Quote:
Periodically, one of our hyper-intelligent readers sends along a mail worth quoting in full. Reader Erik S., if you pardon the pun, helps illuminate the white phosphorous issue (see below).
A few notes about the post.
It’s actually pretty easy to google up info about white phosphorus.
Here’s a few links:
Global security, CDC, National Safety council,
US State department report.
To make it short, WP isn’t banned, it’s used to create smoke and light, and not as a chemical weapon. It’s a smoke grenade, but calling it that doesn’t sound as exciting…
It can cause burns, if unburned particles hit the skin, but that’s not what it’s designed to do. (To me it sounds really impractical to use it that way, since the burns are cause by shrapnel, so anyone in cover is safe, and people too close to the explosion will be taken out by the explosion.)
Oh, and the swedish army also uses it, as does, I imagine, most armies:
http://www.sprangamnes.se/document/allma nna/1993_4/bilaga19.htm
The answer to the questions could be:
1. Possible, but doubtful. WP does cause burns, but that does not equate to decomposition. And why would you use WP against civilians? If you wanted to use chemical weapons, then some gas would be much more effective. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of teargas (the swedish army has teargas exercises for the recruits, as preparation for chemical attacks), and teargas would be much more practical against people. Teargas, like WP, is also not banned in any treaty, and does not actually count as a chemical weapon. (Actually, teargas was considered a chemical gas when I did my service, but smoke grenades with WP wasn’t.) If you really wanted to use banned weapons, then mustard gas is your choice, as it was Saddams…
2. RAI needed a source to tell the tale that US used WMDs. They found one. Engelhart needed a way to become famous, spread his agenda, and possibly get a lucrative bookdeal. It was a great match.
3. The US State department denies it. Given Engelharts credibility, I would be very suspicious to anything he says. But the main argument is common sense. Just ask “why?”. What could possibly be gained by targeting civilians with WP, assuming that is actually the desired goal? Cause damage? Ordinary explosives do more damage. Terrorize with chemical weapons? Then why not use a better chemical weapon, like teargas, or mustard gas? Why use smoke grenades? It just doesn’t make sense, even if one is willing to go along on the premise that civilians are actually targetted…
I haven’t seen the documentary, but there is a logical leap in all of these stories. (depleted uranium, etcetc..) They all claim that the US deliberately targets civilians, but if that was true, then RAI wouldn’t have to do these movies and go around searching for evidence of it, it would be out in plain sight. All these stories asks people to believe that the US wants to harm civilians as much as possible, and then turn around and believe that the US are very bad at actually doing it… I mean, smoke grenades as WMDs…?
/Erik