It’s a chemical. It’s a weapon. Does it fall under the following definition from the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Isn’t it the heat of combustion of napalm that causes death, rather than a direct chemical reaction with the victim?
If it is the combustion, then it’s not a chemical weapon any more than explosives are (detonation is a chemical process).
So says this site.
What he said.
One would assume it is the chemical agent itself acting on the individual, that causes death or injury.
Were it to fail to ignite, the Napalm would be, from what I’m told, no more injurious than spilling gasoline upon oneself. Which is, of course, not good for you, but barring ingesting some, or getting it in a cut or wound or eye, one assumes it’s no worse than a skin irritation.
To expand on Magnetout’s point, firing artillery, machine gun ammo or tank rounds are also chemcial reactions… Jet fuel, missle and rocket motors, etc and so forth.
Napalm is presumably more accurately labelled an incindiary- it’s not the chemical, it’s the heat of the chemical-fuelled combustion that does the damage.
While I found a lot of statements by nations against whom napalm has been used referring to it as a “chemical weapon”, even the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons doesn’t classify it as such.
There’s an extremely interesting report discussing this issue here.
That’s fairly conclusive then.
One could, of course, argue that combustion itself is a chemical reaction with the individual, and that ignition is the catalyst, but I guess it doesn’t fit the exact criteria.
That said, it’s pretty damned nasty however you classify it.
You could just as easily say that TNT or C4 or whatever they pack into “standard” bombs and artillery shells these days is a chemical, and a weapon, and is therefor a chemical weapon. There must be a further distinction.
It’s not a “chemical reaction with the individual” that makes a chemical weapon, it’s a “reaction with life processes”; chemical weapons poison metabolism (or replication, but mostly metabolism).
If you wanted to, you could classify bare knuckles as a chemical weapon; they are composed of chemicals and they are powered by chemical processes.
The difference appears to be that ‘true’ chemical weapons act directly on the physiology of the victim, so we’re talking about irritants, corrosives and toxins.
But there is a difference: explosives aren’t sticky. Stickiness is an inherent chemical property of Napalm, enabling its effect on the individual.
Explosives that rely upon Chemical Reaction - Incendiary or not - are chemical weapons. Any weapon that is powered by a chemical reaction is de facto a chemical weapon. Some have a ballistic element such as a bullet. It is the bullet that kills but the Chemicals that make this possible.
Conventional weapons are things such as Clubs, Sticks Swords and Daggers – even the ancient Ballisters of Greece- even man traps. I think it would be better to call these conventional weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.
What about the good old Fuel Air Bomb AKA The Daisy Cutter??? It is designed for one thing only a Chemical Reaction that incinerates people by an exothermic chemical reaction. Is this a Chemical Weapon or just a plain bomb. I admit that if one dropped upon you it would probably kill you due to it’s weight - but its intent is to kill by chemical reaction. So Incendiary bombs should really be seen as chemical weapons as the intent is to kill by fire following a chemical reaction - and explosive ordinance should be seen the same way. Even flame throwers are chemical weapons and so is napalm!
It is easy to label sarin gas as a Chemical weapon - But I just look at intent and that is to kill - Starvation is equally a chemical weapon and the intent is to kill as well when food is deliberately withheld! Poisoning is a chemical weapon and it can be used on one person or many. It can be cyanide, or something such as a nerve agent but they still are used with intent and that is to kill!
But what use is such a broad definition? can you point to any solid object (or container of non-solid matter) that isn’t composed of chemicals?
I suppose since everything is composed of atoms, then every weapon is atomic (sometimes when someone takes the ball and runs with it, you wish they’d bring it back).
I concede re. the strict definition of chemical weapon. Now let’s talk about Agent Orange.
OK let’s not.
Agent Orange wasn’t used as a weapon against people, it was a defoliant (used to deny cover to enemy forces, before environmental considerations would’ve nixed that sort of thing) that was discovered (a few years later) to have unfortunate after-effects on people exposed to it. US troops on the ground were directly exposed to it on several occasions.
Good link Reprise
Have nothing scientific to add, but I have to tell ya,“I love the smell of napalm in the morning!”
My Navy training divided chemical weapons into nerve, blood or blister agents. No mention of incendiaries.
bloomingpouf, your argument is meaningless. Chemical weapons have a commonly understood definition that does not jibe with yours. You’re trying to call a ship a shopping cart, and calling it such doesn’t make it so.
Your definition of conventional weopons is way off too.
Well Bully for you - some of us have only smelt it in combination with human flesh - and that was sickening Morning, Noon and Night!
The weapon is one thing and intent another.
What is the intent of the man who invests the weapon???
What is the intent of the man who uses it???
Bloomingpouf, many Dopers have an odd sense of humor, and when I saw this thread, I came looking for the refrence, not seeing it, I added it. I was being witty (in a SDMB sorta way).