Talk:White phosphorus munitions/Archives/2007/September

Peter Kaiser: is it a chemical weapon?

Peter Kaiser statement has been added and deleted on and on, looking at history edits. This allows some to put the Pentagon's POV arguing that it is not a chemical weapon. US point of view should certainly be included, just as it should be said that they denied using napalm on the grounds that they were using Mark 77 bomb (which is modernized napalm, according to global security.org). Peter Kaiser's point of view should certainly be included in order to impede Wikipedians enforcing their own POV on the subject. As a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a United Nations organization, he was first interviewed in the RAI documentary and then quoted in the same terms by the BBC. Basically, he said that if used in an offensive manner, WP should be considered as a chemical weapon. It does not enter this category when used for illumination or smoke-screening applications. Pentagon and US military have said that they used WP in "shake&bake" combination: this constitute an offensive application. Make your own conclusion, but do not worry, it is highly improbable that the United States be officially accused by the United Nations of using chemical weapons !!!

I opposed the removal of the Kaiser quote the first time (see upthread). But this time the quote was just needlessly repeating an organizational position that had already been stated and footnoted to him, so it was entirely redundant. It's not a particularly well-informed statement, for that matter: WP's toxic/caustic properties are not what causes the human damage: its incendiary ones do. By the time you ellipsize out or footnote everything Kaiser says that isn't accurate WRT the specific question, the quote is pretty unwieldy.

PS, it's not just "Pentagon POV" that WP is not a chemical weapon. The annex to the Chemical Weapons Convention itself doesn't list it (http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16287.htm#chemicals). Given that the weapon was in existence for decades before the CWC, this means it was not considered as one when the convention was drafted. The question is whether it should now be included or considered to be covered by the CWC provisions. --BruceR 20:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter Kaiser's role and authority need to be understood. He is a spokesman for, and staff member of the organization that administers the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). OPCW's first Director-General was Jose Bustani and now Rogelio Pfirter.

Many people, both citizens of the US and other countries, complain when a President ignores, or states that he will not be bound by, legislation properly and legally enacted by the Congress. I suspect people would be even more upset if the White House spokesman unilaterally ruled on the legality of anything. There is a parallel here, in that the "Congress", or a majority of the 182 states that have ratified the Convention and belong to the OPCW, determine what is and is not a chemical weapon. Their decisions are recorded in Schedules I-III of the Convention. While phosphorus compounds of use in making nerve gases are scheduled, white phosphorus is not. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the UN's own ban on weapons such as napalm, MK-77, and other incendiary weapons (many of which are more dangerous than White Phosphorous) is described as "Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS which May be Deemed...". Text avaiable (http://www.un.org/millennium/law/xxvi-18-19.htm)

Regardless of what a UN spokesperson is willing to say in a politically charged environment, the text available from treaties which are most on-target with this subject seem to state that that any use of these weapons, including to burn a target, is a usage as a conventional weapon, which would automatically exclude description as a chemical weapon. However, according to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare) Wiki's Chemical weapons page, a chemical weapon is any chemical which proves itself to be highly toxic and kill not by explosive force. Examples taken from the Chemical Weapons Treaty include, however, no weapon whose primary purpose is to cause thermal burns, only chemical ones. WP's chemical burns are fairly minor, if existant at all - you'd have to have secondary exposure to fairly high quantities of phospates. Secondary chemical effects haven't been shown to be lethal, either...

I'd say that unless someone can show the chemical effects of White Phosphorus to be significantly more toxic than other incendiaries which have been called "conventional weapons", then there's not much of a case here.

Politics aside, white phosphorous is most definitely not a chemical weapon: its destructive effects are primarily due to fire, and not direct chemical action. – ClockworkSoul 04:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Chemical effects need not to be lethal in order to call a weapon "chemical".

2) WP smoke doesn't produce only thermal damage.

3) The correct question is not "is WP a chemical weapon?" it is "can WP be used in a chemical-weapon-way?", and the answer is: yes it can if you are able to produce high concentration, read http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm if you don't beleve it.--Pokipsy76 14:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hello, Pokipsy76. I've heard this argument before, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. Really, anything, in significant concentration, can have chemically deleterious effects on the poor soul exposed to it. Even water, in great concentration, can be a chemical weapon (ignoring the "drowing" aspect for a minute) in that too much of it can seriously disrupt one's osmotic balance and cause your cell membranes to rupture. The fact is, really, that the primary harmful effect of phosphorous is thermal, and any chemical reations it may have with a body are a distant second. I cannot claim to be an expert, but I did alot of research in getting chemical warfare up to featured status, and I'm familiar with the mechanisms of over 70 different genuine chemical agents: phosphorous is unrelated to any of them. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Pokisky, also of note is that so far, no one's given any information showing WP smoke to even be have serious negative effects, just when compared to normal smoke. In fact, the current article states that WP smoke is actually no more dangerous than fuel oil smoke. Even the article you linked to at globalsecurity.org states that WP smoke exposure requires no treatment even in the worst-case scenario of mucus membrane irritation. Phosphorus itself requires massive ingestion to reach system toxicity levels, as well. The only damage your own source can list is of a thermal nature. - Gattsuru

• Peter Kaiser's quote should be listed, as it is the official point view of the spokesman of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon. The debate about whether it is heat or chemical properties that burn is highly technical: Peter Kaiser's statement is relevant on this matter. If you don't like this quote, instead of deleting it, why not add a quote justifing the allegations according to which WP is an "incendiary weapon". If you want to enter this debate, may i point out that even the distinction between conventional and non-conventional weapons has been (and is) disputed? (as somebody pointed out, Mark-77 can be more dangerous than WP. Machetes in the Rwandan genocide were lot more dangerous than any chemical weapon.)

No (see above), Peter Kaiser does not have authority to issue official pronouncements for the Organisation. He is a spokesman, not the Director-General, and, as I read the Convention, the decision to call something a chemical weapon or precursor, and list it in the Schedules to the CWC, is a decision of the majority of member states. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemical weapon? Give me a f--king break. From the WIKIPEDIA article on chemical warfare: it "is warfare that uses the toxic properties of a chemical to kill, injure, or incapacitate an enemy..." Yes, a chemical reaction is used in WP to achieve its effects. The same can be said with respect to a bullet. The propellant that launches a bullet, giving it the kinetic energy by which it kills, uses a chemical reaction. If I shoot someone with a lead bullet my intention is not that they die at a later date of saturnism! WP's military use is as an incendiary, not a toxin. As such, it burns, and like it or not, that is a legitimate military use. THis is nothing more than a case of kind-hearted people, unable to cope with the grim realities of warfare, attempting to change it by moving the goalposts with regards to international convention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.128.185.96 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Refocusing more sharply on controversial aspects of WP

Just reorganized the lead and reorganized several sections, including many copyedits, references, etc. :

• The page is titled White Phosphorus (weapon), but the lead sentence describes a chemical element; this emphasis was changed in the lead
• The lead needs to focus more sharply on why WP is controversial - its use as a flare is perfectly reasonable; rewrote lead to reflect the controversy about it's potential use against humans. Also added a subsection under "Effect on Humans" on WP as a chemical weapon.
• Among other nations, US and Israel have used WP on positions known to be occupied by the enemy. This is documented with adequate references
• Part of the genesis of the controversy was the persistent denial and the subsequent admission by the US forces of WP use. This has been documented with references.
• The external links were duplicating some referred articles; "Notes" were renamed "References" and moved above Ext Links.

Much remains:

• The article is too focused on US use of WP. More details are needed in the section on Israeli and other nations.
• The citation from Field Artillery Magazine, widely cited in the media, should have the full author names.
• The citation for Saddam using WP in the Iran-Iraq war could do with more

substantiation than the Rai documentary.

mukerjee (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that the US has used WP on positions occupied by the enemy. No weapon of war is kind. You point out, correctly, that its use is controversial. There is a difference, however, between controversial and illegal. If there is illegality, it has to be based on language in a relevant international agreement, or laws of the country using it.

Legality is blurred here because at least two treaties potentially are relevant, treaties that have very similar abbreviations (CWC, Chemical Weapons Convention versus the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, CCCW). Most specific is Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. A country that ratified that treaty clearly agrees that use of WP against personnel is illegal.

Significantly confusing the issue is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which quite specifically lists Schedules of chemical weapons. White phosphorus is not in any schedule. Several compounds of phosphorus are scheduled, but that is because they are precursors in the synthesis of nerve gases. In comparison with the Schedule I chemical weapons, WP, while certainly poisonous, is not nearly as toxic and its military use as a poison would not make much sense when more lethal or casualty-producing agents exist. A good deal of the confusion, I believe, comes from the statements of Peter Kaiser, a staff member of the organization supporting the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The CWC is quite explicit about what constitutes a chemical weapon or precursor, and WP is not in that list. Kaiser cannot be considered definitive as an individual spokesman for a body that makes decisions involving multiple nations, any more than George W. Bush can be considered definitive about whether he unilaterally, without veto, will not follow a law properly enacted by the US Congress, and even signed by Bush.

I agree that the Field Artillery article, which I have read, needs a better citation. I honestly don't remember if it had individual authors, but I did have correspondence with some of the editors, and I'll try to find it.

Is hearsay evidence encyclopedic? See Hearsay in United States law and Hearsay in English Law. Is a citation of a (named) reporter, who said that his (unnamed) photographer saw WP injuries, encyclopedic, either in the traceability of the original report, or in the ability of the photographer to diagnose the cause of a burn? I have personally seen WP injuries as a result of a laboratory accident, and, while intact particles of WP were in the wound, they gave off characteristic smoke and glowed in the dark. Once they were removed, the burned tissue looked like any other burned tissue. The explosion of a WP munition is very distinctive, and I would accept a basic description of that explosion by a layman, as long as it met basic criteria for WP. Statements about the burns, however, are more a matter for forensic pathologists. Once the WP fragments are removed, it would be quite difficult to identify the cause of a burn, other than great heat. Someone might indeed have been in a building set afire by WP, but their burns, without other information, could have come from burning structural materials.

Thank you for the editing; it does help. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

POV issue in references to Peter Kaiser

Typically, in international treaty organizations, even the UN itself, statements of the Secretary-General, or head of the secretariat, is not authoritative. It certainly can be advisory, but the organizations need to vote, in resolutions or, as with the OPCW, in putting chemicals under schedules.

Mr. Hicks The III deleted my comment that Kaiser, identified as a spokesman only, is not authoritative under the Convention. I consider it a reasonable sourcing to identify, in my revised edit, what the language of a treaty does not say, hence is not approved by the membership. Kaiser is not listed in any official position at the OPCW site, which, in any event, does not delegate even to the Director-General the right to schedule substances. WP appears in no schedule, although phosphorus-containing compounds that are precursors to nerve agents (nerve gas, cholinesterase inhibitor) do. The Convention has not chosen to schedule WP as a chemical weapon.

I don't disagree that there may be good reason to give a senior official, such as a Director-General, temporary authority to put a newly discovered chemical threat under schedules. For example, in the US, the director of the Drug Enforcement Administration, with Food and Drug Administration agreement, can put abusable "designer drugs" into the research-only Schedule I. Just as there are POVs that say WP should be scheduled in the CWC, there are POVs that say cannabinoids and marijuana should not be US Schedule I. I happen to agree with the latter POV, but I also recognize that no spokesman can change the schedules.

Removing my material pointing out Kaiser's apparent lack of authority, is, I believe, POV. If an editor objecting to putting qualifiers on Kaiser's authority wants to be encyclopedic, please cite a source that specifically and positively says that the spokesman has authority to have an unscheduled chemical scheduled. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard, I don't disagree with you, and in fact, I share your opinion (stated below) that this page suffers from a POV that White Phosphororus is a CW, but not included in the CWC for some reason. However, I don't read the contested passage as saying that Kaiser has put White Phosphororus in any schedule - he's just voicing his opinion. To add a comment which says what he is or is not authorized to do, if it is not from a 3rd party source, is just a wikipedia editor voicing an opinion. I'm not going to fight this, though. Mr. Hicks The III 13:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; it's much better to start from a shared opinion. If anyone has a better wording, I'm open to it. My point was that Kaiser's opinion is no more authoritative than that of any chemist, weapons specialist, or emergency physician. I was less trying to say that he could put WP on a schedule -- if he could, that's where I would want to a cite -- than that he has no authority to do so. Perhaps someone can provide a definitive ruling, but it would not appear to me to be WP:OR to state that a treaty does not contain particular language. That's especially true of cases when the language is not there at all, rather than an editor trying to interpret language that is there.

The reason that I wanted to make his authority clear is that POV news media are using both his opinion, and the raw intelligence report, as justification to make CW a chemical weapon. Here, you describe his opinion very properly. It's more that I see others citing it as authoritative. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

First, I believe war is a terrible thing, and terrible suffering can be caused by virtually any weapon. Nevertheless, there seems to be a POV, of a number of editors, that WP is a chemical weapon, but it is not considered one by the definitive Chemical Weapons Convention. Use of incendiaries like WP is indeed forbidden under the UN Convention on Certain Conventional (i.e., not chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological) Weapons. The US has not ratified the section pertaining to use of incendiaries against human beings.

Citations in the section about use in Iraq need mechanical cleanup, which I have tried to do but they still need work. One article in Field Artillery magazine is cited different times with different dates, and there is a comment it is not available (2004) online. I was able to find it online, with a 2005 date, at http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2005/MAR_APR_2005/PAGE24-30.pdf.

I do not argue that US official spokesmen have been confusing and quite probably deceptive about the use of incendiary weapons in Iraq, both WP and the functional equivalent to napalm. Still, news reports describing what unquestionably were incendiaries make specific statements about the nature of weapons, but the sources do not appear to have any expertise in forensics or in identifying weapons. Horrible things happened, but can we try to be as objective as possible in this article? I recognize that a number of people believe that WP should be considered a chemical weapon, but the Chemical Weapons Convention does not so identify it. If the US had ratified sections of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, then the US indeed would have committed war crimes with the "shake and bake" or other uses of WP against people. The US, however, has not ratified that treaty language, and, much as the use of WP is terrible, I would hope we can be neutral POV enough not to try to insist that WP use is either a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or a violation of other treaties. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)