[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:27:16 -0800
Yet WP is not outlawed.
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate
on whether white phosphorous is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization,
Peter Kaiser, stated that white phosphorus was not against the convention if it was used as
a lighting agent, but "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the
caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is
prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied,
any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic
properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
However, even when it is used as a weapon, it may be argued that it is not the toxic
properties of white phosphorus, but the heat which is produced by its deployment, and thus
white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, but an incendiary weapon.
As to its use as an incendiary weapon, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol
III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or
indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.
However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is
secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus
munitions from the protocol, as well.
The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not
signed Protocol III.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
- References:
- [lit-ideas] Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete, well, okay, a little bit