Talk:White phosphorus munitions/Archives/2005/November

New addition to WP effects
<< Detonating a WP shell will cause an effect comparable to the use of lung agent poison gases for those exposed to the gas. Death will occur from lung edema, phosphoric acid poisoning or the resulting shock, or burns while leaving clothes and other solid material intact. Most victims would die from the second cause, as in a confined area it is hardly avoidable to inhale a considerable quantity of smoke, which will immediately dissolve to form concentrated phosphoric acid in the lungs and airways, leading to a condition similar to phosgene poisoning, but (due to the higher concentration of phosphorous oxide smoke) with a more rapid onset, death from shock or lung edema occurring after a short time. >>

I'm sorry, if I am doing this wrong, I have not tried to discuss a point of contention before. I am curious of the source of the above statement. Looking through the history, I see this is a recent addition. I also see that someone removed "detonating in an enclosed space, such as a building." I find it odd, in the timing of this post, that this comment would show up. Also, I noticed a recent article on informationclearinghouse.com quoting the above line.

I went and deleted that line. If anything, it doesn't belong in the history section, but under effects. Regardless, I found no eveidence that white phosphorus would cause such effects.


 * According to this page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm), there have been no known fatalities due to the effects of WP smoke alone (as opposed to particles spread by explosion, which can cause fatal burns), so I'd say the above was more or less completely bogus unless someone can cite one instance of it ever happening.--BruceR 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Material vs metal
The EWS quote at the bottom references white phosphorus as "this metal". I suppose phosphorus could become metallic under several hundreds gigapascal pressure, but I somewhat doubt this is the case. How to solve this dilemma? --Shaddack 01:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly you're right, it's not a metal; But the quote is directly from an external source. It's possible the author is referring to metal fragments from the weapon's case, but it's probably just a mistake. We could write "...metal [sic]..." or put in an explanatory notation. If it wasn't so relevent to the current news I'd say take it out, but the article does bring up a valid point. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Added the [sic] thing. That should make everybody happy. I want it to be marked as an error, to not propagate it further, but don't insist on any specific form of such. --Shaddack 03:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article title?
The article title is currently "White phosphorus incendiary," and content is intended to describe military applications of WP. However, a) applications of WP go beyond just incendiary (i.e. screening, producing casualties, incendiary, signaling and illumination), and b) incendiary seems to be a secondary use to the smoke-generating applications.

So it seems to me that "incendiary" does not fully describe the military apps. of WP. Should not this article be renamed to plain "White phosphorus", and swapped with the current redirection page? Cheers, TopQuark 10:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * how about "white phosphorus (weapon)" as a fit title covering the subject suitably. GraemeLeggett 10:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds better. There are non-military applications for white phosphorous, so we might want a plain "white phosphorous" article at some point. --Lee Hunter 15:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, that sounds good to me. If no one has an objection to moving the page tomorrow, then I'll do it. Cheers, TopQuark 14:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Burned body in intact clothes
It's a f**king chemical. reaction. This is so biased it's not funny!!!! The effects of phosphorous ARE CHEMICAL INDUCED. It's the most macabre thing I've ever heard to be justified with regards to war. It's pure, unadulterated bulls**t here and you guys who support it are pissing all over the people who have died in extreme cruelty, and pain. What happened to superfluous injury?-A101

I don't like this:


 * ''The claims about white phosphorous as a cause of deaths in which the bodies are burned but the clothes are not, however, is contrary to the description in a standard reference work, Emergency War Surgery:


 * "Many antipersonnel weapons employed in modern warfare contain white phosphorus. Fragments of this metal [sic], which ignite upon contact with the air, may be driven into the soft tissues; however, most of the cutaneous injury resulting from phosphorus burns is due to the ignition of clothing, and is treated as conventional thermal injury." ''

Now... the fact that white phosphorus is (or not) able to produce skin burning without clothes burning can be estabilished without any doubt by a scientist, it makes no sense to quote the "Emergency War Surgery" as an argument against this claim because it's not a metter of opinion, it is not the way of an enciclopeic article. --Pokipsy76 14:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The citation is a reputable reference on how burn injuries involving WP occur; That seems relevent to me. If you have a reference describing how WP burns the body but leaves the clothes intact, please include it. Tom Harrison (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In the nwsgroup sci.chem people says that the burning of body in intact clothes could happen in a cloud of Phosphorus pentoxide, aka "white phosphorus smoke" so the quote from "Emergency War Surgery" (which talk about other kind of damage by phosphorus) may be misleading.--Pokipsy76 20:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Whereas WP-incendiary may (or may not) burn through clothes and body... has any consideration been given to the hygroscopic properties of WP-smoke?

The article states it is "actually, deliquescent," that is, a dessicant. Can we get any information on the expected dessicant effect of WP-smoke on humans? Keep in mind that some causes other than actual burning, may result in a burnt-like appearance - these include frostbite, gangrene, mummification, etc. Is there any relation to WP? Cheers, TopQuark 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Pokipsy76, about citation
If I correctly summarize from sci.chem newsgroup:


 * [LordBeotian of Italy]
 * > How realistic is the scenario of skin of people being burned while
 * > clothes remain intact as a consequence of white phosphorus?
 * [hanson]
 * Yes, very much so, if you get/smear WP only over your
 * exposed skin like your face and hands... unless your wear
 * protective goggles, face mask and gloves.
 * However, even then [1] applies as clothes are generally
 * combustible.... ahahaha... It seems to me that there are
 * either comprehension- or language problems here with
 * Lord of Salami, unless Italian fashion is made of glass-
 * or asbestos fiber....
 * Ciao, arrivederci, mio amico
 * hanson
 * hanson

Maybe I am misunderstanding, or maybe I have overlooked the relevent passage, but that seems not to support your position. Whoever wants to can follow the link and read the whole discussion.

In any case, Wikipedia's policy on usenet as a source says:


 * Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them.

For completeness, here are links to the Safety (MSDS) data for phosphorus pentoxide and the Safety (MSDS) data for phosphorus, white.

Regards, Tom Harrison (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your "citation" (and your arguments) shows all your intellectual dishonesty. No need of further comments.--Pokipsy76 21:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Burning Powder?
I have no issues with the GlobalSecurity.org quote, but the poster goes on to call White Phosphorus a "burning Powder" that's "highly corrosive." I believe that's his own opinion, and and not based on fact. I also do not think it is necessary to try to tie in the bodies shown on the RAI documentary. Clearly some of the bodies shown were burnt, but I don't believe they were specifically showing damage caused by WP. Many of the bodies were showing normal signs of decay and decomposition. Some of the photos had maggots on the bodies.


 * 1)Is I understand, when WP burns it produces smoke and a powder of phosphorus pentoxide that is indeed corrosive. I think that the corrosive effect depends on the concentration of the chemical agent and may be absent.
 * 2) I agree about avoiding to speak about the images of the documentary because we don't have any scientific evidence of the connection to WP.
 * --Pokipsy76 23:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is where people are getting confused. White phosphorus burns in the presence of oxygen, producing a lot of smoke (this is why it is so useful as a battlefield obscurant). But the smoke itself isn't particularly toxic, compared to other chemical smoke munitions... you'd practically have to be taking it via a gasmask for it to hurt you. The antipersonnel effect is related to the burning little pieces of phosphorus that are thrown out by the exploder charge when the weapon goes off... the smoke is almost completely harmless by comparison. Also, "corrosive" is the wrong word to apply to white phosphorus particles in the original ref; the substance isn't reacting chemically with flesh like acid or caustic soda would... it's burning *through* it.--BruceR 06:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

US State Department Correction
The US State Department has printed a correction of their Nov 2004 statement that WP was used only for illumination.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.] --BohicaTwentyTwo 15:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You can find the US declaration on this site: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Moral Considerations regarding WP
I have attempted repeatedly to add a section to this article providing cross-references to other Wikipedia entries, specifically about the moral questions engendered by this obviously controversial weapon. In so doing I have not advocated any answers to these questions. Rather, I have attempted to provide a resource for those readers who are interested in them and who would like to pursue them further.

Among the cross-references I have attempted to add regarding the moral considerations raised by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon are: consequentialism, deontology, legalism, virtue ethics, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, Kant, John Stuart Mill, R. M. Hare, and Alasdair MacIntyre.

I also received the following comment:


 * I noticed your contributions at white phosphorus (weapon). You should probably read our policy wikipedia:no original research. Basically, this means that no information can be included in wikipedia unless it can be attributed to an outside source. Unfortunately, there are no sources for the info you added to the white phosphorus article. Until you can find them, please don't reinsert the material. Dsol 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that internal links to other Wikipedia articles are common and permissible. Also, I would like to point out that stating the obvious -- that using WP as an antipersonnel weapon raises moral questions -- does not count as "original research," any more than pointing out that 2+2=4 or that snow is white. If such unwarranted censorship continues I will pursue a complaint with Wikipedia, as I believe this does violate the guidelines.


 * While it's true that there are obvious moral questions with this weapon, the particular and very specific way which your section treated these questions was original; in particular the dichotomy between deontological and utilitarian thinking as applied to morality of weapon use. The links to other articles are allowed, of course, but none of those articles produce your argument regarding white phosphorus.  Please (really!) read NOR, as it's clear you are new here.  I encourage you to find an outside source of this argument and include it with a citaion. Dsol 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this reply is erroneous on several points. I included reference not only to consequentialism and deontologism, but also to virtue ethics and legalism.  Nor did I claim that these are the only kinds of response to the moral questions raised by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon.  (Although they are the predominant kinds of response, as even a cursory examination of the cross-references will disclose.)  And, even if my addition was problematic for some reason, this does not justify repeatedly deleting THE ENTIRE SUBSECTION, heading and all, especially when this happens within seconds of its being posted, so that obviously you have neither read the text you are deleting nor examined the links.  Finally, the criticism that I am a new Wikipedia participant is ad hominem and has nothing to do with the substance of my contributions, which stand or fall on the merit of their content, not on whether I have made other contributions to other Wikipedia articles, or whether you personally just don't like the fact that I am bringing this issue to the table.  In conclusion, I think your actions and your comments disclose that you yourself lack the neutrality that you claim to advocate.  Again, if it seems that these deletions are intended to eliminate ANY discussion of the moral issues engendered by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon, I will pursue a complaint.


 * Please trust me when I say I have nothing personal against you and have nothing against the inclusion of that info categorically. I only mentioned that you're new here since you seem not to understand the NOR policy, and I don't have time to explain it to you in full.  Of course I read your submission before removing it.  And yes, I do think the whole thing needs to be removed, becuase there's no evidence that any of of the moral analyses you mentioned (deontological, consequential, utilitarian, virtue ethics, legalism, whatever) have been proposed by any secondary source (read the policy!).  To include this, you should produce not a citation that shows what these moral analyses are, but rather one that shows how they have been applied in a notable way to white phosphorus or other antipersonnel weapons.  Please don't treat me as an enemy here.  If I didn't remove it, someone else would, as this policy is really how things are run here.  Do you understand why I saw the subsection as original research on your part?  Dsol 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason why this article is popular right now is because many are asking whether it is right or wrong to use WP as an antipersonnel weapon. As the BBC noted over a week ago,


 * The Pentagon's admission - despite earlier denials - that US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year is more than a public relations issue - it has opened up a debate about the use of this weapon in modern warfare..


 * To deny this is absurd. Which raises the question, why delete the ENTIRE SUBJECT "Moral Considerations" from the WP article?  This is what you have done, Dsol, repeatedly.  You have not added to the text to incorporate the kinds of suggestions you make; rather you have deleted THE WHOLE THING.  There are numerous Wikipedia articles in which contributors point out that the material's neutrality is disputed, WITHOUT DELETING IT.


 * Also, beware that the NPOV article to which you refer clearly contradicts you on this issue of deletion:


 * Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.


 * Dsol, if you believe that your views are shared by other Wikipedia users, then why not give THEM the opportunity to make the changes rather than tracking the article around the clock and enforcing your own personal editorial clampdown that clearly violates the NPOV policy? You yourself appear to contradict the spirit behind Wikipedia, as you seem to have set yourself up as The Enforcer on this article, violating the very editorial policy you claim to uphold.  Please, if you do value Wikipedia, then practice what you preach and give others the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not a section on the moral considerations engendered by using WP as an antipersonnel weapon is appropriate.  Phol 05:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, please stop attacking my motives. I'm not acting as an "enforcer" or anything like that, I only reverted the page twice.  I have no problem with your noting in the article that the pentagon's admissions have "opened up debates" or something like that.  Put it in!  You don't need my approval to edit.  And no, I was never referring to NPOV, but to NOR.  I actually thought you addition was perfectly balanced and NPOV, just pooly cited.  I agree that your addition was both notable and unbiased, but it must also be sourced, or it cannot go in.  The BBC link above is a start, but it fails to mention anything about the various moral philosophies you proposed to include in your discussion.  Dsol 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Point well taken. My apologies.  Thanks for your patience. Phol 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)