4 ms·

The photo https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-StC-dVAdOns/YK081DEgPdI/AAAAAAAAdzo/MsqfJwfGeC4cpLRoMMLPK6zcpSvOgJjBACLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/vietnam-war-images-from-vietnamese-ph

The photo https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-StC-dVAdOns/YK081DEgPdI/AAAAAAAAdzo/MsqfJwfGeC4cpLRoMMLPK6zcpSvOgJjBACLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/vietnam-war-images-from-vietnamese-photographers%2B%25283%2529.jpg https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-StC-dVAdOns/YK081DEgPdI/AAAAAAAAd... is probably a captured M16 since, AFAIK, Vietnam used AK-47. What impressed me the most: "Using home-brewed chemicals, they developed their pictures in the open air or in underground tunnels" if by chemicals to develop photos in open air means no need for a dark room, that is really not something easy to do with then available technology. It is basically Polaroid chemicals quality. Also "The Americans denuded the landscape with chemicals to deny cover to the Viet Cong." means chemical weapons. How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained. Specially considering Iraqi invasion decades later alleging chemical weapons suspicions. Some pictures look extremely noise and grain free for such old photos. Makes me think they are probably digitally enhanced or Vietnam chemicals were really first class quality.

lanna 5y ago
Maybe they developed the photos in open air at night?
pavlov 5y ago
"...if by chemicals to develop photos in open air means no need for a dark room" I don't think that's what it means. They presumably developed the photos in near darkness, either during the night (open air) or in those tunnels.
azernik 5y ago
Legally, whether something is a "chemical weapon" depends on whether it's used to attack people, or is used in population centers where many people will be directly injured regardless of intent. See also the legal wrangling around US use of white phosphorous, which is 100% legal if used as an "illuminant" [https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3 https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3] (i.e. for flares), but not as a weapon against people.
- wumpus 5y ago
  Also for smoke, apparently: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosph...
jgwil2 5y ago
> Also "The Americans denuded the landscape with chemicals to deny cover to the Viet Cong." means chemical weapons. I believe the distinction is that Agent Orange was not used as a weapon per se, in that it wasn't applied to people, but rather was used to destroy plants. Please note I'm not making any claims about the ethics of its use.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Defoliation. A precursor for a lot of that junk was made by Philips-Duphar, and dumped in a polder 25 km North of Amsterdam. The cleanup operation continues today... Dioxin, 2-4-5-T, very nasty stuff. Article about this: https://www.volgermeer.nl/artikel/na-de-ontploffing-kwam-de-kanker https://www.volgermeer.nl/artikel/na-de-ontploffing-kwam-de-... (dutch)
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  If you irresponsibly drench a country with deadly poison, killing and crippling vast numbers of people and causing consequences that persist till this very day, you can't get out from under it by pretending it wasn't a weapon. "I just set your house on fire to flush you out of it so I could kill you. I didn't intend the fire as a weapon itself."
kumarvvr 5y ago
The US avoided international courts because, technically, the chemical weapons were to clear forest covers and not intended for use on civilians and military personnel.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  I'm not sure if lack of intent would absolve them of committing a war crime... not to mention that it's not clear that they didn't actually intend to cause harm to people by their use of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons like napalm.
YetAnotherNick 5y ago
> How the US avoided international courts You do know there is no such thing as international court, right? There are few organization which has name court in it like ICJ but they don't have any hard power like courts, and definitely have no force/military to stop a country.
- sofixa 5y ago
  A court doesn't need a military force to impose its will. The ICC and the ICY work on consensus and UN backing, it's just that the US refuses to take part because they're afraid they have way too many war criminals and it'd be bad for PR. And not only do they not accept the ICC's jurisdiction, they have a law allowing themselves to invade the Hague if another country turns their war criminals in, and the previous administration sanctioned ICC prosecutors ( obstruction of justice) for daring to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan on the behest of Afghanistan, an ICC member.
stickfigure 5y ago
> How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained. It's probably relevant that the horrible health effects of Agent Orange were a result of accidental contaminants (dioxins), not the defoliant itself. Not that this makes it ok, but it's something different than dropping mustard gas on Kurdish civilians.
sofixa 5y ago
> How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained Might makes right, aka US foreign policy since its inception. The US has never recognised any court that could try them ( like the ICC) and have veto powers in the UN, so they can go about committing war crimes with impunity.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiKFAwiKjBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiKFAwiKjBo "'War crimes' are defined by the winners. I'm a winner, so I can make my own definition.".
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "The US has never recognised any court that could try them ( like the ICC) and have veto powers in the UN, so they can go about committing war crimes with impunity." They don't have to recognize the court in order to be tried in the court, in absentia if need be. It's interesting that despite the power to try alleged US war criminals, the ICC has chosen not to.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    The ICC can't choose whatever it wants, it has a charter. It doesn't invent its jurisdiction, it's built on countries participating in it. Which is why its investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan, having jurisdiction there, but not Iraq, where it doesn't.
hansor 5y ago
>Vietnam used AK-47. This is common misconception. What you mean by "AK-47" is usually AKM rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM Secondly: SKS rifles were very popular as well in North Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
hnbad 5y ago
> How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained The fact the US has made it clear they will use any force necessary against the ICJ if they ever dare trying a US citizen should be a good explanation. You can get away with war crimes just fine if nobody dares to charge you with them.

lanna 5y ago

Maybe they developed the photos in open air at night?

pavlov 5y ago

"...if by chemicals to develop photos in open air means no need for a dark room" I don't think that's what it means. They presumably developed the photos in near darkness, either during the night (open air) or in those tunnels.

azernik 5y ago

Legally, whether something is a "chemical weapon" depends on whether it's used to attack people, or is used in population centers where many people will be directly injured regardless of intent. See also the legal wrangling around US use of white phosphorous, which is 100% legal if used as an "illuminant" [https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3 https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3] (i.e. for flares), but not as a weapon against people.

wumpus 5y ago
Also for smoke, apparently: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosph...

jgwil2 5y ago

> Also "The Americans denuded the landscape with chemicals to deny cover to the Viet Cong." means chemical weapons. I believe the distinction is that Agent Orange was not used as a weapon per se, in that it wasn't applied to people, but rather was used to destroy plants. Please note I'm not making any claims about the ethics of its use.

jacquesm 5y ago
Defoliation. A precursor for a lot of that junk was made by Philips-Duphar, and dumped in a polder 25 km North of Amsterdam. The cleanup operation continues today... Dioxin, 2-4-5-T, very nasty stuff. Article about this: https://www.volgermeer.nl/artikel/na-de-ontploffing-kwam-de-kanker https://www.volgermeer.nl/artikel/na-de-ontploffing-kwam-de-... (dutch)
TomSwirly 5y ago
If you irresponsibly drench a country with deadly poison, killing and crippling vast numbers of people and causing consequences that persist till this very day, you can't get out from under it by pretending it wasn't a weapon. "I just set your house on fire to flush you out of it so I could kill you. I didn't intend the fire as a weapon itself."

kumarvvr 5y ago

The US avoided international courts because, technically, the chemical weapons were to clear forest covers and not intended for use on civilians and military personnel.

pmoriarty 5y ago
I'm not sure if lack of intent would absolve them of committing a war crime... not to mention that it's not clear that they didn't actually intend to cause harm to people by their use of Agent Orange and other chemical weapons like napalm.

YetAnotherNick 5y ago

> How the US avoided international courts You do know there is no such thing as international court, right? There are few organization which has name court in it like ICJ but they don't have any hard power like courts, and definitely have no force/military to stop a country.

sofixa 5y ago
A court doesn't need a military force to impose its will. The ICC and the ICY work on consensus and UN backing, it's just that the US refuses to take part because they're afraid they have way too many war criminals and it'd be bad for PR. And not only do they not accept the ICC's jurisdiction, they have a law allowing themselves to invade the Hague if another country turns their war criminals in, and the previous administration sanctioned ICC prosecutors ( obstruction of justice) for daring to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan on the behest of Afghanistan, an ICC member.

stickfigure 5y ago

> How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained. It's probably relevant that the horrible health effects of Agent Orange were a result of accidental contaminants (dioxins), not the defoliant itself. Not that this makes it ok, but it's something different than dropping mustard gas on Kurdish civilians.

sofixa 5y ago

> How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained Might makes right, aka US foreign policy since its inception. The US has never recognised any court that could try them ( like the ICC) and have veto powers in the UN, so they can go about committing war crimes with impunity.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiKFAwiKjBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiKFAwiKjBo "'War crimes' are defined by the winners. I'm a winner, so I can make my own definition.".
pmoriarty 5y ago
"The US has never recognised any court that could try them ( like the ICC) and have veto powers in the UN, so they can go about committing war crimes with impunity." They don't have to recognize the court in order to be tried in the court, in absentia if need be. It's interesting that despite the power to try alleged US war criminals, the ICC has chosen not to.
- sofixa 5y ago
  The ICC can't choose whatever it wants, it has a charter. It doesn't invent its jurisdiction, it's built on countries participating in it. Which is why its investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan, having jurisdiction there, but not Iraq, where it doesn't.

hansor 5y ago

>Vietnam used AK-47. This is common misconception. What you mean by "AK-47" is usually AKM rifle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM Secondly: SKS rifles were very popular as well in North Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS

hnbad 5y ago

> How the US avoided international courts is something that should be better explained The fact the US has made it clear they will use any force necessary against the ICJ if they ever dare trying a US citizen should be a good explanation. You can get away with war crimes just fine if nobody dares to charge you with them.