Bloodless Coup

for a handy and brief discussion of this and some of the relevant laws and guidelines, and the extent to which this is a chemical weapon -- short version, it is -- see yaga's post and associated comment thread. his observation:

"Academically of course, since nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are all considered "Weapons of Mass Destruction", doesn't this mean that the first confirmed instance of WMD use in Iraq was by us?"

as a commenter notes, that's not really true, since hussein's record in the past twenty years certainly reveals some use of WMD against at least the kurds, but it certainly seems to be true in the context of iraqi freedom, or indeed of the entire timeframe between 9/11 and now.

Moon,
By Yaga's standard, anything that involves a chemical process is a chemical weapon, which would include explosives because the process that causes ignition can be expressed by a chemical formula. Chemical weapons as defined within the context of weapons of mass destruction are weapons that kill because of their toxic properties, that is they kill because they're poisonous, people die from the poison. With white phosphorous, people die because of injuries related to burns and extreme heat. Maybe if they lived long enough they could die from exposure, but the heat kills them first. Of course, you could argue that tanks are chemical weapons because if inhaled their exhaust might build up in a person's lungs and lead to that person dying of lung cancer. But 99% of the time, that's not how tanks kill people, thus they're not considered chemical weapons.

Morris,

While white phosophorus isn't considered a chemical weapon by the United States, it is considered one by other states. Thus, it's use by the US in Iraq isn't illegal, but is controversial.

I'll agree it's not a "poison" type chemical weapon, but the fact that it kills directly through a chemical reaction (as opposed to bullets, which kill indirectly through a chemical reaction), makes it problematic for the US to use in a war of "hearts and minds". We should have been more careful, and shouldn't have used it.

Morris, first of all, you're not responding to the extensive citations to law the commenters posted to Yaga's initial post. Secondly, on your definition, napalm isn't a chemical weapon either. I reject that, as any rational state (that wasn't jealously guarding its prerogative to unleash whatever fury it chooses against its opponents) would.

Moon,

Actually, napalm isn't a chemical weapon. Its use is banned in several treaties as being an inhumane weapon (treaties the US isn't a party to), but no military or other authority I know of classifies napalm as a chemical weapon.

i stand before you chastened. and i suppose actually i should acknowledge that i don't care that much about the phosphorous issue. after all, 2,000 pound conventional bombs aren't terribly humane weapons either, and can wreak their own brand of "mass destruction." ah, the hippy parenting is suddenly coming to the far, no such thing as legal or humane war, bla bla bla, etc. nothing you haven't heard before.

Baltar,
I'm confused. An explosion is a chemical reaction, so why aren't explosives considered chemical weapons if they kill directly through a chemical reaction? I understand that with fragmentation weapons that would be killing indirectly through a chemical reaction. And if napalm isn't considered a chemical weapon, what sense does that make if WP is? They both kill by burning, intense flames causing heat-related wounds. I guess my question is, is this just an arbitrary line sort of thing or is there a kind of logic to it that I've yet to understand?

Morris,

We're dealing with international legalities here, not necessarily logic or reality. Bullets, while powered by chemical reactions, do not kill directly through those chemical reactions; hence, they are not chemical weapons. The chemical reaction moves the bullet; thus, an indirect chemical weapon. That being said, while the end result of napalm and white phosphorus is similar (buring people to death), the world holds them in somewhat different light. White phosphorus is generally regarded (by most of the rest of the world; not the US) as a chemical weapon. Napalm isn't (though it is worth noting that most of the rest of the world - again, the US excepted - consider napalm to be an inhumane weapon, and it to is banned, but not by the chemical weapons treaty).

There is a rudimentary logic to it (napalm is just something burning - you have to ignite it for it to burn; white phosphorus will ignite itself), but I wouldn't follow it too closely.

Baltar,
Thanks for clearing that up for me.