4 ms·

You should look into the US's use of white phosphorus in Fallujah. It was pretty rough going there for a few years.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Wikipedia says it was used against insurgents when conventional munitions didn't have the desired effect. White phosphorus is not recognized as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
- xeromal 4y ago
  It might not be a chemical weapon under the convention, but white phosphorous is BRUTAL. I wouldn't say it's a humane weapon to use compared to a bullet in the head.
- gonzo41 4y ago
  It burns and produces a toxic gas, which is kinda borderline under the CWC. Also it's not meant to be used against human targets. In the military it's intent is as use to create cover via smoke. The smoke launchers on APC's and tanks are WP to create large areas of blocking smoke instantly. as opposed to what smoke grenades do which just kinda spill out color for a while. Also, If it get's on you, it doesn't extinguish with water. You need to not only cool it but smother it because it will react and start burning when exposed to air.
- cygx 4y ago
  That's what we have the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons for. It bans the use of incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas via air delivery, and delivery by other means under various circumstances. Cf https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3 https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3 Allegedly, the US fired such weapons from helicopters in urban areas with a civilian presence.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Which the US signed in 2009. The 2nd battle of Fallujah was in 2004. Do you have a source for the air delivery? I'm only seeing reference to WP artillery which is somehow kosher compared to something dropped from an aircraft. This entire thread is a distraction though. The article is about urban combat in the context of Russia's war in Ukraine which nobody here wants to discuss for some reason.
    - cygx 4y ago
      Which the US signed in 2009. The 2nd battle of Fallujah was in 2004. "We hadn't yet promised not to do war crimes, so it's ok if we did." Do you have a source for the air delivery? There were articles about it at the time. From what I could find just now, the claim about helicopters goes back to an Italian documentary[1]. The use of Mark-77 bombs has been confirmed, but depending on the target, this can be considered justified according to international law (aside from the whole war having been started under false pretenses, of course). That same documentary claimed use of Mark-77 bombs in civilian areas of Baghdad, though (cf [2]). > This entire thread is a distraction though. Sure. Let me be clear: The fact that the US military has dirty hands does not absolve non-Western powers of their respective culpabilities. Russia in particular has fielded kill squads performing extrajudicial executions (Chechnya), private armies of brownshirt (Wagner group), and they are responsible for the heaviest bombing campaign in Europe since WW2 (first battle of Grozny) with tens of thousand of civilian casualties, and lots of other atrocities I don't remember off-hand. Russia = bad. Satisfied? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb#Use_in_Iraq_and_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb#Use_in_Iraq_and_A...

Wikipedia says it was used against insurgents when conventional munitions didn't have the desired effect. White phosphorus is not recognized as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

xeromal 4y ago
It might not be a chemical weapon under the convention, but white phosphorous is BRUTAL. I wouldn't say it's a humane weapon to use compared to a bullet in the head.
gonzo41 4y ago
It burns and produces a toxic gas, which is kinda borderline under the CWC. Also it's not meant to be used against human targets. In the military it's intent is as use to create cover via smoke. The smoke launchers on APC's and tanks are WP to create large areas of blocking smoke instantly. as opposed to what smoke grenades do which just kinda spill out color for a while. Also, If it get's on you, it doesn't extinguish with water. You need to not only cool it but smother it because it will react and start burning when exposed to air.
cygx 4y ago
That's what we have the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons for. It bans the use of incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas via air delivery, and delivery by other means under various circumstances. Cf https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3 https://treaties.unoda.org/t/ccwc_p3 Allegedly, the US fired such weapons from helicopters in urban areas with a civilian presence.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Which the US signed in 2009. The 2nd battle of Fallujah was in 2004. Do you have a source for the air delivery? I'm only seeing reference to WP artillery which is somehow kosher compared to something dropped from an aircraft. This entire thread is a distraction though. The article is about urban combat in the context of Russia's war in Ukraine which nobody here wants to discuss for some reason.
  - cygx 4y ago
    Which the US signed in 2009. The 2nd battle of Fallujah was in 2004. "We hadn't yet promised not to do war crimes, so it's ok if we did." Do you have a source for the air delivery? There were articles about it at the time. From what I could find just now, the claim about helicopters goes back to an Italian documentary[1]. The use of Mark-77 bombs has been confirmed, but depending on the target, this can be considered justified according to international law (aside from the whole war having been started under false pretenses, of course). That same documentary claimed use of Mark-77 bombs in civilian areas of Baghdad, though (cf [2]). > This entire thread is a distraction though. Sure. Let me be clear: The fact that the US military has dirty hands does not absolve non-Western powers of their respective culpabilities. Russia in particular has fielded kill squads performing extrajudicial executions (Chechnya), private armies of brownshirt (Wagner group), and they are responsible for the heaviest bombing campaign in Europe since WW2 (first battle of Grozny) with tens of thousand of civilian casualties, and lots of other atrocities I don't remember off-hand. Russia = bad. Satisfied? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb#Use_in_Iraq_and_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb#Use_in_Iraq_and_A...