEB 2009, an ISAF unit observed a white phosphorus detonation, determined to be a 107mm WP rocket IED, near a civilian district center in Sabari District, Khost province.
(U) 1.2 On 15 SEP 2008, an ISAF patrol conducting road clearance discovered an IED rigged with one 120mm white phosphorus round, in the Sabari District of Khost province.
(U) 1.3 In MAR 2008, an ISAF convoy in Mandozai District, Khost province, was struck by a vehicular suicide IED, wounding one service member and one local national. Investigators later determined that the IED charge contained both white phosphorus and high explosives.
(U) 1.4 On 9 FEB 2008, a white phosphorus round exploded in the vicinity of an ISAF forward operating base, in Behsood District, Nangarhar province.
(U) 1.5 On 10 JAN 2008, an ISAF EOD team destroyed a Russian 122mm white phosphorus round placed in the vicinity of an ISAF forward operating base in Nader Shah Kwot District, Khost province.
(U) 1.6 On 1 DEC 2007, Coalition forces on patrol discovered an 81mm white phosphorus mortar round set in the vicinity of a convoy in Waza Khwa District, Paktika province.
(U) 1.7 On 23 MAR 07, an ISAF EOD team discovered and defused a 122mm white phosphorus mortar round emplaced on the side of a road in Gardez District, Paktya province.

2. Indirect Fire Attacks using White Phosphorus:
(U) 2.1 On 7 MAY 2009, an ISAF outpost reported receiving two rounds of indirect white phosphorus fire, in Charkh District, Logar province.
(U) 2.2 On 11 AUG 2008, ISAF forces on patrol located a 107mm white phosphorus rocket tube that insurgents had prepositioned to fire in the direction of a nearby ISAF forward operating base in Goshta District, Nangarhar province.
(U) 2.3 On 28 JUN 2008, insurgents fired a white phosphorus rocket at an ISAF outpost in Bermel District, Paktika province.
(U) 2.4 On 4 JAN 2008, insurgents fired nine white phosphorus rounds at an ISAF forward operating base in Darreh-ye Pich District, Kunar province.
(U) 2.5 On 21 NOV 2007, insurgents fired at least one white phosphorus rocket at an ISAF forward operating base in Zadran District, Paktya province.
(U) 2.6 On 2 OCT 2007, insurgents fired two 107mm white phosphorus rockets at an ISAF forward operating base in Gelan District, Ghazni province.
(U) 2.7 On 4 AUG 2007, insurgents launched an indirect fire attack on an ISAF outpost, using HE and white phosphorus rounds in Dara Pech District, Kunar province.
(U) 2.8 On 25 MAY 2007, an insurgent mortar team fired two white phosphorus rounds at an ISAF bridge construction site in the Darreh-ye Pich District, Konar province.
(U) 2.9 On 25 MAY 2007, insurgents bombarded an ISAF outpost with 10 rounds of white phosphorus, in Darreh-ye Pich District, Kunar province.
(U) 2.10 On 13 MAY 2007, insurgents fired five white phosphorus mortar rounds at an ISAF outpost in Chawki District, Kunar province.
(U) 2.11 On 11 APR 2007, insurgents fired five white phosphorus mortar rounds at an Afghan National Army compound in Watah Pur District, Konar province.
(U) 2.12 On 26 MAR 2004, Afghan locals intercepted and drove off an insurgent mortar team setting up a group of rockets in the vicinity of an ISAF forward operating base. Coalition responders later destroyed the rockets, including one white phosphorus round, in Khost District of Khost province.

3. Insurgent Caches and UXO Finds of White Phosphorus:
(U) 3.1 On 20 JAN 2009, ISAF troops discovered a diverse weapons and ammunition cache that included three 82mm white phosphorus mortar rounds, in Chowreh District, Oruzgan province.
(U) 3.2 On 24 NOV 2008, an ISAF EOD team located and collected a weapons cache including two 107mm white phosphorus rockets, in Pol-e ‘alam District, Logar province.
(U) 3.3 On 06 JAN 07, an ISAF patrol detected and destroyed an unexploded ordnance find that included one 122mm white phosphorus round in Terezai District, Khost province.
(U) 3.4 On 27 OCT 2006, an ISAF EOD team found a major ordnance cache that included six 122mm white phosphorus rounds in Bagram District, Parwan province.
(U) 3.5 On 23 DEC 2005, a Coalition unit discovered a sizable cache of ammunition and ordnance, including six 82mm white phosphorus mortar rounds, in Kohe Safi District, Parwan province.
(U) 3.6 On 12 DEC 2005, Afghan National Police found a cached mortar assembly, including one white phosphorus round, in Jaguri District, Ghazni province.
(U) 3.7 On 9 JUL 2005, an ISAF unit discovered hundreds of rounds of cached ordnance, including 27 rounds of 82mm white phosphorus mortar ammunition, in Qalandar District, Khost province.
(U) 3.8 On 26 MAR 2005, an Afghan National Police patrol reported a cache of various munitions, which ISAF responders identified and removed, including one 82mm white phosphorus mortar round, in Jalrez District, Wardak province.
(U) 3.9 On 19 MAR 2005, an ISAF unit found a cache of ordnance and IED-making materials including five 82mm white phosphorus mortar rounds, in Sharana District, Paktika province.
(U) 3.10 On 13 MAR 2005, Coalition troops discovered a cache of various ordnance including one 82mm white phosphorus round in Shahid E-Hassas District, Oruzgan province.
(U) 3.11 On 12 MAR 2005, local nationals led an ISAF unit to a cache of ordnance, including eight 107mm white phosphorus rockets, in Mosa Khail District, Khost province.
(U) 3.12 On 19 FEB 2005, an ISAF unit received a tip of a weapons cache in Khogyani District, Nangarhar province. The search revealed IED-making materials as well as two 82mm white phosphorus rounds.
(U) 3.13 On 1 OCT 2004, an ISAF unit discovered an ordnance cache containing an 82mm white phosphorus mortar round and other munitions of Chinese, Russian, Iranian, British origin, in Waza Khwa District, Paktika province.
(U) 3.14 On 13 SEP 2004, an ISAF unit located a cache of ordnance and weapons of various origin, including one round of Russian white phosphorus mortar ammunition, in Orgun District, Paktika province.
(U) 3.15 On 24 MAY 2004, an ISAF unit discovered an ordnance cache that included one 81mm and two 122mm white phosphorus rounds, in Zarghunshahr District, Paktika province.
(U) 3.16 On 5 APR 2004, an ISAF EOD team destroyed multiple weapons caches that included four white phosphorus rounds of various national origin, in Sarowbi District, Kabul province.
(U) 3.17 On 15 MAR 2004, Afghan security forces led ISAF troops to a large cache containing several hundred rounds of ordnance, including six 107mm white phosphorus rounds, in Qareh Bagh District, Ghazni province.
(U) 3.18 On 22 APR 2003, Coalition personnel located an ordnance cache that included four 82mm white phosphorus mortar rounds in Khar Konar District, Konar province.
(U) 3.19 On 6 FEB 2003, ISAF units, following a local tip, destroyed a 107mm white phosphorus rocket found in Bermel District, Paktika province.

Comment from Yu-Ain Gonnano on 2009-05-15

2009-05-15T17:44:28Z

That's a touch broad, Argent. By that reasoning flaming charcoal could be called a 'chemical weapon' since the flames involved would react with the skin.

Exactly. It's no different that a fuel/air bomb. Only the WP provides it's own ignition as the reaction with O2 (not flesh) is exothermic. But WP, like gasoline, does not react with the person. It combusts.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-15

2009-05-15T05:19:55Z

It was carbonic which was the first antiseptic used in surgury wasn't it? No not complete bunkus just mostly bunkus as Bill points out with the volume. One also wonders how much buffering there is in seawater especially including the solid contact layer and particulates. Of course if CO2 levels are rising that implies quite a lot has been absorbed by the seas already.

Pyrophoric? I don't know about spontaneous. I'd say it's rather induced.

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T04:40:53Z

Ooop -- my bad. Not pyroclastic, pyrophoric.

It's been a long day...

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T04:37:00Z

Which is why it isn't purely bunkus when people talk about acidification of the seas via greenhouse gas emmissions.

True. However, you'd need to set the entire land mass of the world ablaze to change the overall pH of the oceans to the point where you'd kick it a single tenth of a percent. Not that anyone would be left alive to measure it...

Comment from BillT on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T04:26:56Z

I mean, really, a tungsten rod fired into a tank would generate a mist of essentailly plasma that'd melt the skin and lungs of the occupants. But that's not a chemical weapon.

Nup. It initiates a pyroclastic reaction that sets the air inside the tank ablaze.

Along with the crew.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T03:51:57Z

(H-(C=O)-O-OH) That carbonyl. I messed it up. That's not carbonic acid. That's something that can't really exist, I don't think, at least not for long. The electron distribution is way funky in ways I don't think would allow for it to exist. That's some kinda per-oxide or ester transition specie. Been too long and I was in the sun too long today. I forgets which.

It should be H-(C=O)-OH. Y'know, carbonic acid.
I mean, who knew that water and CO2 were lewis acid/base pairs, huh? Which is why it isn't purely bunkus when people talk about acidification of the seas via greenhouse gas emmissions. LeChaltier principle my friends. Add reactants or products to one side of the equation and you shift the equation proportionally in the opposite direction to maintain the equilibrium. Pump a butt load of CO2 into the air and you're bound, physically bound mind you, to change the pH of standing bodies of water much the same way you'd change the acidity of a glass of water in a chamber maintained at 1atm in which you up the CO2 content.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T03:41:27Z

No, just writing on the fly after working outside for 8 hours a day for a week straight. Not as sharp as I should be, I guess. Plasma it would be. Not sure if it would classify as a mist or not, probably not now that I really think about it.

But, I thought playing with powdered charcoal would be funny. As would finely chapped and dispersed *flour*. Both would 'render the fat'(i.e. react with lipids---aka fatty acids---in a combustion type reaction selectively, meaning they'd react with the oils on your skin far more readily than, say, wood). But both would still, at base, be nothing more than a single reaction---- combustion---- with flames and flaming debris.

I'm sensing that 'chemical action' is being insisted upon as making something a chemical weapon. You know, let's quit fraking around with this. Lets ask The Expert. Where's Jason Sigger(the Armchair Generalist) when you bloody needs him. This is his balliwick (and what he does for eating money) after all. I'm guessing he'll say not, but that's just a feeling.

And, as for spanking, DUDE?!?!?!?!?

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T03:21:17Z

Ry I should spank you all the way to Antarctica for making such a mistake with your education or are you just playing semantics on trace elements in coal or common English understanding? Or did you not read what was written properly?

But you are right an official definition would serve well. the one you provided basically says toxic but they leave the definition of toxic alone. It's all very vague indeed yet most people know the difference between a chemical and a conventional weapon.

Coal dust is also an explosive hazard. And a laundry hazard. And a skin allergy hazard. And a computer hazard. Even with precautions I've breathed in far more than I like and I was more stringent than most.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T02:36:32Z

That's a touch broad, Argent. By that reasoning flaming charcoal could be called a 'chemical weapon' since the flames involved would react with the skin. Not to mention the dust is an inhilation hazard(heh, powdered charcoal, funny).

It burns.

But, that's *not* what a chemical weapon is. Let's go with the definition from the people wanting to ban all chemical weapons. http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon

I mean, really, a tungsten rod fired into a tank would generate a mist of essentailly plasma that'd melt the skin and lungs of the occupants. But that's not a chemical weapon.

Let's not make up def'n when one already exists.

WP doesn't really fit the categories provided by OPCW, at all.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T01:50:03Z

Most conventional weapon's action on targets is about physical disruption by heat or kinetic forces. Such forces may be created by chemical reactions but the reaction does not directly affect the target. The heat or force that is made does.

WP is most definitely a chemical weapon if used directly on people and indeed the US charged Saddam with WP use on his own people as a chemical weapon.

Exactly, Argent. Thank you

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-14

2009-05-15T01:12:17Z

Then WP isn't a chemical weapon per your definition as it doesn't directly react with the target.

Yes it does. And yes an API round is for a conventional weapon. You really don't know enough about how these work. I recommend you ask the dudes on here or google about how it all works.

Comment from Yu-Ain Gonnano on 2009-05-14

2009-05-14T18:21:43Z

Chemical weapons have chemicals which react directly with the target to do various things like interfere with biological processes eg by toxicity, protein denaturation and all sorts of other nasty reactions.

Then WP isn't a chemical weapon per your definition as it doesn't directly react with the target.
[I]t's action on targets is about physical disruption by heat which is exactly the same mechanism of action for how API rounds defeat armor: The heat from the chemical reaction burns/melts the armor. If there's not enough armor in front of you to exhaust the burning chemicals, then it gets on you and burns you.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-14

2009-05-14T15:06:35Z

If WP is a chemical weapon because it works by a chemical reaction

Do you really not know the difference between a chemical and a conventional weapon? Weapons are not about the reactions and actions inside (the bomb), it's about the reactions and actions on the targets.

Chemical weapons have chemicals which react directly with the target to do various things like interfere with biological processes eg by toxicity, protein denaturation and all sorts of other nasty reactions.

Most conventional weapon's action on targets is about physical disruption by heat or kinetic forces. Such forces may be created by chemical reactions but the reaction does not directly affect the target. The heat or force that is made does.

WP is most definitely a chemical weapon if used directly on people and indeed the US charged Saddam with WP use on his own people as a chemical weapon.

Comment from Yu-Ain Gonnano on 2009-05-14

2009-05-14T14:11:55Z

WP is chemical weapon; conventional missles and bombs are not.

If WP is a chemical weapon because it works by a chemical reaction, why isn't a bomb which also works by a chemical reaction?

Why aren't the armor piercing incindiary rounds our fighter jets use? They use chemicals to burn through the metal of the aircraft?

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-13

2009-05-14T04:54:24Z

AFSis really it's isn't such a bad thing at all. It's just not possible right now. Which is why war sucks. Humans through religion, science, philosophy, diplomacy etc have poured a lot of effort into avoiding wars and the burns they cause but we have a very very long way to go.

Ry, what carbonyl group? You didn't chew on those squared up bits of paper in college did you?

Comment from ry on 2009-05-13

2009-05-14T03:04:47Z

Again.... I am not differentiating between civilian deaths/injuries versus soldier deaths/injuries. I'd like to avoid burns- ALL burns. Is that such a bad thing?
In that it's a nice thing to wish for? no. In that it's impossible? Yes. Heat is a measure of energy, though often stated in terms of motion. Energy is what kills.

It sucks. But it's not something anyone *can* take away without making some kind of Dr. Manhattan person exploder weapon. Burns will happen. THey suck. They're also part of life, civillian and military.
---
Hey, John, can you edit out the O between the carbonyl group and the hydroxyl? I farked up in that one. That single O shouldn't be there. Ooops.
(Heh. I wents to college.)

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-13

2009-05-14T01:53:17Z

But if we're going to outlaw WP because it burns, that's ugly and painful, do we not then need to consider the other instances where burning is a likely component of a combat outcome?

I guess my main objections to WP centers around the way it burns and how hard it is to extinguish. It accelerates in fatty tissues- it can easily burn right through to the bone. In order to put it out, my understanding is that you have to completely remove the source of air. It "sticks" to whatever it touches, and burns deep. It spontaneously combusts upon contact with oxygen- it needs no other ignition source other than the air.

I know that burns are a part of war, due to explosions. Where do you draw the line between different types if incendiary weapons? To me, I believe the line is drawn between chemical and conventional weapons. WP is chemical weapon; conventional missles and bombs are not.

Comment from Pogue on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T18:14:32Z

One of the difficulties in this kind of discussion is dealing with the lack of common experience. From Johns background the question "How many of my soldiers it is worth not to use this weapon" is not rhetorical. It's a decision that a commander has to be prepared to make and to live with the outcome on a frequent basis. And when it comes to war fighting the "morality" of using any specific weapon system is a questionable arguement - Chemical weapons have been used quite recently by other countries - the fact that we haven't used them is in my opinion more because they're not particularly effective against a modern army since they restrict everyone on the battlefield, not just the enemy. This makes them useful for an underdeveloped advesary, but we have better choices and can afford to live with a no first use policy. Nuclear weapons have their own straegic and political issues but that hasn't prevented us from using them twice and considering their use on occassion since. The point is that every decision that we as a country make on what we are willing to do in a war has an effect on what kind of casualties we are going to take balanced against the options available to us and the potential for "collateral damage". I honestly respect the opinion that we should never use Willie Pete, but from my personal experience set I don't agree with that opinion. That doesn't mean I think anyone holding a different opinion is wrong or is "an idiot", it means we disagree.

Comment from Yu-Ain Gonnano on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T17:28:50Z

AFSis,
it is just NASTY and cruel (Bolding mine).

Cruel: 1. Disposed to give pain to others; willing or pleased to hurt, torment, or afflict; destitute of sympathetic kindness and pity; savage; inhuman; hard-hearted; merciless.

Not exactly a neutral moral reference, that.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T16:44:33Z

What I did say is that it seems like John is seeking some sort of approval from civilians for the use of WP, and I don't approve of it. Too often WP is used for screening purposes, but results in burn injuries or deaths.

John isn't seeking approval. As of the moment, the use of WP as I have laid it out is legal and, I believe, moral, and, as I said, I would use it.

I was reacting to what I saw as an argument being put forth to put further limits, beyond those already imposed on it's use, for what I see as mostly emotional reasons.

Emotional reasons aren't bad in and of themselves, but if we're going to use (and we do) that as a factor, we need also to consider other factors and weigh them, as well.

And we need to understand the full spectrum of it, which is something I see as missing in a lot of these kinds of discussions.

If we, collectively, choose to say "categorically cannot use WP in any fashion where it might land on humans, including combatants," okay. We make that a rule. But we should make that decision based on a full understanding of the consequences. And we may well find that the positives outweigh the negatives, if we take a broad enough view.

But if we're going to outlaw WP because it burns, that's ugly and painful, do we not then need to consider the other instances where burning is a likely component of a combat outcome?

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T16:19:03Z

Yu-Ain-
I do understand what you're saying, with the fry-daddy deal. I don't know what I would do, to be honest. But please tell me when and where I said, or even implied, that John is a scumbag? What I did say is that it seems like John is seeking some sort of approval from civilians for the use of WP, and I don't approve of it. Too often WP is used for screening purposes, but results in burn injuries or deaths. I have a personal problem with that. It is just my opinion though- but that opinion runs pretty deeply in the civilian world. Just look at the outcry over the use of WP in the Gaza Strip recently. In general, the public does NOT like this weapon.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T15:56:57Z

Oh, Argent - I guess I just assumed, wrongly, that it was obvious.

If I felt it appropriate, I'd use WP for the intended and allowable purposes.

But I'd only target people (combatants) if I couldn't achieve my objective with other easy-to-hand means.

But, in a sense, especially in a war like this one, I'm going to use the methods that inflict the least damage consistent with force protection requirements, even if it includes accepting some risk.

But I want the full array available, and if people are going to take away legal means from me, I want to make sure they understand the potential consequences.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T15:21:42Z

Um, I'm sorry if what I said came off as an attack on individuals, I actually was trying to avoid that. I was trying to to what Ya-ain says, in terms of getting across the idea that if you are going to impose constraints, then you've got to understand the trade-offs.

And if the sense of the attack comes on the "feels icky" comments, well, again, the point is we're talking about banning something (actually, further limiting it's use is more accurate, ala Argent's points) again, I'm trying to point out we're talking about doing that based on our perception of something, while not considering the whole picture.

We're having an argument that parallels a lot of people's discussion of torture.

Comment from Yu-Ain Gonnano on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T14:52:29Z

AFSis,
Let's turn this around a bit.

A man has been threatening you and your children with unspeakable horrors. You have obtained a restraining order. He demonstrates the worth of that peice of paper by completely ignoring it and breaks into your house. You're in your kitchen but the only weapon you can reach in time is the FryDaddy. Do you:

1) Throw the hot oil at him and burn him
2) Try to reach another weapon, but fail, thus meaning that you and your children die.

This is a choice that you, and you alone, have to make. The consequences are something you and your children have to live with. I will not fault you for whatever decision you come to. There are some things that a person is simply incapabable of doing.

But please don't fault me for making a different choice. Personally, I would use the oil even if it were only the first weapon handy and not just the only one. I will defend myself, my child(ren), and those under my care by any means available. No matter how icky that may be. And I would not take kindly, either, to the implication that such action is improper.

And that is where John is coming from on his questions of trade-offs. If you are going to take option #1 off the table, you had better be able to live with option #2. You simply cannot take the position that John is a scumbag for taking option #1 and then say he is also a scumbag for option #2 as well. You've told him that no matter what he does he *cannot win*. And you expect him to be cool with that?

The simple truth is that while you can outsource the job you can't outsource the responsibility. *That* you keep.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T13:54:06Z

You want to be "enlighted" by civilians... but that's not really what you want, is it, John. You're seeking approval that will not come.
Rulez, peoplez.

There was no violation of the rulez. Quite the contrary. John asked for help balancing public opinion against military efficiency. Argent and I, both being civilians, told him what our opinion was on the matter, and he blasted both of us for it and basically called us both idiots because of our opinions. THAT is a violation of the rulez.

Again.... I am not differentiating between civilian deaths/injuries versus soldier deaths/injuries. I'd like to avoid burns- ALL burns. Is that such a bad thing?

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T13:13:33Z

In one sense war being so ugly is a good thing. Encourages us to do it less often you know.

Actually John if someone binds you to never use WP, you still own the decison and consequences because you carry it out. Far more than an individual acting inside a collective which actually has the power to make such ruling upon you. This too is hard reality. I get the feeling there is something personally significant to you about this kind of responsibility.

He *has* given you his selection reasons, Argent.

Well Ry that's nice but I haven't noticed it. I've seen John put forth vaguely the position of the US and what he would be required to do as a commander but nothing of his own stance and more specifically how he would answer his own question.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-13

2009-05-13T11:57:17Z

Heh.

Ry gets it, I'm thinking.

The Conventions do not make it illegal to kill civilians. They make it illegal to make killing civilians the focus of your attack, and yes, that's a direct aim at the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII.

The people who built the conventions recognized that if they made killing civilians totally taboo, then Bad Guys would simply adopt the Saddam, AQI, Taliban (and Serbian, for that matter) approach of using civilians as shields and cultural icons as depots and fighting positions to both strive for immunity and to have I/O weapons. And, because this was is not an existential one for our side, they have succeeded, too.

The Conventions allow that if a combatant turns a protected site into a valid military target, then... it's a valid military target.

The Conventions require a utillity and proportionality test when attacking targets where there is a likelihood of significant civilian casualties.

But both are allowable.

The question about "How many US soldier deaths will be an acceptable tradeoff" was really more rhetorical, precisely because of the objections to it Ry raised. The point was more of "If you are going to wave your magic wand and remove a class of weapons or their employment and put restrictions on me, well and good - here are some trade-offs, do you find them acceptable?" Because if you're going to bound me - you are going to get to own the decision and the consequences, and I want you to own them explicitly.

Ry's logic, as applied in this war, is defendable. But too many people just want to hand wave away something that makes them uncomfortable, and then will come back at me when the chickens come home to roost and and hold me responsible, accepting none on their own.

AFSis - sorry you feel the way you do, but burns are a part of war, at least any war that employs chemicals. In this case, explosives.

Ask Chuck Z is he had any burns from his IED experience. We get a *lot* of flash burns from IEDs. We get a lot of burns when vehicles blow up. We get burns when aircraft are shot down.

When I shoot an APFSDS long rod penetrator at a tank, much less a shaped-charge round of any type - and there is a crewman standing in a hatch - I'm probably burning at least one of them, probably to death. The guys on the inside might die of concussion or spalling, but a guy in hatch is just as likely to burn as anything else.

I understand your objection on an emotional level. But I don't accept it at the practical level.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T03:26:22Z

More specifically since I think he *does* have selection reasons I want him to show his cards. After all he's demanding to see mine.
I see where the problem is. He *has* given you his selection reasons, Argent. He already has. 1) What's the mission and is it applicable to success of that mission. 2) Is there a problem of legality? 3) What's the cost to his forces if he DOESN"T use?

It's a similar decision tree in selecting patterns for bombardment. Which is why I'm asking where the blind comes from. There's a set of criteria for use of WP. He wouldn't just pick it out of his stores for the fun of it. Even if asked by the eyes forward he could refuse based on the results of his decision tree.

It's all right there. He's laid it out quite nicely, actually. It has to have a purpose, like making the enemy give up a built up position. It'd have to be within the guidance for level of collateral damage(is there a massive civ population in that built up defense? Can casualties be minimized? Would the mission objectives be possible if he refused and the assault went forward? Is the mission possible if he refused and the assaulting force went around?) . Is the protection of civilians charge so inordinate that it's asking his fellow troops to die? He's given a large portion of this out to you, Argent. It is a very tactical or operational viewpoint vice strategic.

So he's turning it back on us, saying 'Okay, Napoleans, what percentage of casualties are you willing to accept in trade of this?" It's a fair question, if overly open ended. I'm trying to turn the question back in 'How many Troopies you willing to get killed so that these five won't die by your use of WP?" while saying nothing about it's use outside of an insurgency/LIC situation. I'd have no problem firing it en masse into the forests of Eastern Europe if Ivan were to have gone that way in an attempt to mitigate US air superiority. Not because Ivan was so terrible, but because it was legal and ethical/moral(how many dead or subjugated Western Euros would be the result of NOT doing it?). There's no question of efficacy in that instance, really. HIC is a very different animal, with different desired outcomes which lend to use of different tactics and strategems. In LIC, well, use of WP, torture, and other things might simply be burning the roof to keep one's self warm against the winter. Different question.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T03:07:47Z

You want to be "enlighted" by civilians... but that's not really what you want, is it, John. You're seeking approval that will not come.
Rulez, peoplez.

I see it far differnt, ZommieSib. John's telling us what, he as resident expert(trully, since he did have to train for delivery of fire missions of this type), knows about the rules and regs...AS THEY EXIST NOW. I don't blame him for being a bit cross about implied arguments that he's a bad person for following the rules, and acting on those implied arguments. Burns suck. Mom worked as a pediatric burn ward nurses aid back in the day. Burns scare her too. But one's personal fears or ickies don't really matter. It's what works(in both a broad and in the narrow cases, which sometimes are in dissonance) that matters. As written, the rules state John's position is both LEGAL and MORAL. I posit that it isn't efficacious, not immoral(unlike torture, which has both a legal/moral element along with the efficiency), and so the use might be examined based on those grounds.

Hell, I've shown you MY burns, AFSIS. Burning bugs me too. But that doesn't make it wrong in a time of war

The rules of conflict are there to keep a lid on things so it doesn't become an all encompasing vortex. They don't say who wins(the underdog, the virtuous, whoever we sympathize with most can all STILL lose according to the rules) and that icky things won't happen(there's no rule about avoiding to set a vehicle- with- ICE fuel on fire. Diesel burns suck too. As do burns from JP-4. So no shooting down planes then, right? Since the pilot might survive long enough to burn.). They try to restrict that which can be and stay hands off of things that cannot be restricted easily or at all.

What I see happening is John telling us how it is, from a practitioners angle while we're questioning his honor in an implicit manner. He's got some leeway in how he replies 'cause of that. THat's fair.

'Cause one can turn this around the other way: you're pissed that he's not accepting your view while you're searching for validation of your view.

Targeting civilians with ANY weapon is against the rules, and we all know that. Your answer does not hold water here, John.
I don't know about that, particularly since he posted the actual statute involved which says different. There's a large number of ethical and legal scenarios where civilian populations are part of the target set. One I know of is the shooting PRC ports to stop an invasion of, say, JPN. Civillians are bound to be there and to die. Yet, it's still moral and legal to do so given what's at stake---the death of Nihon vice a few k of PRC citizens. Civilians can be targeted within a very precise set of circumstances. The arguments over IDF actions the last ten years ought to have elucidated this point quite nicely. So, quite in fact, his argument does hold water.

I just say that it holding water is irrelevant if it costs us more people in the long run.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T02:59:48Z

I not talking about blind use of WP but rather blind selection of the choice in what degree and way to use WP Ry. More specifically since I think he *does* have selection reasons I want him to show his cards. After all he's demanding to see mine.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T02:46:07Z

John I haven't actually put forth my position on WP. So stuffing the words down my throat doesn't do a thing but make you feel better. You want to use WP without consideration. Fine. I think you are selecting blindly.
Selecting blindly? Whoa. I don't see how you get to there at all. He's using the rules *as* they exist under the guidance he was given during his TOS. That's not blindly. He's put what his rubric is on the table, rather implicitly rather than explicitly, and so I think this charge is a bit off, Argent. He's not talking about using it blindly in any sense of the word. He's talking about a use that may or may not be useful in current or useful wars, but that's not choosing blind. It's legal. The rules are rather well established and their meaning has spent 20+ years being argued over so there's little new ground on what the rules mean.

You might wanna take that one back, Argent. Or maybe restate.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T02:33:03Z

Jeez, John... who pissed in your Wheaties?

I oppose the use of incindiary weapons- WP, flame-throwers, incindiary grenades. It's a personal thing, after being to fires and seeing what fire can do to the human body. I cringe when I hear about burn injuries- and do the same when I watch movies with those dramatic full body burn scenes.

Being anti-burn doesn't make me stupid though, John, and I rather resent you trying to paint me as such. I am certainly not ignorant to the fact that ALL weapons can be deadly, and inflict pain and suffering.

But then again, I'm just a civilian, with a civilian's point of view. Of course, I'm also a civilian with military family members, but I have never been a soldier myself. You asked for a civilian take on things... and you've received it. Twice. Your reaction indicates some personal need for approval for the use of these weapons. Have I EVER, and I mean EVER implied that we just bring the troops home from AFG or Iraq just so that our guys stop getting killed? NO. I've gone on the record MANY times stating just the opposite- that we will dishonor those who have already died or suffered terrible injuries if we leave either country before the job is truly done.

You want to be "enlighted" by civilians... but that's not really what you want, is it, John. You're seeking approval that will not come.

Oh, and you totally missed the mark with your reply to Argent's statement:
While we're on the art of smoke and mirrors, your spiel on smoke etc from WP is glossing over the clear difference between using them on people directly and using them to generate smoke flares and other non controversial uses.

Your answer focused on the use of WP on CIVILIANS... yet his comment, and my feelings on the matter, clearly address PEOPLE. ALL people. Not just civilians. Targeting civilians with ANY weapon is against the rules, and we all know that. Your answer does not hold water here, John.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T02:22:40Z

John some people might want a total WP ban but most are only concerned with the direct use on people as an incendiary/chemical weapon. Because it's icky as you say. Rolling it all up as one is trying to make it an all or nothing stance and in this you are mirroring the extreme stance of those who desire a total WP ban.

Military persona and civilian persona is an artificial divide. Ultimately a lie. Actually you are only one John of Argghhh! You might change your behaviour based on your task or you might not agree with what you signed up for but you will do it. You *did* sign up for it all.

John I haven't actually put forth my position on WP. So stuffing the words down my throat doesn't do a thing but make you feel better. You want to use WP without consideration. Fine. I think you are selecting blindly. What is want is the answer to my questions. Let's pretend I am commander. I have to make these decisions. I would see it as my job to find out a few things;

How effective is WP in various situations? Is it more effective to kill the enemy or keep my soldiers safe? How much collateral is there when we use them? How does that collateral translate to waning support at home and support for the enemy? How many of my boys will be casualties for each enemy I fail to bump off? How does this all translate to winning the war? How does it translate to less 9/11s?

It would be my job to know this in order for me to make a smart versus an impulsive or emotional decision. However, I recognise one does not have time to know everything. In such a case I would have to make best judgement from the limited info I had. So here i will step deliberately on your trap. I will decide based on some Aussie with zero military exposure sitting comfy in front of the innertubes. Probably the worst possible choice. Apart from Pelosi. I would choose to allow WP for all smoke and indirect incendiary use. I would allow WP use directly on enemies but not if there were significant risk to civilians or my soldiers. In practice this would be zero perceived risk but we all know perceived only goes so far and the unexpected happens.

To me death behind door number 3 is still death like the death behind door numbers 1 and 2. Which would you like? Which to ban? Does it really matter? The only concern I have with WP is the fact it sits right at the edge of chemical weapons with potential for massive collateral damage if this path is taken.

What I was getting at in the last part which you have evaded is that your idea that the alternatives would be worse is bull. I really think they have been selected simply because it's cheap and I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. Pretending taking WP away means no good smoke and more health problems is not a fantasy I support.

As much as I don't like the biblical compass Oldloadr and fdcol have a very good point about unity I think. Moral unity certainly does make it easier. I think unity has been a central issue for the US. Indeed United is part of the name.

What is the US moral compass on WP use? There's the official level we don't, could never etc and there's the unofficial uses of WP in the ways supposedly banned. It's inconsistent. I think it paints the US as a hypocrite and it generates confusion for the military. It possibly also needlessly restricts them. And as this story shows it's really bad for PR defence.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-12

2009-05-13T02:15:41Z

It's too open ended a question, 'how many you willing to trade?' What's the situation? What're the STATED national goals? What's the value to the nation? Does it put the enemy in a position where his back is up against the wall and feels he has no way out of the war to use some method (employment of WP or torture) that would save Grunt's lives? I know it isn't an easy question, but in a situation like GWOT? I'd say an extra 25%(pulling a number out of the air) annually casualties would be worth the trust and PR it'd buy to bring the war to a faster, successful close.

I mean, it's not THAT different from some people saying any form of social welfare is a step to far, the number of starving and dead be damned, y'know.

I'll put it simply: we knew IJ was up to something, and we could've acted to prevent Pearl from occuring in some much more muscular fashion. They'd been sneaky since the fall of the LoN and we had a good idea what they were up to in China. Was Pearl worth the change in US majority opinion about fighting the Axis powers? I'd say so. 4k casualties. As CPT H would say, homes, context matters. We needed Pearl for the nation to change its mind, otherwise you could've had republicans playing then as the democrats were in Vietnam and currently. What's that outcome look like?

But you do say somethinig I agree with, even though you're being pissy about it(who hid the field shovel? No foxhole to hide in? Oh, this is gonna hurt.): a Grunt view is not the only view that matters or the best view(Krulak giveth and he taketh away, don't he?). Which is why someone once said that war was too important to leave to the generals. At the point when things are done solely by the soldiers belief in what's right you wind up with some pretty messy situations, oftimes. Look at the Western Front as an example where generals cared a ton about purely military issues without caring much at all about others. How'd that turn out?

Is a whole platoon or company dying worth the PR and goodwill to get one step closer to getting out of GWOT with a positive outcome? Fine, I'll be the huckleberry to say it and take all the heat, but, hell yeah. It's not nice to know, but, yeah, if fighting and winning in a more costly manner won the war it'd be worth it, 1000%.

Like Argent said, it comes down to what you're buying. You both are, but you're getting torqued when people are saying a Grunt isn't worth another X days/months/years of conflict. You're too close, homes. Nobody likes to be told that they or their friends and loved ones are expendable, but that's the truth of it. Realpolitik sux.
+++++++++++++++
Loadr, but it's too bad we have the New Testament which kinda says the Old Testament is invalid then, huh? Came along with a rather streamlined set of rules to follow which made things like total war verboten.

I'm not too worried about the children of the enemy(nice strawman though). I'm worried about the length and winability of the war given the choices of tactics and strategy. Aren't we going to lose more over time if we use tactics that in the proximal sense save lives but lengthen the conflict? I think the French have something to say about that from their experiences in Algeria and Indo-China.

And if you're going to talk about kids without mommies and daddies isn't it a clearer, more moral choice, not to send them to war in the first place?

It isn't just the bedwetters who are asking these questions, Loadr. Some of us who want people to come home to their kids are asking 'em too, but for different reasons. Is it efficacious? If not, too bad, you're not allowed to spare a platoon some casualties to lengthen a war by X days/months/years with the attendant US casualties. Sorry, but that's just a dumb trade.

Comment from Blake Kirk on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T19:14:56Z

WRTO John's semi-facetious remark about prohibiting long-rod penetrators, you folks DO know that depleted uranium is rather MORE flammable than magnesium, and is just as difficult to extinguish? At least, the simple machining of magnesium parts does not generate enough heat to ignite the chips/turnings. WIth U238, the turnings often catch fire during dry machining operations.

So, the impact with the target, in addition to stripping away the aluminum streamlining shell around the penetrator, does in fact generate more than enough heat to iginite the uranium metal of the penetrator, which therefore promply bursts into a white-hot flame when it finally encounters oxygen as it energes from the armor on the inside of the target's armor envelope. It's essentially an unintended consequence of selecting depleted uranium as a penetrator material. But since it doesn't really have an adverse effect on the damage done to the target, we tend to ignore the effect.

The crews on the T-72's we've mostly used as targets of late might beg to differ, though.

Comment from Cricket on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T17:21:07Z

Oldloadr,
I think though, that in the Exodus account and the unification of Israel under David was one where there was consensus and there was a moral imperative for wiping out Canaan and the Philistines.(Philistines would be Samson and I fergit who the prophet was at his time) I am speaking strictly as a Christian here, but the Israelites had the prophets Moses and Joshua in purging Canaan, and later, the prophet Nathan to guide their moral compass and ensure unity by understanding what was expected and why. Even though, centuries later, the Revolutionary War was a bunch of subjects, they had a unity of purpose.

Since what I was going to say is tangential to the discussion at hand,that the tradeoff is something all commanders have to face when given guidelines, laws and regulations. While the intent is not to hobble someone in the field, that is exactly what they do...and you know, I am preaching to the choir so I will STHelkUP.

I mean, what is the purpose of giving someone a weapon, and doing your best to make sure you do NOT target civilians, but some do get hurt? Smoke isn't as surgical as artillery.

Sigh.

I ax: If you use a smokescreen and someone gets hurt by that smokescreen (inhaling it or skin contact), can you be accused of using it as a weapon? Isn't it all about intent?

Or am I being thick here?

Comment from Pogue on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T17:04:55Z

That section of Article 2 sure looks like it was talking about LeMay's firebombing raids, particularly the March 9-10 Tokyo raid. Oh yeah, and Dresden.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T15:37:15Z

The link thing happened to mine above, too.

Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T15:32:23Z

John, reading your link above reminded me of problems we had with WP expanding and leaking out of the projectiles in the intense Summer heat in Iraq. Now, these were captured rounds from countries with less than spectacular explosive safety records, however over the long haul, in intense heat, even Western, NATO standard ordnance could start to decompose. Of course, we in the US military have the best trained ordnance technicians in the world so I know they can mitigate (as apparently they have done until now) the situation to keep the end user safe. That said, I refer to my previous post on the employment of the required ordnance to do the job.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T15:04:49Z

I had a link in my long response, which isn't obvious because of the way the template handled the color change.

The link was to the fact that we *are* seeking replacements for red and white phosphorus.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T14:52:18Z

" ... As long as every person is a moral authority unto themselves, we will never have consensus ..."

Exactly. It opens the door for the emergence of anarchy, which is a state of crisis that authoritarians and despots use to gain and exert control over their populations, who turn to these same despots as heros on white horses who can re-establish some sense of order and safety.

Comment from Oldloadr on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T14:40:49Z

I think the moral issue is caused by the fact that we in the western world no longer have a calibrated, standardized moral compass. If we use the entire Bible as our moral compass, then total war is a moral option; check out the war stories in Genesis, as well as David's battles. As long as every person is a moral authority unto themselves, we will never have consensus and we will always have hand-wringing bleeding hearts that are more worried about the children of the enemy then American children that will grow up without their mother/father because of these one-hand-behind-our-back ROE.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T14:39:45Z

Oh I see. Sharp as a bowling ball aren't I? -No comment.

Of course that's the counter meme and it's a favourite to actually do by the intelligence types too. The habitual obfuscation is why no one really trusts intel. What I'm getting at is this reveal doesn't really convince anyone who doesn't already agree with the US. -Can't argue with that, and didn't.

While we're on the art of smoke and mirrors, your spiel on smoke etc from WP is glossing over the clear difference between using them on people directly and using them to generate smoke flares and other non controversial uses.

Well, yes and no, a problem here being I've discussed that elsewhere on the blog and might also be conflating email conversations. It's hard to keep track without spending a lot time keeping notes as to what I've said where. Part of the problem with the whole discussion is that there are a not insignificant number of people saying "shouldn't use it anywhere, for any reason, because it's icky." I'm pointing out legitimate uses, and in those discussions I have allowed for ROE restrictions on employment. Let's take a look at Protocol III

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

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.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Emphases mine.

So, what's that say? It says I can't target civilians, nor employ air delivered weapons on areas likely to contain civilians (meaning I can use other methods, including artillery, as long as, again, I'm not targeting civilians and have no reasonable expectation a large concentration of civilians will be present and that I take precautions to minimize (but I note not completely avoid) the impact on civilians. But I can, in fact, target military personnel, their equipment, and their structures, and I can even burn down their forest if they're hiding in it. I.e., "shake and bake" missions are permissable under the convention, they're just icky. Mind you, we're not signatories to the convention, but I'm willing to posit the applicability if only for argumentation.

Actually you did sign up for nation building. You signed up to follow any lawful order and nation building can be one of them. Mind you the punitive method does have simplicity going for it which is not to be underestimated. However, knocking Saddam and his sand castle over and rushing home would have done very little to stop new attacks. There's also the issue that Bin Laden still hasn't received chastisement (that we know about) after all these years. Since you want to kick his arse, would it actually take longer?

Straw man. I, personally did *not* sign up for nation building as a citizen, nor has it been my preferred strategy. That's distinct from my military persona. If recalled to active duty, and sent off to build nations, I will do so. In my capacity as a private citizen, I don't have to support that. You know better, Argent. I have supported finishing what we started, under the rubric of "we broke it, we fix it" and have, as is my usual blog-schtick, explained where I am able what is going on and why - which is not the same thing as a fundamental endorsement. You are holding me to two different, and somewhat incompatible, standards.

What are you trading 18 year old soldiers for? What are you getting? 20 afghani babies? Two forty year old Texans? a share in a thriving economy? 17 dead Taliban? Also why are you willing to make such a trade?

This point goes back to the trade-offs, and, in a sense you are asking the correct questions. So, answer them. If not using those weapons causes me to put soldiers at risk, or have to take steps that will possibly cause more damage, or, if that's unacceptable, accept that I cannot complete the mission without accepting more casualties, what rubric will you have me use to determine what's an acceptable tradeoff? You ask the correct question, so, give me the answer? I know mine - I want to use the WP. You say that's unacceptable. So, how many troops will be acceptable to trade so that we don't get all... icky? If that seems a touch unfair, I'm just pointing out you (or whomever) is placing restrictions due to some metric, I am asking you to provide the value for a variable that I have to consider every time I give someone an order to go do something. You want to restrict my options - fine and dandy - you've got some other parameters to set, too. You don't like my answer, what's yours?

WP smoke is not really very good for you either. I also doubt it's the only way to make fast effective smoke. WP smoke is probably used for economic reasons, not utility or health reasons.

Hexachlorothane (HC) smoke isn't really good for you, either. Neither are bullets. Nor are the fumes from burnt propellant. Then there's the noise, too. Actually we *are* looking for replacements, but don't have them yet. And since they're effective and legal, since when is economy in expenditure a bad thing? This logic leads to "Well, it's all dangerous, we shouldn't do it, we'll OSHA ourselves out of the war business." Of course, there are those who pretty much *do* think that way. Problem is, that sort of thinking tends to be unilateral, which can be problematic.

Since I prefer to avoid your verb trap I'll put forth the International law angle on WP use as far as I understand it. You may use them even directly on enemies but they may not be used directly on civilians or on enemies if in civilian areas. You can use WP as smoke anywhere.

See above. Delivery method matters.

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T13:50:43Z

Personally, I think's it's very telling that most of the same people who support and allow this are the same people hyperventilating about "moral superiority" and waterboarding a few hardened Muslim jihadists who would slit our throats if they had the chance.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T13:38:41Z

Oh I see. Sharp as a bowling ball aren't I?

Of course that's the counter meme and it's a favourite to actually do by the intelligence types too. The habitual obfuscation is why no one really trusts intel. What I'm getting at is this reveal doesn't really convince anyone who doesn't already agree with the US.

While we're on the art of smoke and mirrors, your spiel on smoke etc from WP is glossing over the clear difference between using them on people directly and using them to generate smoke flares and other non controversial uses.

Actually you did sign up for nation building. You signed up to follow any lawful order and nation building can be one of them. Mind you the punitive method does have simplicity going for it which is not to be underestimated. However, knocking Saddam and his sand castle over and rushing home would have done very little to stop new attacks. There's also the issue that Bin Laden still hasn't received chastisement (that we know about) after all these years. Since you want to kick his arse, would it actually take longer?

What are you trading 18 year old soldiers for? What are you getting? 20 afghani babies? Two forty year old Texans? a share in a thriving economy? 17 dead Taliban? Also why are you willing to make such a trade?

WP smoke is not really very good for you either. I also doubt it's the only way to make fast effective smoke. WP smoke is probably used for economic reasons, not utility or health reasons.

Since I prefer to avoid your verb trap I'll put forth the International law angle on WP use as far as I understand it. You may use them even directly on enemies but they may not be used directly on civilians or on enemies if in civilian areas. You can use WP as smoke anywhere.

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T12:51:56Z

We could issue every one a "coop" stick where you can run over to the enemy and touch them and take coop. Or we can get the UN to supply judges and referees; then we can shout "Bang, Bang you're Dead", or just have one big paint ball war.

Most horrific weapons are not used because the retaliation would be more horrific, e.i. poison gas.

Then again, we can sit around telling our grandchildren that we lost a war but we had superior morals. Then we can go fight the neighbors for food.

If we choose not to use a weapon, it is because we choose not to and accept the consequences. If it is my son or daughter...morals be damned.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-12

2009-05-12T12:18:27Z

Argent - the story isn't fermenting, it's already come to a head. The mass casualty event in Afghanistan where the US is being accused of using WP to inflict dozens-to-hundreds of civilian casualties - with a rider that it couldn't have been the Taliban (the US position) because they've never had nor used WP before.

So, we declassied the data on the fact that yes, they have.

Of course, the counter-meme is, no, you have a word processor, and you just made that up.

AFSis, guess we're going to have to quit using shaped charges, too. They're a poisoned arrow, too. So are long-rod penetrators.

AFV crews, especially ones in hatches, often burn to death when their vehicles are hit with the munitions best-suited to destroy them.

And if we're going to remove WP from the table, there goes those smoke grenades tanks use to defend themselves. The utility of those being they produce a lot of hot smoke quickly which screens visual and degrades thermal.

And no flares for helos - sometimes when low-flying helos pop chaff and flares the flares make it to the ground, so that's right out, too.

We pretty much don't use flame weapons now, because they're icky. And they are, but make no mistake, we don't use them because they're icky, not because they aren't effective. When taking out bunkers and caves, flame weapons are very effective.

I ask you - since we're letting everybody else define (and accepting the definitions) of what's a poison arrow - why don't we just bring all the troops home with General McKiernan?

Then we'll quit hurting anybody.

Mind you, I never signed up for nation-building. I"m a punitive expedition kind of guy. Kick their ass, smash their stuff, and tell 'em if they do it again, we'll be back.

I thought using WP was a different issue from torture, but I see I'm just blinded by my martial upbringing and outlook.

Since I have to balance public opinion against military efficiency (a real consideration) help me out here, folks.

How many 18 year old soldiers will be an acceptable trade before you get mad at me for casualties in my unit?

Mind you - I said there's plenty of room to wiggle on method of employment, and you're setting limits on my options, which you have a right to do, in a sense.

So, I'm asking for guidance - if I can't use WP, and conventional smoke won't build fast enough (and someone will have asthma at the HC will kill 'em anyway) is it okay if I take some more casualties?

As long as they die cleanly and quick, of course?

Because those *are* the kinds of choices the on-scene commander will be making.

Come on, join in the decision making process!

Comment from ry on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T03:50:28Z

Except, Kev, that others can use that same construction to justify what they do. "Hey, make war on the Moslems and, well, fruck you Kafir. We are justified in doing anything we like to win." Honestly, that's a spiral that I'd rather not go down. And, no, we didn't do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in WW2. We could've used those new incindiary munitions en mass to burn everything from Schwartzwald to Kiel, but didn't. We could've torched the three main IJ islands(Honshu, Kyushu, and the one I always forget) and all the archpeligo from Tinian---no need to take Iwo, Truk, or Tarawa, just put it to the torch. Yet we had D-day and Op Olympic in the planning.

No, there's limits we have to observe, or others will use them as precedent to do whatever they like to come after us. That too, is how the world is.

Pardon him, Theodotus, he is a barbarian, and thinks that the
customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T03:07:29Z

Eric-
Here's what I have learned about WP, from reading about it:
1. WP ignites spontaneously upon contact with the air
2. WP continues to burn until all particles are completely burned up, or all contact with oxygen is removed (this includes submerging in cold water, but in a desert war zone, cold water isn't readily available, and, as you will see with the next point, it burns deeper in flesh than non-fatty materials)
3. WP burns better in lipids (fats), one of the reasons it is so horrible when in contact with human flesh
4. The best way to put out a WP fire is to smother it, and remove the particles while smothered (or while under cold water), and then bury, or keep submerged in cold water, if you don't have a safe place to let it burn itself out
5. In addition to the burn itself, the body is subjected to phosporous poisoning, which affects several vital organs

Yes, I agree- there are many horrible ways to die. But burning to death has got to be one of the absolute worst ways.

Comment from Kevin on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T01:57:22Z

Blah, blah, blah....

And...50 caliber MGs are NOT to be used against personnel... just equipment....

But, LT... I was just shooting at his helmet/webgear.....

Bollocks!

If you go to war, go to war. Kill people, break things and come home.

If the US goes to war (not since 1941 and our track record sux), then go to war. As Rome did unto Carthage etc. Win the damned thing and come home. End of story.

Going to war is non-negotiable. Either you fight to win it, or you don't.

You don't go into a conflict with one hand tied behind your back and play by the 'rules' while the other side has a different standard. That is a prescription for defeat.

You wage war upon the United States... well, sux to be you! End of story.

I'd rather be feared, than loved. Sadly, that is realpolitik and that is the way the world is.

Comment from Argent on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T01:48:56Z

The usual reason for declassification seems to be as a counter to another story. Probably the story the US is using WP on innocent Afghanis or Pakistanis (so the story would read at any rate).

The US and others have used WP directly on people before and the issue has always been controversial. This makes it a valuable accusation because it's horrible and makes good pictures, it's already suspected and it's likely to cause controversy on the US.

I see this move as a parry to a possible fermenting story of the US using WP.

Comment from ry on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T01:32:31Z

It would be nice if the Press, and the people supporting the Other Side, were as actively repulsed by the results of their activity as they let themselves be of ours.
Which is why one should do the *entire* equation, homeboy. This isn't an mx+b=y situation; life, and certainly not pol-mil, rarely if ever takes that simple a form.

Gotta do the whole equation, or as much as you possibly can, before hand.

And, yeah, as the quote goes: "You may be compelled to make war, but you are not compelled to use poison arrows." You make that choice, sober with eyes open.
===========================================================

As to carbonation of soda. So? When you bubble CO2 into soda it takes the form of Carbonic acid.(H-(C=O)-O-OH) as long as pressure is high enough, which at sea level it usually is(a classic test of conductivity is to blow thru a straw into water in which cathode/electrode using water as the salt bridge for conductivity has been sunk and will only light up when carbonic acid build up hits a critical level).

what's your point? YOu know, if you do some research you'll find that CO2 actually does vibrate in the energy ranges that makes it a greenhouse gas(the specific wavelength of the C=O bond energy). That's available in just about any entry level IR spec or analytical chem book. Facts are facts. Whether that means anthropogenic GW is real or no, well, I don't know. BUt I do know making some crack about carbon dioxide being in soda is really rather silly since it uses the non-sequitor fallacy. We once used mercury in teeth fillings, so it's all safe, right?

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T01:24:27Z

The only "nice" war is a short one. If war must be fought, do whatever it takes to win it in the shortest time possible, hopefully with the fewest casualties to your own side as possible.

Comment from Chris on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T00:45:23Z

Ok I apologize, this is way off topic but,. CO2 has been labled a polutante by the E.P.A.. How many of you drink soft drinks? Coke,Pepsi, ect... Does anyone know how much CO2 is actually use by the soft drink industry?

Comment from Chris on 2009-05-11

2009-05-12T00:43:02Z

Ok I apologize, this is way off topic but,. CO2 has been labled a polutante by the E.P.A.. How of you drink soft drinks? Coke,Pepsi, ect... Does anyone know how much CO2 is actually use by the soft drink industry?

Comment from Cricket on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T23:56:08Z

I have a couple of questions here. First of all, these caches and weapons were found during the time that the US was accused of using WP. So, it begs the question: The classification was done for various reasons, I am sure, but I am wondering if one of those reasons was precisely because the insurgents were using it, and they had to build a case, so to speak. Any thoughts?

Comment from Pogue on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T19:41:18Z

I'm not an advocate of "nice" war. I'm still torqued that we can't use napalm. I think it has real application in clearing caves. (AFSIS, it burns up all the oxygen if that makes you feel any better.)

Comment from Eric Wilner on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T19:28:56Z

AFSister: according to the MSDS, water is the correct thing to use on a white phosphorus fire. After all, white phosphorus is normally stored under water, to prevent ignition.
It's light metals that can't be extinguished with water. Magnesium, once ignited, will burn quite happily under water (or in a CO2 atmosphere), and of course sodium and friends react vigorously with water even at room temperature.
(I will admit to having no personal experience with white phosphorus, but the suggestion that water will make it burn hotter seems inconsistent with the MSDS and the chemistry textbooks.)

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T18:37:54Z

Some day, we'll conduct a war using nerf weapons and no one will be hurt.

Until then, however... it's an exceedingly ugly and brutal business. Hence my discomfort with what I think of as optional wars.

I don't think dying because you were eviscerated by an artillery fragment is any more enobling or less horrific than a WP burn. Either way, it sucks to be you.

Bayonetted or shot in the stomach, that's a nasty way to die, too.

Does that mean we can't, or shouldn't, put limits on it the use of WP? Certainly not, and especially in wars that aren't existential (of course, to the Taliban, this war *is* existential from their view) in their outcomes. And the Conventions do just that, along with Just War theory and proportional response precepts.

At the same time, if we're going to continually restrict our options, while the enemy remains continually unrestrained in theirs, well, perhaps it's time to admit that the outcome doesn't mean enough to us and we should withdraw, leaving the region to sort it out internally.

Of course, there are problems with that, too.

It would be nice if the Press, and the people supporting the Other Side, were as actively repulsed by the results of their activity as they let themselves be of ours.

And if the Afghans protesting our actions were to think about it - they do so because... they don't think we'll react against them the way the Talibs do... tu quoque argument or no.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T18:16:56Z

I oppose the use of WP in just about any circumstance. I know I will be outnumbered on that, but from everything I've read about it, it is just NASTY and cruel. Your instinct, when on fire, is to douse the flames with water- which only makes WP burn hotter. You have to go back to your stop-drop-and roll days, and do just that (smother the flames) to put them out. It turns my stomach to think about anyone being burned by WP.

I'm currently listening to "House to House", David Bellavia's book, on CD. In it he talked about two instances of our soldiers being burned by WP. One didn't result in a serious injury, but one burned a hole in a guy's cheek when he was hit in the face with burning WP shrapnel. He described it as an "oozing black hole in his face". nice.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T17:50:40Z

Well, the grammar of it simply says they found a WP phosphorus round, and that they found other munitions of Chinese, Russian, Iranian and British origin. It technically doesn't say they found an 82mm WP round of British origin. They only say they found a 82mm WP.

More important than what they found in caches are what's been used - especially in the IED role.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-05-11

2009-05-11T17:44:34Z

(U) 3.13 On 1 OCT 2004, an ISAF unit discovered an ordnance cache containing an 82mm white phosphorus mortar round and other munitions of Chinese, Russian, Iranian, British origin, in Waza Khwa District, Paktika province.

Since when does British Ordnance LAAP WP 82mm Mortar Rounds? I know that I've been out of the game for a while, but it doesn't ring a bell.