| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Contrast and compare WP as used in Fallujah to a generic chemical weapon. |
| 2005-11-18 |
| A lot of people are claiming that WP is a chemical and a weapon therefore it is a chemical weapon. My desire is to clear up this misconception by analyzing the differences between WP as it was used in Fallujah and a chemical weapon. It is not an attempt to dehumanize the event or pass morale judgment either way. I leave that to the reader. But I think it is important for people to have easy to understand, informal analysis to make judgments. Compare and contrast the use of WP in Fallujah to a generic chemical weapon. A chemical weapon when deployed will retain its toxicity in vapor or liquid form for a variable length of time usually measurable in hours, depending on the agent. This is to create wide and indiscriminate dispersal. WP oxidizes spontaneously and does not exist in a residual form when exposed to oxygen other than smoke, which is no more harmful than any smoke because it is no longer "white phosphorous" having oxidized. In addition, the military application in question uses WP embedded on felt wedges to allow a more controlled dispersion versus indiscriminate. Chemical weapons require protective equipment and decontamination to operate in the affected area. WP requires none after it oxidizes. Chemical weapons attack the body in a variety of ways including inhalation and absorption through the skin to produce a toxic effect. Though you can replicate a scenario in a controlled environment that may demonstrate this for WP, such as forced ingestion, the practical application of WP weapons causes injury by the heat generated by oxidation. The injury is localized to the exposed area and does spread through the body, but it would take massive amounts of exposure to become toxic, which is impractical to this application. It continues until the WP is removed, oxidized, or removed from oxygen. This is a burn, not a toxic reaction. If you are in a location attacked with a chemical weapon, there is no way to avoid it without protective equipment. Falling WP can be avoided easily with cover. The WP may cause secondary fires and associated smoke, but fire and smoke are not chemical weapons. The lethality is what really shows the difference: If you deployed a chemical weapon against a building containing 20 enemy soldiers, they would probably all die and any one near the building, down the street, around the corner
. If you deployed this application (base-ejecting, artillery 155mm projectile with WP embedded on 116 felt wedges with a total payload about the size of a coffee can) against a building you would have a very low probability of killing any of the soldiers. You would even have a low probability of injury, since in this scenario the enemy has cover. You may get secondary effects from fire and concentrated smoke, but this is not a chemical attack. Chemical weapons have one function: kill everything in the affected area. WP has other functionality such as obscuration, incendiary, and marking a target. Note: Since writing this I learned that WP mortars were used in Fallujah though not shown in the RAI documentary. The net effect would be more dispersion over a much smaller area of about 20 meters. The mortars were used when HE or bullets could not penetrate in order to drive the enemy out with smoke and fire, the secondary effects. Since HE could not penetrate it is unlikely WP could penetrate and unlikely it made direct contact with combatants or "civilians" who might be inside. -Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with Scientific Applications International Corporation at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group. P.S. to Lone Ranger who posted on my analysis of the RAI video: You are correct, it was magnesium not WP (although many arty guys are still argueing over that one and although WP is used for illumination in older applications but I wrote it in an hour, give me a beak). WP is used for 3 reasons by U.S. Army doctrine: obscuration, smoke, and to burn equipment and fortifications. Not only is that not "crap" that is doctrine as I learned in Field Artillery Officer Basic Course. Also, if you think my analysis helped the bad guys, go to the big time liberal website www.needlenose.com and read the comments. You wouldn't believe how many eyes I opened my friend. What did you do to help stop this nonsense other than attack my essay that totally debunked the fakeumentary? Sorry but you pissed me off. I am trying o help sldiers and you are fucking attacking me...FUCK YOU!!! Whew, I feel better now, thanks.... |
| Posted by:Thavitle Angoting5805 |
| #5 Nuthin' new about the WP controversy - the Commies whined far and wide about America using WP in combat but had no probs themselves using it profusely in Korea, Vietnam, local Revolutionary movements, and Afghanistan during the Cold War. Its about their soldiers winning and American boys losing AND dying - every advantage they can get. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-11-18 23:27 |
| #4 I personally entered a destroyed ordnance room at a former Republican Guard barracks, now within the confines of a part of Camp Slayer, in Baghdad in 2003. American troops had previously spray painted outside the smashed-in door " WP ". Indeed, when entering the blackened and terribly smelly room, a buddy and I could just barely make out the jumbled charred mess within the room. How the room structure managed to survive the conflagaration that had taken place is beyond me. All sorts of expended ordanace littered the floor and spilled out of charcoled crates, hand tossable grenade canisters on charred shelving appeared ready for the taking but were somehow untoppled and yet visibly expended of their unknown contents. My buddy who had great knowledge of munitions agreed with the " WP " sprayed marking that indeed there had been WP in the room and he was familiar with the smell. I couldn't vouch for the smell, but I could vouch for the damage from earlier sights of " WP " damage at other sites. It seems that WP is indeed quite wide-spread and truely it would be a horrific way to get hurt or killed. But then so are a million other ways of dying. Why are they focusing so tightly on WP anyways? |
| Posted by: Fun Dung Poo 2005-11-18 22:30 |
| #3 Oh, Flin... but wait a minute... If WP is a WMD, and Saddan had WP, the... But, he didn't have any ... But WP is ... [head explodes] |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-11-18 21:26 |
| #2 A lot of people are claiming that WP is a chemical and a weapon therefore it is a chemical weapon And chemical weapons are WMDs. Saddam's army like all the armies of significant size had WP artillery. Therefore Saddam had WMDs. So watch the moonbats try to rationalize how WP is chemical but Bush Lied[tm] about Iraqi WMDs. Watch true BDS in action as two fundamentally contradictory positions are held at the same time. Heh. |
| Posted by: Flinert Chutch5977 2005-11-18 19:55 |
| #1 I meant: WP is used for obscuration, marking targets, and burning things. Sorry, I get really pissed about what the lone ranger said. |
| Posted by: Ray Robison 2005-11-18 19:26 |