The U.S. military uses the munition for smoke screens and to light up battlefields. Rights advocates object to its use near civilians because the chemical burns human skin.
One big difference is the Israelis fight in a lot of densely populated and residential areas against fighters that do not wear uniforms. The risk of incidental damage is high.
The steppes of eastern Ukraine are not densely populated, and Russian soldiers are easily distinguished from civilians by their military uniforms. The risk of incidental damage is low.
Agreed the risk is different, but I don’t know that the US should be involved in supplying questionable munitions like this. It’s a small step below chemical and biological weapons.
It’s… Not great on that basis. However in this context Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster munitions and worse on each other since the start. They didn’t sign those treaties. If the argument is look, Ukraine is already hitting infantry positions with thermite spraying drones, and these weapons can win the war sooner, I’m not going to be thrilled, but given the consequences of a less than total defeat for Russia I’ll bite my tongue.
I disagree. The main reason they’re banned is due to the high risk of starting uncontrolled fires, which pose a danger to innocents. This indiscriminate danger is a similarity they share with chemical and bio weapons, but can be mitigated with responsible usage. It’s not just “wp is bad”.
Additionally, smoke munitions that rely on WP could potentially be very useful even when not used in direct attack. It’s already present on the battlefield in a variety of forms. Tracer rounds are phosphorous. If you’ve ever seen a tank shoot out a smokescreen for cover, that’s phosphorous too. This would just be another delivery mechanism.
For all intents and purposes, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon that causes chemical burns which means it’s use is highly susceptible to facilitating war crimes, even unintentionally. It’s use should be banned from war.
One big difference is the Israelis fight in a lot of densely populated and residential areas against fighters that do not wear uniforms. The risk of incidental damage is high.
The steppes of eastern Ukraine are not densely populated, and Russian soldiers are easily distinguished from civilians by their military uniforms. The risk of incidental damage is low.
Agreed the risk is different, but I don’t know that the US should be involved in supplying questionable munitions like this. It’s a small step below chemical and biological weapons.
We shouldn’t be sending them to anyone…
It’s… Not great on that basis. However in this context Ukraine and Russia have been using cluster munitions and worse on each other since the start. They didn’t sign those treaties. If the argument is look, Ukraine is already hitting infantry positions with thermite spraying drones, and these weapons can win the war sooner, I’m not going to be thrilled, but given the consequences of a less than total defeat for Russia I’ll bite my tongue.
I disagree. The main reason they’re banned is due to the high risk of starting uncontrolled fires, which pose a danger to innocents. This indiscriminate danger is a similarity they share with chemical and bio weapons, but can be mitigated with responsible usage. It’s not just “wp is bad”.
Additionally, smoke munitions that rely on WP could potentially be very useful even when not used in direct attack. It’s already present on the battlefield in a variety of forms. Tracer rounds are phosphorous. If you’ve ever seen a tank shoot out a smokescreen for cover, that’s phosphorous too. This would just be another delivery mechanism.
For all intents and purposes, white phosphorus is a chemical weapon that causes chemical burns which means it’s use is highly susceptible to facilitating war crimes, even unintentionally. It’s use should be banned from war.
Did you even read the post you replied to?