Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hue chemical attacks


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hue chemical attacks

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (talk)

A small incident in which the WRVN used chemicals against protestors.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 06:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support Please clarify what substances were used and what chemical reactions did take place.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm afraid I can't get any more detail than what is already there. The books by Howard Jones and Ellen Hammer are as comprehensive and classic as they get in terms of the Buddhist crisis from May to Nov 1963, about 250 pages are devoted to that period and only two pages to this incident, so I'm stumped.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 04:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You got a pretty decent description of the ammunition used. Try to find out what range of teargas ammunition the French had then and before and if anything you found fits the description. That's not WP:OR, but adresses the issue of this being rather strange "teargas". Wandalstouring (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have google booked a bit and found some ingredients for WWI era French tear gas.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understood the sources. Are you sure phosgene is a component of the French tear gas or is it phosgene oxime? HCN as a component for tear gas merits some more explanantion because it's a killer, not an irritation. Please explain how French teargas during WWI worked and what components were mixed, the White Cross (chemical warfare) concept will help you and needs to be mentioned.
 * Ethyl bromoacetate is achieved by a reaction in an acidic mileu. So you have to break it up into the components and tell what effects they have. It's the most likely candidate you have found because I have doubts chloroacetone can be quickly achieved with any acidic reaction.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book said phosgene. But the HCN phosgene mixture is not consistent with the lack of deaths. it said that EB and CA were in a mixture (clarified), and both of them have similar colours to the chemical used (if mixed) so it seems to not be inconsistent at the moment. Noted.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 08:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I reworded your statement about CN. It mustn't be in a deadly dose and it's usually made by an acidic reaction(so it wasn't created because the acidic reaction failed). That phosgene was ever a component of tear gas is highly questionable. The symptoms described could well be the result of acid and phosgene oxime.


 * "The injuries were attributed to the acid failing to activate the liquid into gaseous form. US Army chemists in Maryland confirmed that the tear gas had come in canisters dating back to French World War I stocks." That leads to a key problem with the content. You state that it wasn't activated and then describe how the activated forms look like. Do some more research and find out what the precursors for the substances were, what harm they do and how they look like and what substances weren't contained as precursors. The acidic reaction would likely have heated up the substances during the reaction and thus produced vapor. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The source said "phosgene and ?? [common name for HCN, not hydrogen cyanide] acid" so it could be "phosgene" or phosgene acid" but I couldn't find a link on the latter one. As for the contents, I am sure that the book is referring to the unactivated substances, as those listed are liquids at room temperature. With no activation, it can't react or boil at 120 celsius.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! '') 01:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been studying chemistry for some time. An acidic reaction is often enough to create temperatures well above 120°C and turn all into vapour. If you look up the properties of the substances you will see that these aren't precursors, but the real thing. There's the slight possibility that they would be activated by heating only and not created, making it a rather unsafe and strange system to handle. I don't believe that simply because then the peopel would have been disfigured because of strong acidic burns. I've asked another editor who's more knowledgeable on chemical warfare to give his opinion. I'll also try to research more about the ammunition. Phosgene oxime is an acid and phosgene is not after Bronsted, but the statement is still dubious. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been reading through the CW literature now. It's probably really the rather unsafe variant. So no more objections. I readded "phosgene" because it's sourced and added a link to phosgene oxime because that is meant. Phosgene is no choking agent. That leaves me still with the question whether acidic burns did occur, but the sources seem to be silent on that. Changed my attitude to support for A-class. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Nominating an article for GAC and A-class review at the same time is pretty much stressing the reviewers to find the same errors twice.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - very interesting read about a little-known incident. Great job! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - all links checked with the link checker. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced and easy to read, although I would suggest adding some more pictures. – Joe N  utter  01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.