P4
Peter in Knowsley
If white phosphorus was dropped on a massive scale on to the ground from a
height, what would be the damage to buildings and people?
I'm keen to understand a chemists view and I'd like to ask a couple of
questions.
Firstly what would happen to materials that came in to direct contact with
the dropped substance?
Would any smoke or gas cloud (or both) be given off in any reaction and if
so, what is the gas called?
Would that smoke or gas (or both) be toxic and could it cause harm to
people?
Thanks for any help you can give and if you can keep it simple :)
Pete <researching weapons>
rac...@hotmail.com
There's enough historical data for you application -- no need for us to
speculate.
Troll
Peter in Knowsley
<rac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131713856.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Start here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary
> There's enough historical data for you application -- no need for us to
> speculate.
I have already looked at wikipedia too but it doesn't give me a chemists
view on the questions I have asked.
I'm sorry if my post has offended you or is against your political
persuasion.
I'm just interested in the facts and not speculation.
Thanks
Pete (Not a Troll)
James Copeland
"Peter in Knowsley" <junk.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:43748f69$0$81705$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
buildings and people when white phosphorus is rained upon them. It was
turned into an inferno at the end of WW II by allied incendiary bombing,
much of which entailed white P (actually, yellow phosphorus is the more
accurate name). I visited Dresden in 1999, and the stone buildings and
streets still have a horrible scorched brown appearance. Very grim.
There are also white P artillery rounds which explode and strew burning P
all over the place. (I was an army ordnance officer from 1953-1958 and saw a
lot of those rounds being tested on firing ranges at Aberdeen Proving
Ground.)
Yes, a dense white smoke results from burning this stuff. It is phosphorus
pentoxide. (That's the usual name, but actually the molecules are not P2O5,
but twice that: P4O10. This molecule has a cagelike structure, impossible to
draw out in 2 dimensions on email.) And yes, I believe that it is toxic, but
I stand to be corrected on that. I'd have to look it up.
Jim C.
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c6304c833c4acfaa
> need a bit of help.
> If white phosphorus was dropped on a massive scale
> on to the ground from a height, what would be the
> Firstly what would happen to materials that came in
> Would any smoke or gas cloud (or both) be given off
> Would that smoke or gas (or both) be toxic and could
> Pete <researching weapons>
>
[hanson]
[1]... Combustible materials, including people, will burn.
Steel will rust, concrete will crack.
[2]... it will do [1]
[3]... Not much gas but plenty of P2 & P4 dust, then P2O3, P2O5,
H3PO4, H3PO3... etc
[4]... Look up the MSDS for the items in [3]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/0a1acf83fda05a18
hanson
donald haarmann
| The city of Dresden (among others) is a prime example of what happens to
| buildings and people when white phosphorus is rained upon them. It was
| turned into an inferno at the end of WW II by allied incendiary bombing,
| much of which entailed white P (actually, yellow phosphorus is the more
| accurate name). I visited Dresden in 1999, and the stone buildings and
| streets still have a horrible scorched brown appearance. Very grim.
|
|
-------------
Sorry the use of phosphorus in incendiary bombs is an urban legend. Phosphorus
makes a lousy incendiary.
"All together the Eight Air Force dropped 97,016 tons of incendiary bombs on German
targets compared with 569,751 tons of high explosives and 20,352 tons of fragmentation
bombs. The large majority of the incendiaries were M50's in M17 clusters, and M47's."
AN-M50A1 - A2 was a 4-pound bomb consisting of a core of thermate and a casting
of magnesium alloy, the M50 had a high degree of penetrability and an intensive burning
action. The M17 cluster contained 500 pounds of M50's.
The 100 lb M47 (which actually weighed 67 lbs) was filled with thickened gasoline.
M76's 500-pound incendiary gell bombs were used against Berlin on 6 March 1944. "Sub-
sedquent operations, however, proved that the bomb did not warrant its employment."
United States Army in World War II
The Technical Services
The Chemical Warfare Service: Chemicals in Combat
Office of the Chief of Military History
1966
donald j haarmann
-----------------------
The muffled drum's sad roll has beat
The soldier's last tattoo;
No more on life's parade shall meet
That brave and fallen few.
Of Fame's eternal camping-ground
Their silent tents are spread,
And Glory guards, with solemn round,
The bivouac of the dead.
Theodore O'Hara (1847) poem the
Bivouac of the Dead, was written to
commemorate the American dead at
Buena Vista, 22 February 1847. A 19th
century act of Congress requires it to be
displayed at every National Cemetery.
Peter in Knowsley
"Peter in Knowsley" <junk.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:43748f69$0$81705$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Thanks chaps, much appreciated and Hanson - hope your
hands healed okay. Nightmare story that one.
Pete
donald haarmann
|
| Yes, a dense white smoke results from burning this stuff. It is phosphorus
| pentoxide. (That's the usual name, but actually the molecules are not P2O5,
| but twice that: P4O10. This molecule has a cagelike structure, impossible to
| draw out in 2 dimensions on email.) And yes, I believe that it is toxic, but
| I stand to be corrected on that. I'd have to look it up.
| Jim C.
----------
Well ..... actually.... phosphorus pentoxide being the most efficient chemical
dehydrating agent know rapidly absorbs moisture form the air forming a fine
mist of phosphoric acid droplets which is the white smoke seen.
TM 3-215
Military Chemistry and Chemical Agents
December, 1963
Superseded by :—
FM 3-9
Military Chemistry and Chemical Compounds
October, 1975
--
donald j haarmann
------------------------
What we could do with round here is a good war.
What else can you expect with peace running wild
all over the place? You know what the trouble with
peace is? No organization. Bertolt Brecht
James Copeland
"donald haarmann" <donald-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Gv4df.44840$qk4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
white phosphorus artillery rounds since, as I said, I observed their firing
many times. Quite a spectacle seeing that big white spider-like fountain of
burning P spewing out from the explosion. Wouldn't want to be an infantryman
under that umbrella!
Jim C.
donald haarmann
"James Copeland" <chem...@ksu.edu
| OK. I stand corrected on the Dresden business. However, I do know about
| white phosphorus artillery rounds since, as I said, I observed their firing
| many times. Quite a spectacle seeing that big white spider-like fountain of
| burning P spewing out from the explosion. Wouldn't want to be an infantryman
| under that umbrella!
|
| Jim C.
|
--------
Yes. However. W[ille] P[eter] artillery rounds are smoke rounds, any incendiary effect
is secondary.
FM 3-8
Chemical Reference Handbook
January, 1967
Canister, smoke WP, 5-in
Cartridge, smoke WP, 90-mm gun
Cartridge, smoke WP 4.2-in mortar
&c.. &c.
A lot of smoke munitions use chemical agent HC rather than WP.
There are no incendiary rounds listed in the above and a quick check of;
Jane's Ammunition Handbook, 1994-95 finds no incendiary rounds. However, I
know there are/were .50-caliber incendiary rounds.
In the days of wooden ships they had cannon ball ovens. Heated the suckers to
red heat and let them rip. Most of caused a lot of excitement on the receiving end.
donald j haarmann
----------------------
All quite along the Potomac tonight,
No sound save the rush of the river,
While soft falls the dew on the face of the
dead—
The pickets off duty forever.
Ethyl Lynn Beers: The Picket Guard, 1861
James Copeland
>
> There are no incendiary rounds listed in the above and a quick check of;
> Jane's Ammunition Handbook, 1994-95 finds no incendiary rounds. However, I
> know there are/were .50-caliber incendiary rounds.
>
>>
> ----------------------
>
Yes, and there were/are.30-caliber incendiary rounds as well. I must admit
that I've forgotten some of the color coding on the bullet tips of those
rounds, but I do recall that (1) no color was ordinary (so-called) ball
ammo; (2) red tipped was tracer; (3) black tipped was (I think) armor
piercing; (4) blue tipped was (I think) the incendiary round. There was/is
also a so-called armor piercing incendiary (API) round which might have been
dual-coded with silver and blue tips. Those were all available in .30
caliber for use in the old M1 rifle and, of course, machine guns. I have no
idea what prevails these days. Ordnance has changed overwhelmingly since my
service days fifty years ago! (I'm really feeling old now!). ;-)
Jim C.
Peter in Knowsley
"James Copeland" <chem...@ksu.edu> wrote in message
news:dl2l2k$fvj$1...@cnn.cns.ksu.edu...
> OK. I stand corrected on the Dresden business. However, I do know about
> white phosphorus artillery rounds since, as I said, I observed their
> firing many times. Quite a spectacle seeing that big white spider-like
> fountain of burning P spewing out from the explosion. Wouldn't want to be
> an infantryman under that umbrella!
Thanks Jim.
My interest in WP started a couple of days ago when an Italian
news crew published a film which claimed a chemical agent
was used. They said it was WP.
See image http://tinyurl.com/9ma7p
I've covered some arguments over the difference between
conventional and chemical weapons on other forums and
I am in the firm belief that the smoke/gas cloud given off
on such an attack would be lethal and would fall under chemical.
Is it possible in your opinion that the munitions in the image
were not WP and possibly could be another substance?
James Copeland
The pictures are obviously night-time shots, and I can't make a sure call
about them. I've only witnessed WP artillery shell explosions in daylight,
and as ground bursts. These pictures apparently show an air burst, or
projection from aircraft. They could be due to a burning shower of WP
fragments, but they also could just be some pyrotechnic display. In my time
in army ordnance, use of WP in warfare was not considered as "chemical," per
se. If one were looking for a truly lethal chemical agent, WP smoke, however
nasty, would sure not be an efficient choice.
Jim C.
Peter in Knowsley
Thanks, I have just learned that the US dept of state has
issued a correction to it's earlier position, i.e. using WP
to "illuminate a battlefield". It's taken a year for them to
do so and 2 days after the shocking documentary on
Italian Rai News 24 entitled 'The hidden massacre'
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video.asp
[November 10, 2005 State Dept. correction:
White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke,
were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for
screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements
and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah,"
in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine,
"as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents
in trench lines and spider holes .." The article states
that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to
flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be
killed with high explosive rounds.]
There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on
itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed"
weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces
are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or
anywhere else in Iraq.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html
I understand WP is great for screening. Was it
necessary to drop the WP for it to land on the city,
especially when there were thousands of families
still there?
The photos of the dead men, women and children
are horrendously shocking and are counted into the
100's.
I am not satisfied yet as there are more questions
than answers. It seems you have to ask the right
questions these days in order to get answers.
Thanks again Jim for your help in the matter.
Oscar Lanzi III
P4O10 is a strong dehydrating agent -- it's the anhydride of phosphoric
acid. The phosphoric acid product is itself strongly hygorscopic (sp?).
So you'll get a nice reaction with water-based bodily fluids. Once it's
been converted to phosphoric acid and dissolved in sufficient water,
there is no residual ill effect, but you'll know it's not pleasant to
breathe this stuff.
Once I caught a whiff of the gases that come off a freshly lit match
head. This off-gas contain P4O10, and I'm not going to forget even that
little whiff.
--OL
donald haarmann
|
| Once I caught a whiff of the gases that come off a freshly lit match
| head. This off-gas contain P4O10, and I'm not going to forget even that
| little whiff.
---------
Sorry this is yet another urban legend match head do not contain phosphorus, excepting
S[tike] A[ny] W[ere] matches, aka White Tip matches whoes tips contain phosphorus sesquisulphide.
What you smelled in sulphur dioxide and buring animal glue.
"To continue with the specific functions of the chemical ingredients in matches, we consider next
the two purposes in the small percentage of sulfur in the head formula: It acts as an easily ignitible
and hence somewhat sensitizing fuel and flame-former, and its combustion product is the pungent
but harmless and not nauseating sulfur dioxide (SO2), which masks the much more unpleasant odor
of burning glue. Thus it is a "perfume" of sorts, whose place can also be taken by powdered rosin."
Extracted from :-
Herbert Ellern
Military and Civilian Pyrotechnics
MATCHES CHAPTER 12
--
donald j haarmann
----------------------------
A little learning is a dangerous thing:
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking lairgely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope
donald haarmann
| "James Copeland" <chem...@ksu.edu>
|
|| The city of Dresden (among others) is a prime example of what happens to
|| buildings and people when white phosphorus is rained upon them. It was
|| turned into an inferno at the end of WW II by allied incendiary bombing,
|| much of which entailed white P (actually, yellow phosphorus is the more
|| accurate name). I visited Dresden in 1999, and the stone buildings and
|| streets still have a horrible scorched brown appearance. Very grim.
||
||
|
|
| -------------
| Sorry the use of phosphorus in incendiary bombs is an urban legend. Phosphorus
| makes a lousy incendiary.
|
---------
An addendum.
EP Stevens
Incendiary Bombs
In: WA Noyes, Jr. Editor
Science in World War II
Chemistry A History of the Chemical Components of the National Defense Research Committee
1940-1946
Little, Brown and Company Boston. 1948
Notes that some M-69 bombs had 0.4 pounds of their normal 2.2 pound 'incendiary gel fuel charge'
replaced with 0.4 pounds of white phosphorus. However, ".... test failed to show a real difference in
fire-starting efficiency of the gel."
"No records of the bombing of Italy and Germany with the AN-M69 bomb are available, but it is known
that the AN-M69 bomb was used to only a very slight extent."
--
donald j haarmann
----------------------------
The beatings will continue
until the morale improves.
Anon.
LordBeotian
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> ha scritto
>> If white phosphorus was dropped on a massive scale
>> on to the ground from a height, what would be the
>> damage to buildings and people? [1]
> [hanson]
> [1]... Combustible materials, including people, will burn.
> Steel will rust, concrete will crack.
> [2]... it will do [1]
> [3]... Not much gas but plenty of P2 & P4 dust, then P2O3, P2O5,
> H3PO4, H3PO3... etc
> [4]... Look up the MSDS for the items in [3]
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/0a1acf83fda05a18
> hanson
How realistic is the scenario of skin of people being burned while clothes
remain intact as a consequence of white phosphorus?
Peter in Knowsley
"LordBeotian" <pokispy76@[CANCELLA QUESTO]yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:dl7jel$37a$1...@nnrp-beta.newsland.it...
is that the question?
or should the question be,
How realistic is the scenario of skin of people being burned while clothes
remain intact as a consequence of being caught up in a cloud of
white phosphorus smoke, aka Phosphorus Pentoxide?
Phosphorus Pentoxide MSDS,
"Toxic and may be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through
the skin... Corrosive - causes burns. "
hanson
wrote in message news:dl7jel$37a$1...@nnrp-beta.newsland.it...
>
>>> If white phosphorus was dropped on a massive scale
>>> on to the ground from a height, what would be the
>>> damage to buildings and people? [1]
>>
>> [1]... Combustible materials, including people, will burn.
>> Steel will rust, concrete will crack.
>> [2]... it will do [1]
>> [3]... Not much gas but plenty of P2 & P4 dust, then P2O3, P2O5,
>> H3PO4, H3PO3... etc
>> [4]... Look up the MSDS for the items in [3]
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/0a1acf83fda05a18
>> hanson
>
> How realistic is the scenario of skin of people being burned while
> clothes remain intact as a consequence of white phosphorus?
>
Yes, very much so, if you get/smear WP only over your
exposed skin like your face and hands... unless your wear
protective goggles, face mask and gloves.
However, even then [1] applies as clothes are generally
combustible.... ahahaha... It seems to me that there are
either comprehension- or language problems here with
Lord of Salami, unless Italian fashion is made of glass-
or asbestos fiber....
Ciao, arrivederci, mio amico
hanson
LordBeotian
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> ha scritto
>>> [1]... Combustible materials, including people, will burn.
>>> Steel will rust, concrete will crack.
>>> [2]... it will do [1]
>>> [3]... Not much gas but plenty of P2 & P4 dust, then P2O3, P2O5,
>>> H3PO4, H3PO3... etc
>>> [4]... Look up the MSDS for the items in [3]
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/0a1acf83fda05a18
>>> hanson
>>
> [LordBeotian of Italy]
>> How realistic is the scenario of skin of people being burned while
>> clothes remain intact as a consequence of white phosphorus?
>>
> [hanson]
> Yes, very much so, if you get/smear WP only over your
> exposed skin like your face and hands... unless your wear
> protective goggles, face mask and gloves.
> However, even then [1] applies as clothes are generally
> combustible....
Are you saying that both the situation of a)burned clothing and b)intact
clothing is possible?
When does a) happen instead of b)?
> ahahaha... It seems to me that there are
> either comprehension- or language problems here with
> Lord of Salami,
What language problems are you speaking about?
> unless Italian fashion is made of glass-
> or asbestos fiber....
> Ciao, arrivederci, mio amico
> hanson
Can you be serious, please?
hanson
happen in your mind. Celebrate that and the fact that
I cannot take you serious. But thanks for the laughs.
ahahaha..... ahahanson
"LordBeotian" <pokispy76@[CANCELLA QUESTO]yahoo.it
> wrote in message news:dl8bgg$h7g$1...@nnrp-beta.newsland.it...
LordBeotian
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> ha scritto
> Yo, Salami,
Do you have problems specifically with Italian peolpe?
> your post indicates that anything will and can
> happen in your mind.
What makes you think so?
> Celebrate that and the fact that
> I cannot take you serious.
Why?
> But thanks for the laughs.
> ahahaha..... ahahanson
Laughts for what?
(PS: You should learn quoting)
hanson
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> ha scritto
>
>> Yo, Salami,
>
> Do you have problems specifically with Italian peolpe?
>
No, None whatsoever. Except with you, who does NOT come
across like a normal Italian/a at all.... but more like a Salami slice.
>> your post indicates that anything will and can
>> happen in your mind.
>
> What makes you think so?
>
The very thin salami slice type contents of your posts, of course.
>> Celebrate that and the fact that
>> I cannot take you serious.
>
> Why?
>
Because you're salami slices are getting thinner with every
post of yours.... ahahaha... which seems to crank you.
>> But thanks for the laughs.
>> ahahaha..... ahahanson
>
> Laughts for what?
>
about your own ever thinning salami slice mentality.
> (PS: You should learn quoting)
That is salami advice, very thinly sliced, hence good.
I may look into it when and if I feel like it. Not right now
though.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
PS: Next, we shall leave now the salami issue since your
slices have become so thin as to be nonexistent, just
leaving behind an ever more intense and odious salami
smell: "The Scent of a Salami"
So, instead, you should turn now to issues of "P",
commensurate with the subject line, say like Pasta....
ahahahaha....
Peter in Knowsley
> I am not satisfied yet as there are more questions
> than answers. It seems you have to ask the right
> questions these days in order to get answers.
>
> Thanks again Jim for your help in the matter.
Well it seems the Pentagon lied about using WP on
enemy combatants. They've owned up to it.
They used the thermic properties of the WP
to burn buildings and people and the chemical and
toxic properties of the resultant smoke to cause harm
and death in extreme cases of exposure.
No matter how many times I look at the CWC1993,
I can't see a let off for the US military.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> "Peter in Knowsley" <junk.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:4375bba4$0$81706$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
>
>>I am not satisfied yet as there are more questions
>>than answers. It seems you have to ask the right
>>questions these days in order to get answers.
>>
>>Thanks again Jim for your help in the matter.
>
>
> Well it seems the Pentagon lied about using WP on
> enemy combatants. They've owned up to it.
>
> They used the thermic properties of the WP
> to burn buildings and people and the chemical and
> toxic properties of the resultant smoke to cause harm
> and death in extreme cases of exposure.
The smoke is not especially toxic, since it's often used to screen ones own
troops. Burning enemy troops to death is not against any convention.
> No matter how many times I look at the CWC1993,
> I can't see a let off for the US military.
I can't see any problem, assuming it wasn't used on civilians.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Peter in Knowsley
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3u3o5bF...@individual.net...
The CWC1993 doesn't mention the word civilians once.
It says humans or animals. There is no distinction between
civilians or enemy combatants.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
The various other conventions do, however.
Since using WP to set people ablaze is not against any convention I still don't
see the problem. Using WP to poison people would be against CWC1993 but this is
an extremely inefficient CW in that case. It's a bit like claiming that lead
bullets are forbidden by CWC1993 because lead is poisonous.
Martin Brown
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3u3o5bF...@individual.net...
>
>>Peter in Knowsley wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter in Knowsley" <junk.b...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4375bba4$0$81706$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>>>
>>>>I am not satisfied yet as there are more questions
>>>>than answers. It seems you have to ask the right
>>>>questions these days in order to get answers.
>>>
>>>Well it seems the Pentagon lied about using WP on
>>>enemy combatants. They've owned up to it.
>>>
>>>They used the thermic properties of the WP
>>>to burn buildings and people and the chemical and
>>>toxic properties of the resultant smoke to cause harm
>>>and death in extreme cases of exposure.
>>
>>The smoke is not especially toxic, since it's often used to screen ones
>>own troops. Burning enemy troops to death is not against any convention.
>>
>>>No matter how many times I look at the CWC1993,
>>>I can't see a let off for the US military.
>>
>>I can't see any problem, assuming it wasn't used on civilians.
>
> The CWC1993 doesn't mention the word civilians once.
> It says humans or animals. There is no distinction between
> civilians or enemy combatants.
Isn't the relevant treaty CCWC1983 which does explicitly require not
using incendiary muntions against civilian targets under protocol III
p11. Their use against military targets is not prohibited.
http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/bt/cassese/intcrimlaw/ch03/1980_un_conv_weapons_prots.pdf
The US take on this treaty is blocked these days but still in Googles cache
What is the status of napalm ? I thought withdrawn due to ba publicity.
They appear to have been using WP munitions as a substitute.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Peter in Knowsley
>>>I can't see any problem, assuming it wasn't used on civilians.
>>
>>
>> The CWC1993 doesn't mention the word civilians once.
>> It says humans or animals. There is no distinction between
>> civilians or enemy combatants.
> The various other conventions do, however.
Quite right, but the US hasn't broken those various other conventions.
> Since using WP to set people ablaze is not against any convention I still
> don't see the problem.
Quite right again, setting people ablaze by flame or heat or combination
thereof is permitted for countries such as the US who didn't sign
Protocol III.
The problem comes when they have used the corrosive chemical
properties of the WP smoke in order to cause harm.
This is not permitted under the CWC1993 to which the US signed.
Pentagon Spokesman Lt Col Venables has confirmed they used
the "combined effects of the fire and smoke" of the weapon.
> Using WP to poison people would be against CWC1993 but this is an
> extremely inefficient CW in that case.
Under the convention 'toxic chemical' doesn't mean a chemical
has to be poisonous. Definition:
"Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes
can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to
humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of
their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of
whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. "
>It's a bit like claiming that lead bullets are forbidden by CWC1993 because
>lead is poisonous.
See above.
Peter in Knowsley
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dlkani$sk5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Peter in Knowsley wrote:
> Isn't the relevant treaty CCWC1983 which does explicitly require not using
> incendiary muntions against civilian targets under protocol III p11.
> Their use against military targets is not prohibited.
That is just one treaty. The US has not contravened this treaty as
they did not sign it although there is an inquiry to find out about
the use of WP in areas where there were civilians present.
> What is the status of napalm ? I thought withdrawn due to ba publicity.
> They appear to have been using WP munitions as a substitute.
Not true. The US admitted eventually that it was using an upgraded
version of Napalm. Mk77 firebombs. The fuel content is different!
When they said they were not using napalm, they were playing word
games. Not lying technically but deceiving.
As to the status, I believe napalm still an incendiary weapon.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3u4j5bF...@individual.net...
>
>
>>>>I can't see any problem, assuming it wasn't used on civilians.
>>>
>>>
>>>The CWC1993 doesn't mention the word civilians once.
>>>It says humans or animals. There is no distinction between
>>>civilians or enemy combatants.
>
>
>>The various other conventions do, however.
>
>
> Quite right, but the US hasn't broken those various other conventions.
>
>
>>Since using WP to set people ablaze is not against any convention I still
>>don't see the problem.
>
>
> Quite right again, setting people ablaze by flame or heat or combination
> thereof is permitted for countries such as the US who didn't sign
> Protocol III.
>
> The problem comes when they have used the corrosive chemical
> properties of the WP smoke in order to cause harm.
> This is not permitted under the CWC1993 to which the US signed.
>
> Pentagon Spokesman Lt Col Venables has confirmed they used
> the "combined effects of the fire and smoke" of the weapon.
The toxicity of the smoke is low.
Certainly less toxic than the smoke from (say) TNT which contains nitrogen
oxides amongst other things.
>>Using WP to poison people would be against CWC1993 but this is an
>>extremely inefficient CW in that case.
>
>
> Under the convention 'toxic chemical' doesn't mean a chemical
> has to be poisonous. Definition:
>
> "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes
> can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to
> humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of
> their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of
> whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. "
Then it includes quite a few smokes created by high explosives.
Or napalm, for example. Quite often people are killed by carbon monoxide
poisoning from the combustion.
Martin Brown
> Peter in Knowsley wrote:
>
>> news:3u4j5bF...@individual.net...
>> Quite right again, setting people ablaze by flame or heat or combination
>> thereof is permitted for countries such as the US who didn't sign
>> Protocol III.
>>
>> The problem comes when they have used the corrosive chemical
>> properties of the WP smoke in order to cause harm.
>> This is not permitted under the CWC1993 to which the US signed.
>>
>> Pentagon Spokesman Lt Col Venables has confirmed they used
>> the "combined effects of the fire and smoke" of the weapon.
>
> The toxicity of the smoke is low.
> Certainly less toxic than the smoke from (say) TNT which contains
> nitrogen oxides amongst other things.
Are you sure about that?
ISTR phosphorus pentoxide smoke being a lot more unpleasant than nitric
acid fumes. In the open with moist air it will very quickly hydrate and
become a relatively inert but acidic dense white smoke.
A quick probe of OSHA data gives NO and OSHA TLVs of 25ppm, NO2 120ppm
and P2O5 a limit of 1mg/m^3 which I get as ballpark 1ppm
In close proximity and with newly formed anhydrous pentoxide smoke I
expect it would be much worse than reagent grade powder and I suspect
that they were using it as an improvised napalm with added CS gas effect.
Fundamentally the problem is not so much what the US military did, but
that the Pentagon and US diplomats lied about it.
> Then it includes quite a few smokes created by high explosives.
> Or napalm, for example. Quite often people are killed by carbon monoxide
> poisoning from the combustion.
And most fireworks too. SO2 is no fun to breathe.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
And one might add that the US forces would have been justified in using CS gas
to clear buildings in their 'police action'. They certainly used it in Vietnam.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary
"Exposure and inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus
pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid.
Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by
a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of
any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission)
does have the potential to cause illness or even death.
WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense
exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties
from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to
date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes.
[3]"
LordBeotian
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk....@gmail.com> ha scritto
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary
>
> "Exposure and inhalation of smoke
>
> Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of
> phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric
> acid.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
"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."
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
True - its an effective weapon.
LordBeotian
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk....@gmail.com> ha scritto
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
>>
>> "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."
>
> True - its an effective weapon.
It seems to have dangerous chemical effects.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Not as dangerous as being burned to death by it, though.
Given a choice of being burned to the bone by a piece of WP, or having a high
velocity rifle bullet hit the same bone, which would do the less damage? IMO
it's the WP - at least the bone is not going to explode and take all the flesh
behind it with it as well.