U.S. used chemical weapons on civilians

Here's another link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

No wonder why the U.S. didn't sign this.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']I mean this isnt new for us to do for ref see Agent Orange[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Agent Orange was terrible stuff, you should see some of the possible effects it had on people.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Agreed. Agent Orange was terrible stuff, you should see some of the possible effects it had on people.[/QUOTE]

But the fact that these things still occur, and especially in a war with entirely different reasoning, is the issue.
 
A bief history of the US gocernment using chemicals on civilians:


235/92 Uranium (Japanese civilians)

dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane [DDT] (US civilians)

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid mixture [Agent Orange] (Vietnamese civilians)

naphthenic palmitic acid [napalm] (Vietnamese civilians)

Depleted uranium [U-235 and U234 isotopes] (Iraqi civilians)

White Phosphorous (Iraqi civilians)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']None of those substances are regarded as chemical weapons by U.S. military doctrine.[/QUOTE]
Then what are they?
 
With the exception of Uranium 235 and 238 all are regarded as conventional munitions. Uranium 235 and 238 are the triggers/fuel for atomic weapons.

DDT was used for 80 years as a bug control spray. They used it to clear out malaria breeding swamps to make the Panama Canal and many other places in the U.S. as a mosquito control substance. There are dozens of third world countries that still employ it in that capacity. It really has no biological warfare advantage but could be used to clear out swamps and make areas habitable by troops or personnel. It was made illegal for use in the U.S. after Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" demonstrated it had a compound effect on wildlife.

Agent Orange was used with the explicit approval of the ARVAN government and army and at the time, like DDT, it was not understood how this defoilant would interact with people.

Depleted uranium, napalm and WP are used by numerous world armies and their use in combat by the U.S. (And against us in combat.) would not set off an escalation of chemical, biological or nuclear responses. Napalm is jellied gasoline, DU is just a very, very dense metal used as anti-armor projectiles (I handled this stuff hundreds of times.) and WP is a naturally occuring element that burns very hot when exposed to oxygen, including underwater.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']With the exception of Uranium 235 and 238 all are regarded as conventional munitions. Uranium 235 and 238 are the triggers/fuel for atomic weapons.

DDT was used for 80 years as a bug control spray. They used it to clear out malaria breeding swamps to make the Panama Canal and many other places in the U.S. as a mosquito control substance. There are dozens of third world countries that still employ it in that capacity. It really has no biological warfare advantage but could be used to clear out swamps and make areas habitable by troops or personnel. It was made illegal for use in the U.S. after Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" demonstrated it had a compound effect on wildlife.

Agent Orange was used with the explicit approval of the ARVAN government and army and at the time, like DDT, it was not understood how this defoilant would interact with people.

Depleted uranium, napalm and WP are used by numerous world armies and their use in combat by the U.S. (And against us in combat.) would not set off an escalation of chemical, biological or nuclear responses. Napalm is jellied gasoline, DU is just a very, very dense metal used as anti-armor projectiles (I handled this stuff hundreds of times.) and WP is a naturally occuring element that burns very hot when exposed to oxygen, including underwater.[/QUOTE]

I believe that the use of white phosphorus is strictly for lighting up battlefields. Any other use is banned.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']and WP is a naturally occuring element that burns very hot when exposed to oxygen, including underwater.[/QUOTE]

WP is not a naturally occuring element. It's a manmade isotope used to make phosphoric acid and is also commonly used in ammunition.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']None of those substances are regarded as chemical weapons by U.S. military doctrine.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Military does not recognize any of the above chemicals as chemical warfare agents. They all serve other purposes. It has apparently never occurred to the government that they might be used for purposes other than those intended...

I hate technicalities like this. But I believe "on a technicality" is the only way some people can win an argument.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']WP is a naturally occuring element that burns very hot when exposed to oxygen, including underwater.[/QUOTE]

What is a chemical weapon?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']None of those substances are regarded as chemical weapons by U.S. military doctrine.[/QUOTE]

It's a technicality. The argument against using chemical weapons is not that people don't like the word "chemical weapons" but the effect they have.
 
More chemical than anything Saddam had.

From the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/c/00939.html

chemical weapon
(DOD) Together or separately, (a) a toxic chemical and its precursors, except when intended for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; (b) a munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those chemicals specified in (a), above, which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device; (c) any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in (b), above. See also chemical agent; chemical defense; chemical dose; chemical environment; chemical warfare; riot control agent.
 
Not to mention the weapons saddam had during the gulf war were supplied by the united states when there were tensions between iran, iraq & the united states. "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend"

Tip-toeing on words & technicalities is really a desperate move when the evidence is mounting.
 
If you get mad reading this first paragraph, skip to the second.

ok, I am not defending the war or the use of willy petes but, sometimes you have to play hardball. IED are the most cowardly godawful device ever concieved. I think from a military standpoint the use of these flammable agents is a way to level the playing field. I am not condoning there use but just saying if I was in a fight with a guy who had a gun, I think I would go looking for a bigger gun IF I WANTED TO WIN.

Second, this is what sucks about terrorism. There is no one to hold accountable for the actions of the terrorists. No one to point the finger at. So they can use all the sneaky war devices they can dream up and get away with it. On the other hand, when in war (which should not have rules) our morals will always be in question because we are the most envied people in the world. If all the anti-war nation in the world had it their way, they would have all US soldiers go in to combat with tasers and bing bag guns.

Oh, and in no way did I want for these weapons to be used on civilians. I felt like I would have got internet raped if I didn't mention that.
 
[quote name='jughead']If you get mad reading this first paragraph, skip to the second.

ok, I am not defending the war or the use of willy petes but, sometimes you have to play hardball. IED are the most cowardly godawful device ever concieved. I think from a military standpoint the use of these flammable agents is a way to level the playing field. I am not condoning there use but just saying if I was in a fight with a guy who had a gun, I think I would go looking for a bigger gun IF I WANTED TO WIN.

Second, this is what sucks about terrorism. There is no one to hold accountable for the actions of the terrorists. No one to point the finger at. So they can use all the sneaky war devices they can dream up and get away with it. On the other hand, when in war (which should not have rules) our morals will always be in question because we are the most envied people in the world. If all the anti-war nation in the world had it their way, they would have all US soldiers go in to combat with tasers and bing bag guns.

Oh, and in no way did I want for these weapons to be used on civilians. I felt like I would have got internet raped if I didn't mention that.[/QUOTE]

One major difference though: chemical and biological weapons (WMDs) are internationally banned according to the Geneva convention. Anyone using them will be charged with war crimes.
 
[quote name='jughead']If you get mad reading this first paragraph, skip to the second.

ok, I am not defending the war or the use of willy petes but, sometimes you have to play hardball. IED are the most cowardly godawful device ever concieved. I think from a military standpoint the use of these flammable agents is a way to level the playing field. I am not condoning there use but just saying if I was in a fight with a guy who had a gun, I think I would go looking for a bigger gun IF I WANTED TO WIN.

Second, this is what sucks about terrorism. There is no one to hold accountable for the actions of the terrorists. No one to point the finger at. So they can use all the sneaky war devices they can dream up and get away with it. On the other hand, when in war (which should not have rules) our morals will always be in question because we are the most envied people in the world. If all the anti-war nation in the world had it their way, they would have all US soldiers go in to combat with tasers and bing bag guns.

Oh, and in no way did I want for these weapons to be used on civilians. I felt like I would have got internet raped if I didn't mention that.[/QUOTE]

What are your opinions on land mines, claymores and trip wires?
 
Land mines are militarily questionable in value. In the desert they are not very effective. It's easy enough to clear lanes of passage with either line charges or engineering vehicles. You can also detonate an entire minefield with an FAE causing massive overpressure that will activate any mine within several square miles of the epicenter.

However on the Korean Peninsula you can't live without them for strategic reasons. The DPRK outnumbers the ROK/US forces 2-1. There are only so many invasion routes you can take in that country too, the terrain sucks from a mechanized attack standpoint. In that instance it's critically important that certain zones be mined heavily. At that point you disable a few lead vehicles and you create a backup similar to what exists during an accident at rush hour. Then air power and artillery can pick off the backed up lines of vehicles.

Mines are defensive measures. Anti-personnel mines are really no different than a static artillery shell. The ballistic effects on soft targets, people, are not much different than a hand grenade, 12 gague shotgun or artillery shrapnel.

Trip wires are fairly easily defeated if you're looking for them. Many anti-personnel mines and anti-vehicle/tank mines are now looking for IR signatures instead. I wouldn't be surprised to see mines within the next 10-15 years with image recognition that can tell you the difference between a guy with an AK-47, a deer or a farmer with a plow.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Land mines are militarily questionable in value. In the desert they are not very effective. It's easy enough to clear lanes of passage with either line charges or engineering vehicles. You can also detonate an entire minefield with an FAE causing massive overpressure that will activate any mine within several square miles of the epicenter.

However on the Korean Peninsula you can't live without them for strategic reasons. The DPRK outnumbers the ROK/US forces 2-1. There are only so many invasion routes you can take in that country too, the terrain sucks from a mechanized attack standpoint. In that instance it's critically important that certain zones be mined heavily. At that point you disable a few lead vehicles and you create a backup similar to what exists during an accident at rush hour. Then air power and artillery can pick off the backed up lines of vehicles.

Mines are defensive measures. Anti-personnel mines are really no different than a static artillery shell. The ballistic effects on soft targets, people, are not much different than a hand grenade, 12 gague shotgun or artillery shrapnel.

Trip wires are fairly easily defeated if you're looking for them. Many anti-personnel mines and anti-vehicle/tank mines are now looking for IR signatures instead. I wouldn't be surprised to see mines within the next 10-15 years with image recognition that can tell you the difference between a guy with an AK-47, a deer or a farmer with a plow.[/QUOTE]

I was getting at his IED coward comment. It seems to me that IEDs are basically primitive landmines or some facsimile thereof. Just curious if he thought that the items I mentioned were cowardly, too.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'] Anyone using them will be charged with war crimes.[/QUOTE]

But a group people have long had a defense against this, they throw up their hands and say "I'm white and I'm christian", it works almost every time.
 
[quote name='jughead']IED are the most cowardly godawful device ever concieved. [/QUOTE]
We use claymores, guided missiles, and unmanned assault craft.

What is more cowardly than using a remote control killing machine?
 
If I were running a guerilla operation or war I would employ IED's all day long. It's not cowardly to inflict as much damage as possible while exposing yourself to as minimal risk as possible.

I will say that IED users in Iraq are not the brightest bulbs for various reasons. First, videotaping the attacks. If you don't think that distances aren't calculated after these attacks show up on the net you're stupid. If it's determined that 50-100 meters off the roadside is where these attacks are coming from an OH-58 running overhead convoy patrols with IR will identify 2-3 man operation teams like cops can identify bank robbers who tried to disable the dye packs. There are other factors as well, but, meh, too technical.

Also this recent media fascination with shaped charge IED's is silly. Shaped charges don't require that much sophistication. If I'm not mistaken you can learn to make them in the frickin' Anarchists Cookbook.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']One major difference though: chemical and biological weapons (WMDs) are internationally banned according to the Geneva convention. Anyone using them will be charged with war crimes.[/QUOTE]

I know, you can't violate those laws. But is murdering innocent civilians with a dagger to his throat more cruel then burning them to bits? A question that deserves no anser. Death is death. It is obvious that U.S. soldiers are not angry madmen handpicking innocent civilians to kill. Yet they are held accountable when collateral damage is evident. On the other hand, terrorist obey no law. They find a way to win any way that they can and the geneva convention does not apply to them. That is why they kidnap and murder civilians.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']What are your opinions on land mines, claymores and trip wires?[/QUOTE]

As far as the willy petes vs. IED argument, IEDs are not being used as defensive devices like you would normally think. They are being used offensively (not that it matters- war is war). That is why I said their should be no rules in war. Yes, there should be rules to protect civilians, but as far as how you kill an enemy combatant, their should be no discrepancy.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I was getting at his IED coward comment. It seems to me that IEDs are basically primitive landmines or some facsimile thereof. Just curious if he thought that the items I mentioned were cowardly, too.[/QUOTE]
yes, you could say that they are cowardly too. That is what I am saying. If they want to fight cowardly then we should be able to as well.
 
Jugs its not as if Shock and Awe was the bravest military operation ever.

Also we are supposed to be better than them right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Also we are supposed to be better than them right?[/QUOTE]

You can't win a war by "being better than them".
 
>>You can't win a war by "being better than them".

We won WWII against Germany without resorting to putting millions into gas chambers and ovens.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>You can't win a war by "being better than them".

We won WWII against Germany without resorting to putting millions into gas chambers and ovens.[/QUOTE]
The gas chambers had nothing to do with the battles that were fought.
 
[quote name='Msut77']>>You can't win a war by "being better than them".

We won WWII against Germany without resorting to putting millions into gas chambers and ovens.[/QUOTE]

Firebombing of Dresden anyone?
 
>>The gas chambers had nothing to do with the battles that were fought.

Well what you said was "better than them" no qualifiers.

>>Firebombing of Dresden anyone?

Fair enough, still not as bad though.
 
[quote name='jughead']I know, you can't violate those laws. But is murdering innocent civilians with a dagger to his throat more cruel then burning them to bits? A question that deserves no anser. Death is death.[/quote]

I know you didn't really want an answer, but I think that is clearly yes. Burning someone is much more cruel than a dagger to the throat. And, in many states, a dagger to the throat is not grounds for a death penalty, burning to death is due to being particularly heinous.

If the choice is lining 20 civilians against a wall and killing them with well place bullets, or having them intentionally burned to death, that is a big difference.

This is why certain weapons need to be treated as much worse, even if they aren't killing more people.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
>>Firebombing of Dresden anyone?

Fair enough, still not as bad though.[/QUOTE]

How about dropping 2 atomic bombs on civilians in Japan to win the war?

How about Japanese internment camps?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']How about dropping 2 atomic bombs on civilians in Japan to win the war?

How about Japanese internment camps?[/QUOTE]

Atomic bombs had the goal of ending the war, and the benefit of possibly preventing more deaths of japanese and americans.

We didn't gas, brutally torture ( torture could be depated based on how you define torture) and kill the japanese, or other groups who were interned.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Atomic bombs had the goal of ending the war, and the benefit of possibly preventing more deaths of japanese and americans. [/QUOTE]
About 300,000 people died, every single last one of them a civilian, ncluding little children who had nothing to do with the war.
 
What an odd thread. I'm not really sure where you guys are headed. The modern world does not engage in war with a no-holds-barred mentality. You can't just march across enemy territory mowing down everyone that moves without drawing condemnation from the rest of the world. Clearly, you can not commit what are--in the international community--recognized as 'war crimes' and shrug it off by saying,"Hey, I want to win!"

Neither can you hope to completely avoid civilian casualties. Lord knows we've incurred more than enough civilian casualties in the middle east already, but that probably doesn't surprise anyone, given that we are staging military operations in urban settings over there. But, I have no idea why you guys are comparing relative levels of cruelty implicit in different types of weapons/warfare. They hate us enough to kill us in cold blood & desecrate the bodies as a dancing mob. They're not wagging fingers at us and criticizing how we are armed..

The issue (I thought) was one of hypocrisy. We say into the microphones that we aren't using chemical weapons in their streets, and then we leave scorched/melted bodies with the clothing intact. Administrative terminology aside, nobody cares if you "technically consider" a knife to be a "personal, hand-to-hand melee weapon." We look like insanely stupid jack-asses making speeches that say we are not using knives, while we leave bodies riddled with stab wounds in our wake.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']About 300,000 people died, every single last one of them a civilian, ncluding little children who had nothing to do with the war.[/QUOTE]

That's nice, especially since you failed to explain how it's worse than killing over 6 million jews, and 2-4 times that in overall civilians.
 
Operation Coronet (The planned invasion of Honshu, the main island of Japan.) and Olympic (Kyushu) had the following estimates attached to it.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Link

The atomic bombs used in Japan were horrific yet humane at the same time. An invasion of Japan would have more than doubled the fatalities we had endured in WW II.

You ask me I'll trade 300,000 civillian deaths for 5,000,000-10,000,000 civillian deaths any day of the week. Harry Truman did the absolutely correct thing and more people should be aware of what Olympic and Coronet planning estimated before they criticize the U.S. for being the only nation that ever used atomic arms in combat.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Atomic bombs had the goal of ending the war, and the benefit of possibly preventing more deaths of japanese and americans.

We didn't gas, brutally torture ( torture could be depated based on how you define torture) and kill the japanese, or other groups who were interned.[/QUOTE]

At least not intentionally, although some of the people who died actually got to enjoy being burnt to a crisp and some of the survivors battled with cancer due to all the radiation.

I think the real question you should ask yourself is this: After having dropped the first bomb and knowing what it did can we really plead ignorance for the second?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']At least not intentionally, although some of the people who died actually got to enjoy being burnt to a crisp and some of the survivors battled with cancer due to all the radiation.

I think the real question you should ask yourself is this: After having dropped the first bomb and knowing what it did can we really plead ignorance for the second?[/QUOTE]

We're still discovering more effects of those attacks, so on many levels yes. The massive immediate effect we can't after we dropped the first.

Would the japanese have surrendered after 1? Some evidence suggests they were prepared to, but the u.s. did not want russia to get onto mainland japan and didn't want to wait.

Look, this is a case of degrees. Which do you reserve stronger condemnation for, Ted Bundy or the guy who killed in an atlanta courtroom?
 
Ted Bundy. He was deliberate, methodical and went about his murderous ways for years. There was no end goal to his killing other than personal satisfaction.

The Atlanta courtroom killer was like a cornered rabid dog looking for an escape. While he probably had a pre-planned method of attack he was just trying to escape and therefore his killings were a means to an end and not as senseless.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Look, this is a case of degrees. Which do you reserve stronger condemnation for, Ted Bundy or the guy who killed in an atlanta courtroom?[/QUOTE]

I reserve the right to see both as humans, not the spawn of satan and mearly a bad man.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I reserve the right to see both as humans, not the spawn of satan and mearly a bad man.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a point? Unless you're saying the internment and murder of 6 million jews, is the equivalent to the internment of around 100,000 japanese, you don't have a point.

And for once I agree with PAD's view, and it also illustrates the difference.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Do you have a point? Unless you're saying the internment and murder of 6 million jews, is the equivalent to the internment of around 100,000 japanese, you don't have a point.
[/QUOTE]

The mere fact that you see things like that is my point. I will not choose the lesser of two evils and call it good. I instead accept that we did what we thought was nessasary to win the war, not what was right and moral.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']The mere fact that you see things like that is my point. I will not choose the lesser of two evils and call it good. I instead accept that we did what we thought was nessasary to win the war, not what was right and moral.[/QUOTE]

Find me where I said it was right, where I said it was moral, or where I said it was good.
 
Look, this is a case of degrees. Which do you reserve stronger condemnation for, Ted Bundy or the guy who killed in an atlanta courtroom?
Click to expand...

There you go.

The whole concept of stronger condemnation really is just part of a moral scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top