White phosphorus used on Gaza civillians by Israel provided by US

[bascule]

You claimed they were guilty of war crimes for using WP

 

First, that's not what JohnB said. He said "You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties," which I never did.

 

Second, I never said they're "guilty of war crimes". I said I thought what they did should (morally) be a war crime.

 

... were shown that it was not the case or hasn't been proven and then you still cary on with the same argument. That's when.

 

Again, where? How about quoting me on it instead of putting words in my mouth?

[The Bear's Key]

No, the important question to ask is "Where do you get the silly idea that war is in any way humane?"

 

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_04/alia/A3041703.htm

Looking back at the 28 days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Myers said the combat operations that have transpired in Iraq have been the most humane of any in military history.

I bet someone feels silly...

 

Indeed.

 

(Armchair stuff)...

Below is a quote from one such armchair general.

There are other ways, but they can't be used for all situations. Different smokescreens are used for different battlefield tactics. As well, they all can be quite toxic; there is no such thing as a safe smokescreen.

 

For example, the reason we even have white phosphorus is so that they can obscure infrared signatures and other thermal imaging readings, as well as hiding large numbers of troops in general...

It goes both ways, methinks.

 

Perhaps wars should be fought this way then?

 

The way I decipher their real situation, is you'd have powerhouse Israel on the left, tanks and U.S. supplied weaponry, and on the right you'd have someone much closer to the slapping nerd (Hamas) than Israel is.

 

So what I glean from it: Hamas is just using a tactical strategy. It's be a really dumb strategy for Hamas to engage Israel completely head on -- as Israel would obliterate them.

 

For all you "war isn't supposed to be humane" comments, why are you disgusted at Hamas tactics? It's simply the manner you've accepted war -- to be triumphant at all costs.

 

(I'm not defending either side, but Israel's propaganda is much subtler)

[Mr Skeptic]

For all you "war isn't supposed to be humane" comments, why are you disgusted at Hamas tactics? It's simply the manner you've accepted war -- to be triumphant at all costs.

 

No one said we shouldn't try to be humane even in war. But war, by its very nature, cannot be completely humane. How humanely can you kill someone who doesn't want to die? We do have some treaties and some rules for how war should be fought to minimize civilian casualties, but Hamas is not following those rules and that leads to civilians getting killed. Whose fault is that?

 

I'm starting to think that Israel should just carpet bomb Palestine, take the criticism that they always get (only for once it would all be fair criticism), and then be done with it once and for all. Odds are their "friendly" neighbors would make some serious effort to prevent attacks on Israel from their territories after that. Seriously, how much more criticism would they get for doing that than they already get?

[iNow]

I'm starting to think that Israel should just carpet bomb Palestine, take the criticism that they always get (only for once it would all be fair criticism), and then be done with it once and for all.

 

Except, they wouldn't be done with it "once and for all." It would actually make matters worse. They'd inspire new hatreds and reinforce old ones all across the arab world. Kids born today who might be okay with a future peace would be totally and completely soured by such actions, and terrorist recruiters will basically have been handed the best piece of propaganda to gain new soldiers they've ever had... all because Israel said, "let's just carpet bomb and be done with it."

 

Again, your idea is wonderful in a vacuum... if Palestine were the only area involved it would work fine, but once you expand your reality to include the rest of the hemisphere, you've basically screwed the pooch by not showing greater restraint in the region.

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your sentiment and recognize the frustration which feeds it, but mass bombing is hardly the right answer. Now, if someone wants to dismiss my comments as those of an armchair general, then so be it. I'm still correct in what I've said.

[The Bear's Key]

bascule, I like the picture you included. It really speaks out. Having an image that keeps the human factor of war real in our minds is always a good thing.

 

First, that's not what JohnB said. He said "You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties," which I never did.

 

Second, I never said they're "guilty of war crimes". I said I thought what they did should (morally) be a war crime.

Actually, in a way you did say that.

 

This is potentially a war crime, and worse, the US had a part in it.

 

Why are we giving military aid to countries perpetrating war crimes?

At first you might have said "potential" but then your last sentence cements the accusation.

 

Perhaps you should own up to it. Could've been an innocent oversight....when emotions run high or one writes in haste, that might occur. Whatever the case, it's usually best to be fair and admit the error, if there was one.

 

Counterpunch gives a full critique of the organization around its stance in the Palestine-Israeli conflict: http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html

 

 

Just reaffirms my notion that there are no good guys anywhere in this world...

First, there are good people. Really. The rotten ones just have a way of infecting such organizations. It's to their best interest.

 

Second, to others here: Reaper's link clearly illustrates how Amnesty's usual stance isn't even close to what the propagandas have made it out to be. It's an old trick -- by the same propagandas who highlight far-right interests as "Mainstream America" and center-left politics as "far left extremists". Both these deceptions' goals are practically identical, to gradually make their pet extreme ideology seem normal/desirable.

[Pangloss]

Rofl -- Reaper's link was from Counterpunch, a rag that regularly runs views from the likes of Cynthia "the jews have bought everybody" McKinney and has been accused of antisemitism more often than (and faster than you can say three times) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

Wanna run that bit about propagandists by us again?

[The Bear's Key]

Wanna run that bit about propagandists by us again?

Sure

 

The propagandas that I mentioned like to attack their opposition. Far as I can see, a quick browse of Counterpunch showed them attacking both right and left. I'm not familiar with Counterpunch (tend to avoid sites overdone with big ugly screaming lettering at top), but it doesn't mean you can't verify the statements referred to. They have enough footnotes, so what's the problem? What they claimed Amnesty said is pretty much fact.

 

That portion really does show Amnesty's language having a bias for the U.S. and Israel. Maybe the total number of statements by Amnesty tell a different story, but I was just making reference to the link.

 

I'm not quite sure why it got you to roll on the floor laughing. But hey, more power to you. Laughter's good medicine, eh?

[iNow]

Wanna run that bit about propagandists by us again?

 

TBKs comments were not specific to Reaper's link. He was making a broader point.

[Pangloss]

Yes, and poorly. He apparently sees no inherent contradiction in using propaganda to prove that other people are propagandists.

 

I stand by my statement (to which Reaper was responding) that Amnesty International is often wrong. It was, after all, merely an opinion statement in response to Bascule's question. I reject the suggestion that I am simply misinformed by deceivers regarding this organization because the "evidence" supplied by TBK comes from other deceivers.

[JohnB]

Do you think war should be waged differently on civilian doorsteps than in areas where it's a purely military-on-military conflict?

War is waged differently depending on the strategic and tactical goals of the operation and the terrain, etc that the operations are performed in. Quite often, a part of the goals of an operation is the minimisation of civillian casualties. IOW, it's waged differently all the time. does that answer your question?

When did I do that? Please stop strawmanning.

Others have already shown you this. (And it wasn't a strawman) If you didn't contend that the use of WP smoke shells contravened Article I of Protocol III, then why did you quote it in reply to pangloss?

Actually I did that way back in the beginning of the thread

 

But since you seem apt to strawman me and stick words in my mouth let me point out I never claimed similar levels of effectiveness.

Nonsense reply. You have been shown that the alternatives were either ineffective or were worse than WP smoke. Your argument is similar to saying that all Semi Trailer Prime Movers can be replaced with 4 door sedans. Any substitution is easy if you're not claiming similar levels of effectiveness.

 

But let's put this to bed so that there can be no misunderstandings.

 

The types of materials than can be used for smoke are;

Zinc chloride

Chlorosulfuric acid

Titanium tetrachloride

Phosphorus

Oil

Mostly using Wiki (because that's the reference used before and feeling I'm lazy);

Phosphorus;Dense, long lasting smoke. The downside being that the smoke is hot, but not toxic. Burns occur if a person touches or is touched by the piece of felt impregnated with the WP.

Zinc chloride (HC); Short lived smoke, the downside being

Its toxicity is caused mainly by the content of strongly acidic hydrochloric acid, but also due to thermal effects of reaction of zinc chloride with water. These effects cause lesions of the mucous membranes of the upper airways. Damage of the lower airways can manifest itself later as well, due to fine particles of zinc chloride and traces of phosgene. In high concentrations the smoke can be very dangerous when inhaled.

Respirators are required for people coming into contact with the zinc chloride smoke.

Chlorosulfuric acid (CSA); Smoke lasts for some minutes but is generally ship borne and for use in wide open areas. References here, here and here. Downside being;(Besides the fact it occurs near the generator)

Low concentrations cause prickling sensations on the skin, but high concentrations or prolonged exposure to field concentrations can cause severe irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, and mild cough and moderate contact dermatitis can result.

Respirators are required for any concentrations sufficient to cause any coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin.

Titanium tetrachloride;Dense smoke cloud. The downside being;

The titanium tetrachloride smoke is irritant and unpleasant to breathe.

Goggles or a respirator should be worn when in contact with the smoke, full protective clothing should be worn when handling liquid FM. In direct contact with skin or eyes, liquid FM causes acid burns.

Oil;

Oil smoke is usually produced by smoke generators.

While the smoke can be dense, it occurs at the generator. Hence to lay a smoke screen in front of your opposition, you must take the generator to their position before turning it on. Not really a viable option in battle.

 

Do we have this covered now? The alternatives are not really alternatives, are they? And it is folly to claim that the Israelis are acting without thought or care towards the civillian population. If the Israelis used CSA, Titanium or HC in civillian areas, I would be on bascules side as the side effects of these substances would amount to a WMD attack on civillians.

 

If there is no regard for the enemy's humanity in war, why don't we simply nuke all of our enemies into glass?

That is a strawman. I never said there that is no concern for the enemys humanity, I said war is not humane. There is a difference.

If war isn't in any way humane, why give civilian casualties any regard? Why not just nuke them all?

As I have said, the weapons you use are dependent on the goals of the mission. If the goal is to kill everybody, then a nuke is in order. However, if your goals do not include the slaughter of civillians, then using nukes is not advisable.

 

That is not to say that the mass slaughter of civillians must be avoided. A good commander always tries to minimise casualties, firstly to his own forces and then to people in general. The choice of weapons and tactics are often a tradeoff without hard and fast rules. Such a cloice was made to end WWII. By sacrificing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (at a tremendous cost in lives, circa 250,000) the war was ended. To end the war by conventional means was estimated to take an extra 5 years and some 10 million deaths. I sincerely hope that having to make this kind of choice will never come again.

I bet someone feels silly...

Not really. War by definition is inhumane, but there are different levels. WWI was waged far more inhumanely than the Iraq war.

For all you "war isn't supposed to be humane" comments, why are you disgusted at Hamas tactics? It's simply the manner you've accepted war -- to be triumphant at all costs.

Strawman. Please show where anybody has said the idea was to be "triumphant at all costs." The idea is to be triumphant at the least cost. (Preferably to everybody)

 

In this case we have two sides. One has it's military bases outside it's cities and tries to minimise civillian casualties in it's operations. The other places it's personnel inside civillian areas and tries to maximise civillian casualties in it's operations. Which one is copping all the flak?

 

There are differing levels of inhumanity, just as there are differing levels of warfare. Trying to make things fit a "one size fits all" ideology just doesn't work. Failure by some to understand this doesn't invalidate it.

 

Bears' Key, I would have no problem with Hamas if they did a few things;

1. Stopped using children as suicide bombers.

2. Operated from concealed bases outside civillian areas. (or from readily identified areas within civillian areas.)

3. Concentrated their attacks against the IDF bases and outposts. I know their missiles aren't very accurate, but if they at least tried to hit military targets, it would be a plus.

 

PS. What's with the "neocon, left/right" bit? I'm not even American.

[The Bear's Key]

Yes, and poorly. He apparently sees no inherent contradiction in using propaganda to prove that other people are propagandists.

 

I stand by my statement (to which Reaper was responding) that Amnesty International is often wrong. It was, after all, merely an opinion statement in response to Bascule's question. I reject the suggestion that I am simply misinformed by deceivers regarding this organization because the "evidence" supplied by TBK comes from other deceivers.

Your point lacks something. Their claims on what Amnesty said are verifiable. There's even footnotes -- more accurate than the propaganda I spoke against -- the made-up kind.

 

So my point stands.

 

Curious, though. Which of the following do you say occurred?

 

• I made reference to a webpage that described fairly accurate quotes (regardless if at times the website's been known to have stupid contributors write propagandas).
  
• Or, did I state that Counterpunch is professional journalism with integrity, every page trustworthy -- and it's why Reaper's link is spot on?
  

 

The irony is, Amnesty's choice of words do reveal the inaccuracy of your own sources -- but only *if* Amnesty has a track record of phrasing the casualty talk just as was evidenced in the article.

 

We don't know yet. But you haven't even shown that Amnesty's comments in Reaper's link were "propagandized" by Counterpunch to begin with.

 

Thus, if Amnesty's statements at the link are consistent with their usual statements (meaning you'd be wrong), then Counterpunch is saying Amnesty favors U.S. and Israel tactics over Hamas. But even if you were right, then Counterpunch is actually doing propaganda for your side -- the complete opposite of what you and others have implied of Amnesty.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Strawman. Please show where anybody has said the idea was to be "triumphant at all costs." The idea is to be triumphant at the least cost. (Preferably to everybody)

Fair enough, it does make sense the way you put it, but I wasn't strawmanning, more like addressing the kind of thinking quoted below.

 

A good commander always tries to minimise casualties, firstly to his own forces and then to people in general. The choice of weapons and tactics are often a tradeoff without hard and fast rules.

The triumphant at all costs philosophy still has meaning if your intention is to reduce your own casualties first. Of course, it's still monstrous for Hamas to bomb civilian targets, yet some Israel military personnel are guilty of their own share of monstrous behavior.

 

Such a cloice was made to end WWII. By sacrificing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (at a tremendous cost in lives, circa 250,000) the war was ended. To end the war by conventional means was estimated to take an extra 5 years and some 10 million deaths.

This is the worrisome part. The reasoning has tunnel vision -- because it gives legitimacy to a terrorist exploding nuclear bombs against an undefeatable nation in order to minimize casualties on their end.

 

I sincerely hope that having to make this kind of choice will never come again.

But how can't it? From the people who made up the "saved lives" argument, we've inherited a stockpile able to obliterate the world, and due to their lack of foresight, we lost the power of deterrence when nukes became transportable by foot in suitcases. The air defense system is now useless. Retaliation impossible.

 

If we rationalize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary decisions, we'll possibly never escape the future use of nuclear weapons. Does it ever occur to us that certain people in free nations love the power nukes give them? Maybe it's a different version of what having billions of dollars would feel like.

Edited February 28, 2009 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Your point lacks something. Their claims on what Amnesty said are verifiable. There's even footnotes -- more accurate than the propaganda I spoke against -- the made-up kind.

 

You're the one making sweeping, all-inclusive statements based on specific examples. I never said that Amnesty was always wrong -- in fact I agree with them quite often, and yet you saw fit to respond with the following:

 

Reaper's link clearly illustrates how Amnesty's usual stance isn't even close to what the propagandas have made it out to be. It's an old trick -- by the same propagandas who highlight far-right interests as "Mainstream America" and center-left politics as "far left extremists". Both these deceptions' goals are practically identical, to gradually make their pet extreme ideology seem normal/desirable.

 

Maybe they do, I've no idea. But the above sure as hell doesn't apply to me or to the discussion we were having.

[The Bear's Key]

You're the one making sweeping, all-inclusive statements based on specific examples. I never said that Amnesty was always wrong -- in fact I agree with them quite often, and yet you saw fit to respond with the following:

 

 

 

Maybe they do, I've no idea. But the above sure as hell doesn't apply to me or to the discussion we were having.

Pangloss, I consider you one of the more fair people in handling views different than your own, at least on these forums. You've shown it plenty of times.

 

So believe me, anytime I say "the propagandas" it certainly doesn't mean you or anyone here. That phrase is just my way of abbreviatinging "the propaganda network, some of which includes Limbaugh, O'Reilley, certain A.M. radio, talking points strategically circulated, etc.".

 

Perhaps there's been a huge miscommunication? Does seem that way. And if so....my apologies for not sensing it or being clearer on what I meant from the beginning.

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry, I knew that, and I shouldn't have said "apply to me".

 

I'm just wondering how that article informs us that Amnesty International must be right with its view about the use of white phosphorous in Gaza?

[The Bear's Key]

I'm sorry, I knew that, and I shouldn't have said "apply to me".

 

I'm just wondering how that article informs us that Amnesty International must be right with its view about the use of white phosphorous in Gaza?

Sure. My point is that the article (in Reaper's link) claims (and shows) it's not the usual view of Amnesty.

 

So where did the complaints of Amnesty siding with Hamas originate from? I deduced it must have been from "the propagandas" (network). It's not the first time such networks have manufactured controversy.

 

From the OP's link.

In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups.

The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".

Palestinian militants also fired "indiscriminate rockets" at civilians, Amnesty said. It called for an independent investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides.

Those are from bascule's original posted link where the journalist quotes Amnesty. I think people can see it's obvious Amnesty did point fingers at both Hamas and Israel. Does everyone see the contradictions from accepted reality?

 

It's not Amnesty's fault if the journalist or media used a badly worded title for The Guardian article.

 

Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza

 

So the propagandas (networks) I mentioned, like to accuse something that's already center-political or balnced, in order to maybe push them further right and have it seem mainstream?

[JohnB]

Fair enough, it does make sense the way you put it, but I wasn't strawmanning, more like addressing the kind of thinking quoted below.

Huh?

The triumphant at all costs philosophy still has meaning if your intention is to reduce your own casualties first.

Sorry, but no. Stop thinking in black and white. Just because you are out to minimise the casualties to your own forces doesn't mean that you will sacrifice 1,000,000 enemy civillians to save 1,000 of your own troops lives. It doesn't work that way. It's a constant trade off. If it wasn't, then bascules point earlier would have some merit and you'd just nuke them.

This is the worrisome part. The reasoning has tunnel vision -- because it gives legitimacy to a terrorist exploding nuclear bombs against an undefeatable nation in order to minimize casualties on their end.

No it doesn't. The estimates were for 2.5 million Allied casualties and 7.5 million Japanese. Dropping the bombs minimised casualties for everybody, not just the Allies.

But how can't it? From the people who made up the "saved lives" argument, we've inherited a stockpile able to obliterate the world, and due to their lack of foresight, we lost the power of deterrence when nukes became transportable by foot in suitcases. The air defense system is now useless. Retaliation impossible.

They didn't "make up" the argument, it was a choice based on the facts of the matter. "Due to their lack of foresight"? They lived in a world where nukes weighed tons, how could they be expected to predict suitcase nukes? Be fair. The air defense system became useless for stopping nukes the day the first ICBM was test fired.

 

Why do you think retaliation is impossible?

If we rationalize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary decisions, we'll possibly never escape the future use of nuclear weapons.

It's not a rationalisation. Would you really rather the war dragged on for years and killed all those extra millions? As to the second part, you can't put the mushroom cloud back in the steel egg. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it might be.

(If you're interested, the invasion plan was codenamed "Operation Downfall" and the Japanese defense plans were "Operation Ketsu-Go". Read up on these and you'll see that dropping the bombs really was the option with the least casualties for everybody.)

Does it ever occur to us that certain people in free nations love the power nukes give them? Maybe it's a different version of what having billions of dollars would feel like.

Trust me, it occurs to people outside the US all the time.

[bascule]

Others have already shown you this. (And it wasn't a strawman)

 

No they have not! I've been sitting here going "quote me, don't put words in my mouth" Now you're not only avoiding quoting me, you're saying others have already done so. Who? Now not only are you strawmanning me, you're passing the buck onto other imaginary people.

 

Again: use the forum quote function. That's what it's for.

 

If you didn't contend that the use of WP smoke shells contravened Article I of Protocol III, then why did you quote it in reply to pangloss?

 

Let's use the handy dandy forum quote function to see what the CONTEXT of that statement was, shall we?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations

 

Oh look, I was quoting the "Arms control status and military regulations" section of the Wikipedia article on white phosphorus:

 

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, along with the other major military powers, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III and is not bound by it.

 

There's some background info on the Geneva Conventions. Does white phosphorus fall under this? Well let's KEEP READING...

 

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty.[/b'] There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

 

HEY LOOK AT THAT. Not only did I not say white phosphorus is banned under treaty, I quoted a source which claims explicitly that it's NOT.

 

Not only have you failed to back up your argument, but you were trying to use something I said out of context (without quoting me) to back it up which, had you simply quoted me, would've immediately demonstrated that I was saying the exact opposite thing you claimed I was.

 

And that, sir, is a strawman. Or should I just say that you're lying about what I said and sticking words in my mouth?

 

You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties.

 

So, for the record, I claimed the weapons don't contravene treaties.

 

But thanks for playing.

[Pangloss]

Sure. My point is that the article (in Reaper's link) claims (and shows) it's not the usual view of Amnesty.

 

So Amnesty International has NOT been making statements of opposition to the use of white phosphorous in Gaza?

[The Bear's Key]

Sorry, but no. Stop thinking in black and white. Just because you are out to minimise the casualties to your own forces doesn't mean that you will sacrifice 1,000,000 enemy civillians to save 1,000 of your own troops lives. It doesn't work that way. It's a constant trade off. If it wasn't, then bascules point earlier would have some merit and you'd just nuke them.

 

No it doesn't. The estimates were for 2.5 million Allied casualties and 7.5 million Japanese. Dropping the bombs minimised casualties for everybody, not just the Allies.

I believe in fighting like a man when you do fight an enemy, but more importantly, using our remarkable capacity for problem-solving to find alternatives to violence/killing when it's possible. And believe me, it's more possible than you might give it credit for.

 

And you're right, the nuking can't be undone. However, the levels of attitude for the rightenousness of that act leaves open the good posiblity nukes will be used again.

 

They didn't "make up" the argument, it was a choice based on the facts of the matter. "Due to their lack of foresight"? They lived in a world where nukes weighed tons, how could they be expected to predict suitcase nukes? Be fair. The air defense system became useless for stopping nukes the day the first ICBM was test fired.

Being unable to predict the future isn't ever a "lack of foresight", but.....thinking violence is one of the best solutions, and not recognizing when there's a line you don't want to cross, that's a lack of foresight.

 

Nuking your enemy became more OK after it was done to Japan, in the eyes of less benevolent leaders/nations with a newfound itch to acquire such a nuke for their own use.

 

And it's not like the WW2 soldiers chose this action, I'll bet a few mouth-watering government higher-ups pushed it fully. The chance of a lifetime, to showcase their power to the world, and to simultaneously justify it. The argument is sweet enough, "we're just trying to save lives." Who wouldn't buy it?

 

At this point, it's impossible to know all the WW2 soldiers' response, if given a choice "to keep fighting until the enemy surrenders, or to avoid the fight and instead wholly level two cities full of everyday people with atomic power that leaves behind radiation sickness for the prolonged death of any survivors?" But it's feasible many would have preferred to keep fighting a more honorable way.

 

It couldn't have been practical to ask them, obviously, but soldiers might've had another thought regardless.

 

Why do you think retaliation is impossible?

In a suitcase, how can the victim nation detect where it came from before others were detonated? Would you just start carpet-nuking all your enemies?

 

(If you're interested, the invasion plan was codenamed "Operation Downfall" and the Japanese defense plans were "Operation Ketsu-Go". Read up on these and you'll see that dropping the bombs really was the option with the least casualties for everybody.)

I'm rather well aware of the justifications for least casualties. Some things aren't worth the incoming future price, however.

 

And now, mutually assured destruction is no longer a preventative when nations can sneak-attack each other with hand transported nukes. The modern justification has become, nuke before they can respond. And the decision of WW2, and consequent rationalizing of its merits, has led to our situation today -- like a row of dominoes.

 

So Amnesty International has NOT been making statements of opposition to the use of white phosphorous in Gaza?

Yes, they have. My argument has nothing to do with that. It's how Amnesty opposed both weapon choices by Israel and Hamas, when a lot of people here were complaining that Amnesty had different standards for Israel than Hamas. bascule's first post had the link.

 

In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups.

 

Hopefully we're clear now

[Mr Skeptic]

So what do you nukophobes think of the firebombing of cities during the war? Sure, it takes a little longer than dropping a single nuke, but in terms of deaths, firebombing was comparably deadly. There's a reason we don't like incendiary weapons...

[Pangloss]

So what do you nukophobes think of the firebombing of cities during the war? Sure, it takes a little longer than dropping a single nuke, but in terms of deaths, firebombing was comparably deadly. There's a reason we don't like incendiary weapons...

 

That's another tough call. If you ever get a chance to see Errol Morris' amazing documentary The Fog of War, which is basically an extended interview with Robert McNamara, it's worth seeing. McNamara is mostly known for his activities as Defense Secretary during the Vietnam era, but as it turns out he was also a mid-level officer working under Curtiss LeMay, enacting the order to firebomb Japanese cities in WW2. His rationale and analysis of results and moral implications is absolutely fascinating.

 

Another good source on that subject is Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B. Frank. Frank spends considerable time analyzing the production numbers of the Japanese manufacturing sector before, during and after the firebombings.

 

It's not well known in the west, but the Japanese manufacturing sector was organized in a very different manner from that of the west. Their factories were right in amongst residential buildings, the latter of which were made out of wood and rice paper. But every one of those houses would have a coal-fired smelter inside, making the sludge that would be turned into steel at the local factory (or however it's done; going off the top of my head here). So if you look at ground-level photographs after an incendiary attack, the only way you can even tell where the houses were is the row upon row of little black smelters.

 

But that's how their manufacturing process worked. And if you adopt the concept of "total war", meaning you're considering the manufacturing of war products to be a legitimate target, then that means attacking those residential districts. And incendiary devices were the only way to demolish that manufacturing capacity. How can you take out smelter capacity when it's spread out over literally millions of places?

 

Which does not, however, eliminate the moral grounds for objection. In a way it makes it even tougher.

[JohnB]

No they have not! I've been sitting here going "quote me, don't put words in my mouth" Now you're not only avoiding quoting me, you're saying others have already done so. Who? Now not only are you strawmanning me, you're passing the buck onto other imaginary people.

So you weren't intending people to read;

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, along with the other major military powers, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III and is not bound by it.

Let's use the handy dandy forum quote function to see what the CONTEXT of that statement was, shall we?

Why not? From the OP;

This is potentially a war crime, and worse, the US had a part in it.

 

Why are we giving military aid to countries perpetrating war crimes?

You have been arguing the use of the weapon should be considered a war crime. That Sir, is the context.

 

Also note ,

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

But we aren't "outside civillian areas", are we? And you have avoided answering the question

If you didn't contend that the use of WP smoke shells contravened Article I of Protocol III, then why did you quote it in reply to pangloss?

What was the reason you quoted it?

So, for the record, I claimed the weapons don't contravene treaties.

And as has been shown (by quoting you) you think the Israelis are committing war crimes.

 

So in a nutshell, and from your quoted statements the situation can be summed up as;

"It should be considered a war crime to use a weapon that is not banned in a manner that is not banned."

What a fascinating piece of logic.

 

 

I believe in fighting like a man when you do fight an enemy, but more importantly, using our remarkable capacity for problem-solving to find alternatives to violence/killing when it's possible. And believe me, it's more possible than you might give it credit for.

I think that comes down to how much you are willing to compromise. Compromise too much and you don't have anything worth living or fighting for. The Japanese were willing to surrender before the bombs, but the terms were unacceptable.

thinking violence is one of the best solutions, and not recognizing when there's a line you don't want to cross, that's a lack of foresight.

Sometimes violence is the best solution, history shows this. Also decisions don't exist in a vacuum, sometimes it's not a matter of not crossing a line but rather one of deciding which line you cross.

And it's not like the WW2 soldiers chose this action, I'll bet a few mouth-watering government higher-ups pushed it fully. The chance of a lifetime, to showcase their power to the world, and to simultaneously justify it. The argument is sweet enough, "we're just trying to save lives." Who wouldn't buy it?

I can agree with you a point and I'm sure that there were some who thought that way, but we must remember that there was no guarantee the bomb would actually work when dropped. The only previous test was Alamagordo where the weapon was fired on a tower.

At this point' date=' it's impossible to know all the WW2 soldiers' response, if given a choice "to keep fighting until the enemy surrenders, or to avoid the fight and instead wholly level two cities full of everyday people with atomic power that leaves behind radiation sickness for the prolonged death of any survivors?" But it's feasible many would have preferred to keep fighting a more honorable way.

 

It couldn't have been practical to ask them, obviously, but soldiers might've had another thought regardless. [/quote']

While impossible to know the thoughts of all soldiers from the time, I'm willing to bet that almost all would have agreed with the bombing.

 

Do you really think the 6th Army, who had fought their way through Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the Phillippines would rather the war drag on? Or the Australians who had fought the Japanese for 6 years wanted it to continue?

 

How about all the troops that had just won victory in Europe? Instead of going home, they were on their way to an invasion that would make Omaha look like a picnic. What do you think their opinion would be?

 

Or the 8th Air Force? After the meatgrinder of daylight bombing over Europe, they were on their way to the Pacific too. As was the RAF Bomber Command.

 

I've spoken to a lot of diggers over the years from the Pacific war and not one has regretted the bombs. It's put elequently here;

When the two atomic bombs were unleashed on Japan, Shropshire was at Subic Bay in the Philippines, and prior to that time, the general rumour around our ship had been, that we would soon be part of an invasion force pitted against the Japanese homeland.

 

On a personal note, I was delighted with President Harry Truman's decision to use the atom bomb, and bring the Pacific War to a conclusion. I, like my shipmates had had enough, Shropshire had been a most efficient and lucky ship, we had not lost one man to enemy action, but, how much longer would this fact obtain? Now, at long last, my six years of war at sea, or overseas, were over. I had survived.

Go talk to the men who were there as I have and they'll tell you their opinion, but you might not like what you hear.

I'm rather well aware of the justifications for least casualties. Some things aren't worth the incoming future price, however.

Rereading it, I don't think my comment came out quite as I meant. I didn't mean "Go get yourself an education", but rather "If you have an interest in military history, the planning for invasion and defense are quite interesting." I'm a bit of a history buff, but WWII is around 5,000 years later than my preferred period.

And the decision of WW2, and consequent rationalizing of its merits, has led to our situation today -- like a row of dominoes.

Her is where we differ I think. It was not "consequent rationalisation". The reasons for dropping the bomb didn't come after the event, they came before.

 

The JCS were faced with basically four options;

1. Accept the Japanese conditional surrender. (Unacceptable due to the conditions)

2. Drop the bombs.

3. Landings in china and the subsequent blockade of Japan. (In effect starving them into submission.)

4. Invasion of the Japanese homeland.

 

If you had to make the choice, which one would you pick? I know which one I would, but that doesn't mean I would like it.

 

They made the best decision they could with the information available to them at the time, which is all we can ever have asked of them.

[bascule]

So you weren't intending people to read;

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, along with the other major military powers, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III and is not bound by it.

 

So what are you accusing me of... giving additional context? After you lied about what I said and put words in my mouth, never quoting me? That's rich... omit the context of my statements then complain about me doing so?

 

You have been arguing the use of the weapon should be considered a war crime. That Sir, is the context.

 

Yes, and that's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=471034#post471034

 

First' date=' that's not what JohnB said. He said "You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties," which I never did.

 

Second, I never said they're "guilty of war crimes". I said I thought what they did [i']should[/i] (morally) be a war crime.

 

Do I need to break it down for you a little better here?

 

1) Using white phosphorus is not in and of itself a war crime

2) Certain manners of usage of white phosphorus can be construed as war crimes

3) I believe the way it was used by the Palestinians should be construed as a war crime

 

What are you accusing me of? Having an opinion?

[Mr Skeptic]

1) Using white phosphorus is not in and of itself a war crime

2) Certain manners of usage of white phosphorus can be construed as war crimes

3) I believe the way it was used by the Palestinians should be construed as a war crime

 

What are you accusing me of? Having an opinion?

 

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. But you also want to call this a crime. As you have admitted, the use of white phosphorous smoke is not itself illegal. So unless you show that the circumstances of its use were illegal (eg use in civilian area is illegal, or malicious intent) then there is really no basis to make an accusation. If what you want is to make such use illegal when it wasn't before, then you can't accuse Israel of war crimes but should focus on whoever is in charge of international law.

[bascule]

So unless you show that the circumstances of its use were illegal (eg use in civilian area is illegal, or malicious intent) then there is really no basis to make an accusation

 

I think searing the flesh off enemy civilians merely for expediting troop movements should be illegal, but maybe that's just me.