# Italian TV: US Used Chemical Weapons **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 8, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063 "2005-11-08T17:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/81 "2005-11-10T04:55:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > HAD you struck a nerve it would have been about 3 years ago…the first time I saw you trot that one out against me. The term ‘Bush apologist’ only got used two times prior to november 2002; [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=897099&highlight=Bush+apologist#post897099) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=1072422&highlight=Bush+apologist#post1072422). **SamClem** holds the honor of being the first to use it in the modern, post damn fool war, sense; [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3276649&highlight=Bush+apologist#post3276649) . Rjung first used the phrase in [June 2003](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3605849&highlight=Bush+apologist#post3605849), and he wasn’t _specifically_ talking about you. Maybe you’re thinking of some _other_ evil **Rjungian** insult. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/82 "2005-11-10T05:00:43Z")
Unlike rjung you seem to have me cold there Squink. I was wrong it seems…rjung didn’t use that particular insult 3 years ago. :smack: -XT ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/83 "2005-11-10T05:03:40Z")
Yeah, sorry for the aside, but you got me wondering about when people started using it. It does seem like it’s been longer than that. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/84 "2005-11-10T05:10:15Z")
Yeah, I thought it had been (I obviously didn’t bother to look it up). I’ve just seen him fall back on that (or similar drive by’s) before and thought it had been longer ago (and that he used it more often). Makes me wonder though what other things about this board I ‘know’ that are incorrect. -XT ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/85 "2005-11-10T13:31:23Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The term “chemical weapon” wasn’t my invention, it came from Italian television and has been picked up and used by some mainstream media. If you don’t like the term, fine. But I’m not the only one using it. > … > I guess I’d call napalm a chemical weapon too. You may not. I’m less worried about the word than the effect. Well, you are wrong, and so are many other people. Once again, from my earlier link > [@](#): > > 1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately: > (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes; > (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices; > (c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b). WP is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary weapon. From [Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.](http://www.ilrg.com/subject/lawofwar/16proto-incendiaryweapons.html), bolding and editing mine. > [@](#): > > Article 1 Definitions > For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. “Incendiary weapon” means **any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target** > … > 5. “Feasible precautions” are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations. > > Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects > … > 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects… Even if you have signed up to the relevant protocol designed to control the random barbecuing of civilians (which the US apparently hasn’t :rolleyes: ), there are lots of exception - so even signatories presumably aren’t that concerned about the effects, just whether there is a reasonable excuse for said incineration. So whether you are a Bush apologist or a loony lib’rul, it’s still a matter of whether or not it was OK to cause the accidental civilian casualties, rather than exactly how they were caused, IMHO. If they weren’t accidental casualties, then that’s murder, as has been pointed out already. WP, Napalm and so get seized on by the media - presumably because death by fire is horrible enough to elicit a very visceral response. However, given the number of civilian casualties caused by small-arms fire, artillery and air strikes, I think it is a total red herring. Is it really more reprehensible to kill a few dozen people with incendiary shells than to kill thousands by ‘conventional’ means? Civilian casualties are up in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands - the rules of engagement at checkpoints would be far more worthy subject for all this debate, as they kill far more people, with arguably less justification. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/86 "2005-11-10T13:41:38Z")
Damn that Italian press for getting the taxonomy wrong concerning the burning alive of people. Remember, folks, the taxonomy is what counts, not the people. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/87 "2005-11-10T14:06:15Z")
> [@](#): > > (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices; You’ve convinced me! Yessir, since WP is not “specifically designed” to cause death or other harm, then any death or other harm that it causes cannot be from a chemical weapon! And since this chemical has another primary use, this makes it okay to launch on civilian populations. And as they lay suffering from their injuries, they can take comfort in the fact that by strict reading of the definition, their wounds were not caused by chemical weapons. Yessir, they might just get up and dance with that knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/88 "2005-11-10T14:10:13Z")
[http://www.spectator.se/stambord/?p=1039](http://www.spectator.se/stambord/?p=1039) ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/89 "2005-11-10T14:17:15Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Damn that Italian press for getting the taxonomy wrong concerning the burning alive of people. Remember, folks, the taxonomy is what counts, not the people. Who needs KGB disinformation operations when we have the Italian press and our homegrown “useful idiots”. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/90 "2005-11-10T14:54:57Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You’ve convinced me! Yessir, since WP is not “specifically designed” to cause death or other harm, then any death or other harm that it causes cannot be from a chemical weapon! And since this chemical has another primary use, this makes it okay to launch on civilian populations. And as they lay suffering from their injuries, they can take comfort in the fact that by strict reading of the definition, their wounds were not caused by chemical weapons. Yessir, they might just get up and dance with that knowledge. Toxic properties. TOXIC. Not caustic. Not kinetic. Not incindiary, toxic. Serin, mustard gas, chlorine, phosgene, VX, soman and tabun are chemical weapons, white phosphorus is not. Nor is C4 or thermite. The fact that you find the damage it does to the human body repugnant does not make it a chemical weapon. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/91 "2005-11-10T14:59:27Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Why the fuss? You should know the answer to this. This board is devoted to fighting ignorance, not spreading it. > [@](#): > > Let’s stipulate that WP is NOT a chemical weapon. Mighty generous of you to stipulate what everyone here except for you already knows to be a fact. It shouldn’t have taken you 76 posts to grasp this. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/92 "2005-11-10T15:01:50Z")
OK gang, let’s try a new approach. [From the US Army,](http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf) , lower left of p 26: > [@](#): > > WP proved to an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. Is not “munition” a weapon? Incendiary device or chemical weapon, it was used on insurgents. Its effects made it a “potent psychological weapon”. What properties of a chemical weapon did WP not have? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/93 "2005-11-10T15:27:15Z")
Toxic effect being the primary cause of death and injury? Just guessing. Do I win? ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/94 "2005-11-10T15:37:14Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Toxic effect being the primary cause of death and injury? Just guessing. Do I win? YES! Let’s see what he’s won, Bob… A crate of white phosphorus grenades An all expense paid, 7 day, 6 night vacation in Fallujah A copy of both the Merck Index and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary and finally… A brand new car! That’s right, straight from France we have an Audi that has only been exposed to incindiary materials, not chemical weapons. Heck, have two! ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/95 "2005-11-10T15:53:01Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Toxic effect being the primary cause of death and injury? Just guessing. Do I win? Is burning flesh a toxic effect? I ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/96 "2005-11-10T16:00:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Is burning flesh a toxic effect? Not in this universe. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/97 "2005-11-10T16:09:40Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > YES! > > Let’s see what he’s won, Bob… > > A crate of white phosphorus grenades > An all expense paid, 7 day, 6 night vacation in Fallujah > A copy of both the Merck Index and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary > and finally… > A brand new car! That’s right, straight from France we have an Audi that has only been exposed to incindiary materials, not chemical weapons. Heck, have two! What brought that on? ---
**Author:** ![Blackclaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@Blackclaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackclaw)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/98 "2005-11-10T16:18:49Z")
> [@](#): > > WP proved to an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. I think the nature of WP confuses some folks. When phosperous burns it creates a billowing cloud of white smoke. The cloud will not melt your skin off or kill you instantly. Being in such a cloud is a thouroughly unpleasent just as standing around in tear gas is uncomfortable. It causes skin, lung, and eye irritation but is not fatal to the average human being. It is a chemical cloud in the same sense that tear gas is a chemical weapon. If a WP cloud was as deadly as some suggest, then there would be no need to follow up a WP attack with an HE attack. The WP would do the killing. But a WP cloud is usually not deadly. Being hit by the actual burning chemical, white phosphorous, is similar to being hit with the flaming jelly known as napalm. Perhaps worse as it is much more difficult to put out. The burning chemical is a chemical weapon in the same sense that high explosives are chemical weapons. The combustion rate is different, but neither do things that classic chemical weapons do such as shut down the nervous system. If the US used WP to create a billowing white cloud that flowed into buildings in an effort to get insurgents to evacuate those buildings, then I don’t see a problem with its use. If they indescriminately lobbed WP shells into the heart of the city in an attempt to create an inferno, then I have a big problem with its use. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/99 "2005-11-10T16:22:50Z")
Man, **BobLibDem** is to white phosphorous as **Bob\_Loblaw** is to Al Sharpton. And you’re a racist Bush apologist if you don’t agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063/100 "2005-11-10T16:31:04Z")
I would point out that tanks explode phosphorus grenades to screen themselves from attack. The old M-60 Patton used WP. For some reason, the M-1 Abrams uses red phosphorus. In any case, the smoke produced is nasty, but not especially lethal. Heck, I have been in clouds of the stuff. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/italian-tv-us-used-chemical-weapons/330063.md?page=6)