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.
Man, the first link contains no information other than a link to the second link with some quotes from it. Not sure why you posted the first one if you were going to post the second link, since the first one is literally about Amnesty having posted the second one.
The second link is based on a post hoc analysis of two cell phone videos, but doesn’t show them. Says they “appear consistent with white phosphorous.” Says nothing about any chemical tests being done. Shows photos of smoke screen weapons, probably containing small amounts of white phos, being airburst on trees. They quote a doctor who treated exactly three people for shortness of breath and pulmonary irritation, consistent with exposure to white phosphorous, or any smoke, dust, or seasonal allergens, even.
Third link talks about photos showing airbused munitions being used as smoke screens. Same sort of innuendo and conjecture.
Second and third links obviously begin with, at the very top, almost first thing on the page, solicitations for donations. Surely they benefit from the sensationalized half truths.
In actuality, WP is perfectly legal and effective for smoke screens and signal flares, and while they loosely imply it, the articles contain no allegations, let alone evidence, in any of these links, that WP was used as an illegal incendiary weapon on people, which would be a war crime.
The articles are all very careful to talk about how it was used as airburst, smoke screens and flares, and talk about how it could be used as incendiary, but none state that it was. This is the typical coverage of anything to do with Israel.
How do you fall for it so easily?
Should ban yourself for misinfo.
Edit: oh, the first article does contain one piece of additional info:
Dheira, a town of 2,000, has become a focal point for fighting. Just across the border from an Israeli radar tower, it has been used as a staging ground for Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel. At least 94 people have been killed on the Lebanese side of the border since tensions escalated, according to data released on Dec. 5 by the country’s Health Ministry — 82 have been militants, according to Hezbollah. In addition, at least 11 Israelis have been killed, most of them soldiers.
Obviously Amnesty would never describe the circumstances for why there is fighting in the first place, so only named the town.
Only because it’s similar to the topic at hand. US is waging a proxy war through both countries. We (the US) just don’t want to call Israel a proxy war because it is involved in genocide.
If we’re actively making bad decisions with one country, why repeat those mistakes in another? Israel is just the lesson here, what we learn from it is on us.
Probably a really bad idea after we gave them to Israel.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/12/11/israel-us-white-phosphorus-lebanon/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon
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?
Man, the first link contains no information other than a link to the second link with some quotes from it. Not sure why you posted the first one if you were going to post the second link, since the first one is literally about Amnesty having posted the second one.
The second link is based on a post hoc analysis of two cell phone videos, but doesn’t show them. Says they “appear consistent with white phosphorous.” Says nothing about any chemical tests being done. Shows photos of smoke screen weapons, probably containing small amounts of white phos, being airburst on trees. They quote a doctor who treated exactly three people for shortness of breath and pulmonary irritation, consistent with exposure to white phosphorous, or any smoke, dust, or seasonal allergens, even.
Third link talks about photos showing airbused munitions being used as smoke screens. Same sort of innuendo and conjecture.
Second and third links obviously begin with, at the very top, almost first thing on the page, solicitations for donations. Surely they benefit from the sensationalized half truths.
In actuality, WP is perfectly legal and effective for smoke screens and signal flares, and while they loosely imply it, the articles contain no allegations, let alone evidence, in any of these links, that WP was used as an illegal incendiary weapon on people, which would be a war crime.
The articles are all very careful to talk about how it was used as airburst, smoke screens and flares, and talk about how it could be used as incendiary, but none state that it was. This is the typical coverage of anything to do with Israel.
How do you fall for it so easily?
Should ban yourself for misinfo.
Edit: oh, the first article does contain one piece of additional info:
Obviously Amnesty would never describe the circumstances for why there is fighting in the first place, so only named the town.
The WaPo link makes it clear that we provided the munitions to Israel, the others are about the problematic use of those munitions by Israel.
Why is everything about Israel?
Only because it’s similar to the topic at hand. US is waging a proxy war through both countries. We (the US) just don’t want to call Israel a proxy war because it is involved in genocide.
If we’re actively making bad decisions with one country, why repeat those mistakes in another? Israel is just the lesson here, what we learn from it is on us.