Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[vienna]

This latest attack was defiantly NOT a chemical weapon. It has all of the telltale signs of a WP or white phosphorus munition, likely a artillery round with a VT bursting fuze.

I wish this administration and the media would stop putting more fuel in Obama's war machine. It's getting old.

Unless I am greatly mistaken, WP is classified internationally as a chemical weapon and has been so formally classed for over two decades and informally for a lot longer. I also recall WP is part of a group of chemical weapons scheduled to be fully banned and destroyed by pending international treaties. Has anything changed in recent time?...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

Unless I am greatly mistaken, WP is classified internationally as a chemical weapon and has been so formally classed for over two decades and informally for a lot longer. I also recall WP is part of a group of chemical weapons scheduled to be fully banned and destroyed by pending international treaties. Has anything changed in recent time?...

The status of White Phosphorous weapons is a complex one. The treaties and agreements play word games depending on the intended use of WP.

If it is used in such a way that the intended effect is as a screening/smoke agent, it is not considered a chemical weapon even though it may directly cause human causalities.

If it is used in such a way that the intent is to use the phosphorous itself as the primary agent to cause human causalities, then it is considered a chemical agent under many circumstances.

A moment's reflection should reveal some convenient loopholes.

This is why nations only use WP as a screening agent and not as an anti-personal weapon. If people just happen to be burned alive by the WP, that is an Unintended Effect and is not considered a chemical attack.

Setting fire to people while playing word games -- a long tradition.

So, treaty wise, WP's relationship to chemical weapons or non-chemical weapons is that WP is a little bit of both but not enough of neither.

[DetCord]

Originally Posted by vienna

Unless I am greatly mistaken, WP is classified internationally as a chemical weapon and has been so formally classed for over two decades and informally for a lot longer. I also recall WP is part of a group of chemical weapons scheduled to be fully banned and destroyed by pending international treaties. Has anything changed in recent time?...

It's classified as a conventional weapon, specifically a bursting incendiary. However, it's use as a offensive weapon is outlawed by international law, and can only be used as ILLUM or Smoke.

I saw it used numerous times in Iraq by U.S. Forces and by the French in Afghanistan via artillery as a offensive weapon. They were fond of calling it a 'Killer Junior'.

[Platapus]

It will be interesting seeing the US condemning Syria for using WP by claiming it is a chemical weapons, while turning a blind eye toward Israel when Israel used WP weapons in Gaza in 2008/2009

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/03/25/rain-fire

Text of the Chemical Weapons Convention can be found here. In it are all the confusing definitions

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_04/cwctext

Syria has not signed nor ratified the CWC. Five countries total have not signed the CWC. Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria

Israel has signed but not ratified the CWC. Only Israel and Myanmar have signed but not ratified the CWC

Kinda makes it a bit rough to hold Syria or Israel accountable to a treaty they did not sign/ratify.