|
« Romance! Intrigue! SCOTUS Nominations! | Main | Might I Suggest A Compromise? (UPDATED with Dissent from Bill. Also, Pillowfighting) » November 14, 2005
White Phosphorus: A Professional Opinion
Posted by Dorkafork Confederate Yankee has a must read post featuring a detailed refutation from a former Army Captain. (found via John Cole.) P.S. I'm going to reprint a comment I left there where I debunk a quote used to support the contention that WP was used in an anti-personnel capacity, something I think is not being challenged enough. (See update 2) Who said we used it as an anti-personnel device? Is there anyone with any credibility claiming such a thing? The only credible source cited by the left is an out of context quote in the (pdf) March/April edition of the Field Artillery Magazine: "We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions." From page 5. But look at the context: c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions. We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. We had several important targets, often reinforced houses that FOs had eyes on, that would have been more effectively engaged with a precision-guided munition, such as Copperhead with its shaped charge or the developmental Excalibur Unitary round that is concrete piercing (to be fielded in 2006). Barring the use of such precision-guided munitions, concrete-piercing (CP) fuzes would have been more effective than delay and PD fuzes were, but the latter were satisfactory. It is quite clear he is talking about hypotheticals about weapons they did not have but could have used. In other words, he did not mean "We didn't use HC because we're evil and by the way we saved our WP for lethal missions". He's saying "Because we didn't have HC we used WP for screening missions. If we had had HC, we could have saved our WP for lethal missions." And no, I don't think saving "WP for lethal missions" means they were trying to burn the insurgents. From the same page: b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be 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 when 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. Did they flush them out by burning them out or by smoking them out? Which do you think would be more effective against a spider hole? Update: That edition of Field Artillery Magazine is worth reading, even if it can be hard to decipher with all the military jargon. The general description of the fight for Fallujah is of forward observers in Marine platoons calling in highly accurate "danger close" mortar fires, including descriptions like this: "Sergeant Sapp could destroy enemy OPs early and refine target locations as well as confirm or deny that targets we had planned were viable, such as AIF targets or buildings that did not appear to have been recently inhabited." (pg. 4) Update 2: A Pentagon spokesman has confirmed US forces used a conventional munition against enemy forces in accordance with the rules of war. Which, if you'll read my first comment in this thread, doesn't come as a complete surprise to me. Posted by Dorkafork at November 14, 2005 12:47 PM | TrackBack (0) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI realize I might have to back down from this, that WP may very well have been used as an anti-personnel weapon. But I think the charges are not as clear as the left makes them out to be. (Even if it was incendiary, it still would have been used legally.) I'd say the limb I'm going out on is at least shorter and stronger than the "kills everything within 150 meters without burning their clothing" limb the KosKids went out on. Posted by: dorkafork at November 14, 2005 01:31 PM To kind of flesh out your iteration of the thesis behind the "shake & bake" fire, we simply need to remember that the primary purpose of WP is as a screening agent. The enemy knows this. Fearing they are about to be overrun by U.S. forces emerging from such a smokescreen, they panic and jump out of their spiderholes and trenches, only to be shreaded by carefully timed H.E. fire that catches them in the open. All the former artllerymen that I talk to (and more seem to be emailing me as time wears on) discount WP as an anti-personnel weapon, and it was their job to most efficiently kill people, I think they would know. The more I learn about WP, the left I feel it wold be used against people, and the science proves conclusively it could not produce "poison gas" as the far left claims. Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 14, 2005 03:21 PM I think this might be the place to plug my favourite weapon, the neutron bomb. As you know, this device produces a minimal balst, cofined to a few undred yards, but gives off a wide ranging radiation wave capable of penetrating armour and walls. This radiation is damaging to living tissue but leaves structures intact. So, when the radiation dies down, the invading army can simply "bring out the dead," and occupy intact buildings. Sort of the perfect capitalist weapon. Kill humans, keep the capital investment intact. Posted by: madscientist at November 14, 2005 07:49 PM Yeah, obviously atomic bombs with blast radii of only "a few hundred yards" are pretty much harmless. I mean, what's a square mile or two of smoking rubble? Keep in mind the deadly neutron flux radius isn't that much larger than the regular blast radius either. The whole point of it was that it was useful as a tactical weapon, against troop concentrations. I doubt it would be very good in city situations. All this, of course, ignores the fact that it's a rather indiscriminate weapon. It will kill whatever's inside its rather large (massive, compared to conventional weapons) blast radius and irradiate a lot of the objects in there too. What does this have to do with WP which has a blast radius of a couple of meters and beyond that pretty much just disperses a smoke screen? Seems like pretty much polar opposites of the weapon spectrum to me. Posted by: Nicholas at November 15, 2005 09:10 AM Nicholas...exactly! My information is that the radiation kill area for the netron bomb is much lkarger than the blast zone. To me, the perfect weapon would be one that had no blast zone and a huge radiation kill radius. See? The idea is to kill expendable humans (called 'the enemy') but to cause little or no damage to infrastructure, so that when you go in, you have something to go into. No need for "reconstruction." btw, i think you think i am making some sort of argument here that i am not making. I was rhapsodizing. Posted by: madscientist at November 15, 2005 05:05 PM The US military has now admitted the use of White Phosphorous as an antipersonnel weapon in Fallujah. Just thought you'd like to know. The Ape Man Posted by: The Ape Man at November 15, 2005 07:00 PM I was wrong on this. WP was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. Post has been updated. Posted by: dorkafork at November 16, 2005 02:02 AM Just one comment on the link from Confederate Yankee. His Captain probably was an FA guy, but doesn't seem to have the technical competence that NCO's have. He gives a long description of a parachute flare with WP. One small problem. Illum rounds us MAGNESIUM. It burn much brighter and has much less smoke. If you want to see an example of how little concern the army shows for the toxicity of WP, take a look at the turret of any US fighting vehicle. There are smoke grenade launchers mounted on them. These grenade pop out about 3-5 meters and burst. The are comprised of WP, RP, and butyl rubber. Do you really think we'd gas ourselves? thanks for helping to debunk the lefts latest "war crime" cry. Posted by: art at November 16, 2005 04:57 PM I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $74854. Isn't that crazy! Posted by: Betsy Markum at June 5, 2006 01:45 PM http://www.special-ringtones.net/mp3/ ringtones site free. ringtones site free, ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here. from website . Posted by: funny ringtones at August 20, 2006 09:45 AM ionolsen21 So interesting site, thanks! Posted by: thomson at October 18, 2006 08:57 AM ionolsen23 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work! Posted by: timoshka at October 20, 2006 03:38 PM ionolsen40 I just don not have anything to say right now. Posted by: stalin at November 6, 2006 12:08 PM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|