Peter Cairns Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 When doing the search for WMD's Iraq declared and the UN found, ( and as far as I am aware allowed them to keep) large quantities of CS gas, some of which could be fired from RPG's IF ( any info welcome) Syria has a similiar capability then it could well be used to force US forces out of buildings etc, or at least to fight in gas masks. Oh and on the same subject I'd certainly experct the Syrians to have learned enough about Iraq to be checking the shelf life of their WP rounds. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I rather suspect nerve gass filled RPGs would do-in more of the enemy than the U.S. An MLRS artillery rocket strike on a unit carrying these weapons in the rear would have the added benefit of killing everything and everybody downwind! Now a less-than-lethal gas RPG round (tear gas, smoke, even bleach!) would cause a good deal of initial panic, forcing the soldiers into their gas masks. Until word eventually got around that the rounds weren't actually lethal they might be a pretty effective psychological weapon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 If you are in a position to put a CS round into the enclosure, wouldn't it be better to send some HE in and injure/kill a few soldiers, rather than just pissing them off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Originally posted by akd: If you are in a position to put a CS round into the enclosure, wouldn't it be better to send some HE in and injure/kill a few soldiers, rather than just pissing them off? Wasn't CS forbidden by Geneva Convention in warfare? Police force are allowed to use them though. Odd, I know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Not really since the Geneva Convention protocols cover war (i.e. combat between sovereign nations) whereas police are normally involved in internal security. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 My previous post may not have made much sense. I had got it into my head that CS gas was one of the nerve agents (thinking of Cerin?), not one of the 'tear gasses'. A big hearty "D'oh" on my part. If the RPG is the ubiquitous launcher of choice in those parts I don't see why CS shouldn't be in the inventory. Like, what's the chance the U.S. has a few 40mm tear gas rounds somewhere in our inventory? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jBrereton Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Urmm from Feluija, it seems that the Americans don't give a rat's arse about the rules. Chemical weapons, anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Originally posted by jBrereton: Urmm from Feluija, it seems that the Americans don't give a rat's arse about the rules. Chemical weapons, anyone? Fallujah deserved that sarin nerve agent dousing followed by the nice blanket of mustard gas just before the assault. Plus, U.S. soldiers and Marines jump at any opportunity to wear their chemical suits, because they love how much it frightens Iraqi children. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Originally posted by jBrereton: Urmm from Feluija, it seems that the Americans don't give a rat's arse about the rules. Chemical weapons, anyone? Er, at which point did the US forces use chemical weapons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The used white phosphorus. Legally it is NOT a chemical weapon. However if it is used against civilians and not for illumination the Geneva Convention considers it a chemical weapon. The official line is that they used WP for incendiary purposes in areas that were not occupied by civilians. Regardless of whether or not they targeted civilians on purpose they did hit them. There is a very legitimate Italian documentary about Fallujah that shows some very graphic film. It also includes interviews with Iraqis that saw 'strange explosions' (paraphrasing there) and images of people burned in their clothes. If the US didn't hit a notable number of civilians with WP then the insurgents/al Queda have a Hollywood quality effects studio to fake a propaganda video. Link to video (graphic) I do not however personally believe the US would or has targeted civilians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 That video was, if I remember correctly, discredited by several non-partisan, reputable sources. The main "It was fake" point that I can remember was that the WP would have burnt the clothes off the bodies, or would have burned them some other way or something. I'm not 100% sure exactly what, but I remember this having been brought up before and been shown to be illegitimate. Edit: Here's the thread on this video: Willy Pete Alleged To Have Be Used In Fallujah Here's a site about WP and its effects: emedicine: Incindiery Agents This site describes the effects of WP - effects different from those attributed to WP in the Italian documentary. To quote the section on effects: Originally written by a bunch of doctors: Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.Nothing about burning to the bone while leaving clothing. Basically, the bodies in the documentary were killed by something other than WP. Yes, the Marines used WP in Fallujah. Yes, civilians die during war, and that's bad. But that example, at least, is false. [ January 10, 2006, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: juan_gigante ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The bodies in the video "with strange effects" are decomposing. Do some idiots actual think what you see in an open casket at a funeral is natural? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Originally posted by Colin: The used white phosphorus. Legally it is NOT a chemical weapon. However if it is used against civilians and not for illumination the Geneva Convention considers it a chemical weapon. The official line is that they used WP for incendiary purposes in areas that were not occupied by civilians. 1)WP (White Phosphorous) is not usually used as an illuminant but as an obscurant. It has a secondary incendiary effect, not chemical. 2) The only convention to refer to incendiary use is the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) 2a) The USA is not signatory to this convention. 2b) Use of incendiary weapons (which WP is not, primarily) is prohibited if: * directly targeted at civilians * air-dropped at a military target in a civilian area or * delivered by any means at a military target in a civilian area if measures are not taken to avoid civilian casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 I actually started this as like artillery deployed mines, I was thinking about things the Syrian might have that they could use against the US which either you might not immediately think of as useful, or you could use in a different way. I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere but Burning vehicles or indeed just petrol soaked tires seems as obvious thing for MOUT. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Used to good effect in Mogadishu, if memory serves. I wonder if 15 years of tactical and technical advances will have mitigated their effect? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Originally posted by jBrereton: Urmm from Feluija, it seems that the Americans don't give a rat's arse about the rules. Chemical weapons, anyone? And you're an idiot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.