• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

UK used white phosphorus in Iraq

Pikache

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
882
Points
1,010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4441822.stm

UK troops have used white phosphorus in Iraq - but only to create smokescreens, Defence Secretary John Reid has said.

MPs are worried by the admission by US forces that they used the controversial substance in the Iraqi city of Falluja - something they had previously denied.

White phosphorus can burn flesh and some MPs say its use will hand a propaganda victory to Iraqi insurgents.

Both the US and UK Governments deny using the weapon against civilians but there are calls for a UN inquiry.

Against civilians?

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

The US State Department originally denied it had been used in last year's assault on Falluja, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents west of Baghdad.

But on Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable said the substance had been used as an "incendiary weapon against enemy combatants".


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

Col Venable also said white phosphorus was not a banned chemical weapon.

An Italian documentary team has claimed it was used against civilians - but this is strongly denied by the US.

Critics say Falluja was a "civil society" so civilians could have been affected even if not directly targeted.

Smokescreen

Downing Street also stressed that insurgents in Falluja had been offered talks before last year's attack on the city.

White phosphorus is part of the arsenal available to British troops - essentially for illumination and smoke.

The defence secretary said he could not answer for the US use of the substance.

But he said: "We do not use white phosphorus, or indeed any other form of munition or weaponry, against civilians...

"We do not use it for anything other than a smokescreen to protect our troops when in action."

But former Defence Minister Doug Henderson said the UK should try to find an alternative.

The substance could burn when it fell from the sky even when it was used to create smoke, he said.

Treaty change?

Fellow anti-war Labour MP Alan Simpson told BBC News there was hypocrisy over the issue as Tony Blair had sent troops to war over Iraq's alleged chemical weapons.

"What we are forced to address is that in a post-war occupation of Iraq, the coalition forces - British and American - have also used chemical weapons."

Mike Gapes, the Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said white phosphorus was defined as an "incendiary", not a chemical weapon.

He suggested treaties on chemical weapons should be strengthened so they covered the substance.

Mr Gapes said the way the Americans had mishandled the issue by initially denying using white phosphorus was a "public relations disaster for them".

'Propaganda'

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the denial would convince sceptics there was something to hide.

"A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win the battle for hearts and minds," said Sir Menzies.

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency."

Lib Dem MEPs' leader Graham Watson is calling for a United Nations inquiry into the extent to which white phosphorus has been used.

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Liam Fox said there needed to be more openness from the Pentagon.

But he added: "Although white phosphorus is a brutal weapon, we need to remember that we were talking about some pretty brutal insurgents."

*****
I put in in this forum as it has implications to CF, as we do use white phosphorus rounds.
 
Used only for smokescreens? whats wrong with the smoke grenades we've been using?
and secondly, people were burned by it. White phosporous or napalm... I saw the pictures on the internet that went around after the attack by people claiming the americans were napalming people.

They were definately badly badly burned by something.......
you cant have an attack in a city like that without civilian casualties but still...
 
Phosphorus rounds fired from artillery or mortars.
 
I put in in this forum as it has implications to CF, as we do use white phosphorus rounds.

Yes, yes we do - unless things have changed dramatically over the last couple of years that I've been away from this sort of thing.  

UN inquiry?  Chemical weapons?  Give me a break...   ::)

Before we get too sanctimonious, I couldn't count the number of times I've seen "smoke and HE on the objective" in a fireplan (much like the US' "shake and bake" quoted elsewhere) and distinctly recall that there were/are WP rounds for the tank's smoke dischargers...

I will agree with one thing - the Americans have handled this (along with a wide variety of other things) very badly.  Instead of saying "yeah, so?" initially (as they're doing now), they waffled and issued conflicting messages, adding to the chaos.

 
Teddy Ruxpin said:
Before we get too sanctimonious, I couldn't count the number of times I've seen "smoke and HE on the objective" in a fireplan (much like the US' "shake and bake" quoted elsewhere) and distinctly recall that there were/are WP rounds for the tank's smoke dischargers...

Also, don't forget that the Smk Grenade dischargers on the APCs took the L5 and L7 Grenades, one of which was WP Smk, the other was Chemical Smk.

Now.....just saying that, I realized that some numpty may have interpreted "Chemical" markings as being a "Chemical Wpn" instead of Smk produced by chemical means instead of WP.  Sometimes it doesn't pay to let "literate Illiterates" near military kit. 
 
whats wrong with the smoke grenades we've been using

Geez, I guess all those smoke missions I fired over the years were silly. I suppose, if you had enough smoke grenades, it would come close to a Battery of guns firing a linear smoke mission..  mckenzie - stick with what you know...

TR - hit it on the head. WP and HE were standard back then, and I assume - still so
 
jmackenzie_15 said:
Used only for smokescreens? whats wrong with the smoke grenades we've been using?
and secondly, people were burned by it. White phosporous or napalm... I saw the pictures on the internet that went around after the attack by people claiming the americans were napalming people.

::)

George Wallace said:
Sometimes it doesn't pay to let "literate Illiterates" near military kit. 

You weren't talking about jmackenzie were ya?  ;D
 
so clever.

I was talking about the hand thrown smoke grenades, ***hole.
Seeing as how im fairly certain, that stuff doesnt burn your flesh, it didnt burn my face off, so why it would to anyone else would be fairly mystifying.

What are you rolling your eyes for? I assume all the pictures of the burn victims were fakes then and those US Marine corpsmen attending to their wounds were all fakes as well.  ::)

They were burned by something, and when this first happened I remember the accusations that they were using napalm... and well, when you look at the evidence, its reason for concern, but now that this new information has come around, the US has admitted the smoke theyre using for screens will burn you, and has probobly burned people accidentally, it makes alot more sense doesnt it.

But don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that would be childish.
 
RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
Phosphorus rounds fired from artillery or mortars.

let's not act like this guy and point out what probobly happened, so I have the opportunity to go "Ohhh, okay, that makes sense."
 
jmackenzie_15 said:
I was talking about the hand thrown smoke grenades, ***hole.
Seeing as how im fairly certain, that stuff doesnt burn your flesh, it didnt burn my face off, so why it would to anyone else would be fairly mystifying.

You know, even with only 2 years in you really should know better.

a)  we don't know what sort of WP rounds they're talking about since the article is EXTREMELY vague.
b)  the Pains Wessex smoke grenade is used only for training.  WP is used in theater because it provides a much denser (much more effective) smoke screen.
c)  a WP smoke grenade won't "burn your face off" either.  Worst I've seen it do is go off prematurely and burn a guys hand, but that was from the heat of the grenade body, and not from the WP.

jmackenzie_15 said:
What are you rolling your eyes for? I assume all the pictures of the burn victims were fakes then and those US Marine corpsmen attending to their wounds were all fakes as well.  ::)

White phosphorous, or red phosphorous, create wounds which are entirely different from the effects of a normal fire, or napalm.  I'm rolling my eyes at the fact that you're so quick to jump on a conspiracy theory to help explain something you don't understand.

jmackenzie_15 said:
They were burned by something, and when this first happened I remember the accusations that they were using napalm... and well, when you look at the evidence, its reason for concern, but now that this new information has come around, the US has admitted the smoke theyre using for screens will burn you, and has probobly burned people accidentally, it makes alot more sense doesnt it.

Only to the literate illiterate.
 
Just then the corporal spotted a trench system on the left of the track and warned his platoon commander, Lieutenant Chapman, who took over, leading the section in a swift attack through the line of trenches, using grenades and WHITE PHOSPHORUS, machine guns and M79 grenade-launchers as they went.   The radio operator provided a running commentary to Company Headquarters.

About nine enemy were killed.  It was not possible to tell the exact number, owing to the effect of the burning WHITE PHOSPHORUS in the dug-out.........

2 Para Falklands:  The Battalion At War.  Maj Gen John Frost 1983.

Can't find the exact reference on short notice but it seems that I recall reading in that same book that the drill for clearing trenches, once they were over run, was to double tap any bodies in there then throw in a WP grenade.  If they were dead it didn't matter.  If they were still alive they announced their presence and tried to leave,  others were discouraged from reentering the trench to reuse it after it was cleared.  Either way the trench was no longer a functioning part of the defence system.

By the way: do we no longer issue the Grenade HCC1A1/WP (White Phosphorus) that back in my day (1980-1984) was required as part of the "standard" operational load-out for the platoon.  2/Platoon Leader, Section Commanders and Section 2ics.  Paines Wessex were only for marking ground.  It developed too slowly to make an effective screen.  WP was the preferred method of generating a smoke screen quickly.

WP is NOT a chemical weapon.  If it is then so is C4 and the propellants that drive bullets and missiles.

Claptrap.

 
The best take on Willy Pete I've seen to date, courtesy of the Lightfighter forums:

I'm a combat veteran of Iraq. Mostly Ramadi. I'm an infantry officer.

I have got to tell you guys that the knuckleheads who are tearing their hair out about WP being an illegal chemical weapon are some of the stupidest, most ill-informed, hysterical people on the planet right now. You guys are making idiots of yourselves.

Yes, I've seen the pictures. And I've seen similar effects in real life.

Not from WP, but from good old fashioned HE, which can "caramelize skin" and "leatherize skin" and cause severe flash burns.

I saw their effects because I saw what happened to Iraqi civilians after HE IEDs went off. Sometimes it happened to the guys who were setting them up.

Doctrinally, WP is used as a marking round. You pop off one or two WP rounds on the target, and then you call the air to fire up the WP round with whatever ordnance is appropriate.

You can also use WP if you desire lethal effect but a smaller blast radius. For example, if there is a structure nearby you don't want to damage. It's conceivable to use WP in order to minimize collateral damage, while still getting steel on the target.

It's standard to use WP as the initial part of a smoke obscuration, and even as a navigational aid (though that's unlikely in Iraq thanks to GPS.)

WP can also be used to force the enemy to abandon a ditch, to escape the burning bits of phosphorus. He can then be engaged with direct fires or DPICM.

There is nothing prohibiting a commander from using WP rounds against an armed enemy in the field, nor should there be. This idea that DPICM is somehow more humane than WP is a feel-good illusion propogated by people who lead sheltered lives.

Others are simply reaching for any argument, no matter how outlandish, with which to slander our troops with vile and ill-informed accusations in order to score cheap political points.

The fact is that Sherman was right: War is Hell, and you cannot refine it. The best you can do is put your head down and get the nightmare over with quickly.

http://lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/7381077081
 
Kirkhill said:
WP is NOT a chemical weapon.  If it is then so is C4 and the propellants that drive bullets and missiles.
I think this is the problem.  Some reporter somehow interpreted "Chemical" stencilled on some ammo crate as being a Chemical Agent as opposed to a Chemical reaction to produce smoke.  Thus my 'literate Illiterate" comment.  If that is the case, he had better call 911 and have the Fire Dept come and clean out the HAZMAT problem under his kitchen sink.
 
What conspiracy theory is that?

That the americans used WP rounds from arty and mortars to lay smoke screens, and civilians were unintentionally injured?
Because im pretty sure thats what I agreed probobly happened.

I should know better what a napalm burn would like in comparison to a WP burn ? I guess I missed the boat to vietnam and didnt get the opportunity to experience first hand what these weapons do to people, and it was totally unreasonable for me to make any sort of connection between burn victims and napalm.

Again, youre the one jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth. I was talking about back "when this first happened" after the battle of fallujah was over, these photographs surfaced, and iraqis and insurgents were screaming napalm, and the US just plainly denied everything, even though the evidence of burn victims was right there in plain sight.

Since then the US admitted the people were probobly burned by them, and the most likely cause was the WP screens.

So then I post "oops" , referring to how the US admitted it, but what can you do."Oops people got burned, but we cant control everything that happens. Sorry"

Excuse me while I extensively research the effects of napalm and WP burns, so I never make such an absurd mistake again.
 
Just to correct a couple of points-

Also, don't forget that the Smk Grenade dischargers on the APCs took the L5 and L7 Grenades, one of which was WP Smk, the other was Chemical Smk.

The L5 smoke grenade is a emission smoke grenade that does not burst, similar to an in service smoke grenade.  The L8 is a Red Phosphorous bursting smoke grenade.

b)  the Pains Wessex smoke grenade is used only for training.  WP is used in theater because it provides a much denser (much more effective) smoke screen.
c)  a WP smoke grenade won't "burn your face off" either.  Worst I've seen it do is go off prematurely and burn a guys hand, but that was from the heat of the grenade body, and not from the WP.

We don't have a Pains Wessex grenade in service any more.  The No. 4s came back for a bit in the mid-late 90s when we ran low on C8s but C8s are the norm now.  PW may manufacture some of the other pyro including smoke pots but not our smoke grenades.  The C1 white smoke grenade is made by Hands.  Canada does not have a WP hand grenade in its inventory, the closest we have is the L8 discharger grenade.
If a WP smoke grenade functioned in someones hand you would see a whole lot more than a burnt hand.  WP munitions function by bursting.  In the case of metal encased hand smoke grenades this is a high explosive charge.  If one functioned in your hand you can kiss your hand good bye, full stop.

Oh and WP can be extinguished by water and will eventually burn out on its own.  The problem is, when it dries out it will reignite.  It will also burrow into the ground, extinguish itself that way and when the ground is disturbed spark back up.

No 80 Smoke Grenade...the original Pursuit Denial Munition
 
George Wallace said:
I think this is the problem.  Some reporter somehow interpreted "Chemical" stencilled on some ammo crate as being a Chemical Agent as opposed to a Chemical reaction to produce smoke.  Thus my 'literate Illiterate" comment.  If that is the case, he had better call 911 and have the Fire Dept come and clean out the HAZMAT problem under his kitchen sink.

Ill give the guy the benefit of the doubt but most likely he saw an opportunity for a news story and jumped all over it. I hate that.
Couldnt he have just asked a nearby soldier what the markings mean and why it says chemical on it etc? Im sure someone would be more than happy to explain it to him so he doesnt think theyre using chemical weapons on people.

Or maybe he just stumbled upon some WP ammunition somehow on his own in the middle of nowhere with no one around? lol.

If there is any kind of investigation into this, it would be another testament to the power of the media. The americans didnt do anything they havnt been doing legally and within the confines of UN doctrine for years.

All this media coverage just makes it harder for troops to do their jobs safely... to some extent.
On a side note, do you think that extensive reporting in the field is a good thing or bad?
 
A few points,

  WP is different than HC. HC is considered a chemical weapon by some countries. It was used in WW1 as a choking agent we use it as a smoke screen. Under the convention WP can be used on targets but not human targets it is normally used as a incendiary weapon or quick smoke screen. (not illum)  It comes in many forms from grenades to artillery. WP burns on contact till fully expended or deprived of Oxygen. If a hand grenade went off by accident you would not just get a hot hand you would have shrapnel wounds and be screaming from the burning flesh I think you confused the grenade with an HC grenade.

 It would be normally expected to us a WP grenade in a bunker or hardend building to set fire to it in order to deny it to the enemy. It would also be expected to us a WP grenade in your own Ops Office if you were captured to again deny it and its contents to the enemy. Artillery WP would be used to do the same but on a greater scale, just not against people be they combatants or civvies.
 
AmmoTech90 said:
Just to correct a couple of points-
Thanks for the clarification.

Question:   What is the difference between White and Red Phosphorous?
 
Hmmm interesting points.

48th, You know, even with only 8 years in you really should know better.  ;)
 
Back
Top