# Is napalm a chemical weapon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 20, 2002, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757 "2002-09-20T08:28:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/1 "2002-09-20T08:28:25Z")
It’s a chemical. It’s a weapon. Does it fall under the following definition from the [Chemical Weapons Convention](http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html)? > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/2 "2002-09-20T09:25:49Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/3 "2002-09-20T09:37:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy. So says [this](http://www.digisys.net/oes/chemical.html) site. ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/4 "2002-09-20T09:37:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/5 "2002-09-20T09:45:52Z")
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](http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/cwagents.html) doesn’t classify it as such. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/6 "2002-09-20T09:53:27Z")
There’s an extremely interesting report discussing this issue [here](http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/Harigelreport.asp?p=8&PublicationID=630). ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/7 "2002-09-20T11:18:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/8 "2002-09-20T11:47:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/9 "2002-09-20T11:59:02Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/10 "2002-09-20T12:14:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/11 "2002-09-20T12:16:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yojimboguy \* > \*\*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. \*\* But there is a difference: explosives aren’t sticky. Stickiness is an inherent chemical property of Napalm, enabling its effect on the individual. ---
**Author:** ![bloomingpouf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@bloomingpouf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bloomingpouf)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/12 "2002-09-20T12:16:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Doc Nickel \* > \*\* > > 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. \*\* 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! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/13 "2002-09-20T12:26:30Z")
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_? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/14 "2002-09-20T12:42:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kilt-wearin\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kilt-wearin\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilt-wearin_man)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/15 "2002-09-20T13:37:47Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/16 "2002-09-20T15:07:15Z")
Good link **Reprise** ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/17 "2002-09-20T16:12:53Z")
Have nothing scientific to add, but I have to tell ya,“I love the smell of napalm in the morning!” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/18 "2002-09-20T16:58:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bloomingpouf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@bloomingpouf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bloomingpouf)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/19 "2002-09-20T17:06:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erictelevision \* > \*\*Have nothing scientific to add, but I have to tell ya,“I love the smell of napalm in the morning!” \*\* 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??? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757/20 "2002-09-20T17:54:29Z")
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). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-napalm-a-chemical-weapon/128757.md?page=2)