MPs Call For Tighter Rules On Battlefield Use Of Phosphorus

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#2
Isn't it amazing how many MPs will jump on a press-orchestrated bandwagon? Sincerity? Those scrotes can't even spell it.
 
#3
Mr Reid told reporters during a visit to a Nato exercise in Germany that the British army only used white phosphorus to provide smokescreen cover on operations.
Does anyone know if this bit is actually true? That Brits are not allowed to aim it at enemy combatants?

I see the Guardian article also makes the mistake of implying WP is a chemical weapon...

Tricam.
 
#5
Muh.... I can never get my head around issues of "good" & "bad" weapons.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#6
Quote:
Mr Reid told reporters during a visit to a Nato exercise in Germany that the British army only used white phosphorus to provide smokescreen cover on operations.

I'd agree with the above quote, burning terrorists provide an excellent smokescreen!
 
#7
re Brits and WP

Just posting something I remembered reading on the use of WP. I have no doubt you'll dismiss it as irrelevant.

The opinion of a (then) Captain Worsely-Tonks mortar officer at Goose Green, when questioned if he used WP in an anti personnel role:

"Er... we ran out of HE. It's against the Geneva Conventions to use White Phosphorous [in an anti-personnel role]"

Source: Not Mentioned in Dispatches, Spencer Fitz-Gibbon, p113

The opinion of Spencer Fitz Gibbon:

"Its use for this purpose is also against the Geneva Conventions. According to the rules, white phosphorous can be used to provide smoke cover, but not intentionally to kill or injure people."p113
 
#9
I was fascinated to learn that WP is a napalm like substance that melts flesh to the bone

I'd never realised that it was a compound related to petroleum distilates that requires a source of ignition. I'd always assumed, clearly erroneously, that it was a basic element with it's own slot in the periodic table which ignited spontaneously upon contact with oxygen.
I'd also been labouring under the missapprehension that it burnt flesh, rather than somehow 'melting' it. Wrong agian obviously.

Thanks heavens for the careful research and measured reporting of the Grauniad journalist, eh?
 
#10
Let’s simply make a law saying that only MPs can use weapons of any type. Then next time they stay up playing Command & Conquer all night and fancy a go at the real thing its them sweating there cobs off in 50 degree heat unsure if they can use anything more dangerous than harsh language.
 
#11
Mines,WP-what ever next,soon only harsh language will be allowed in battle and then only after approval that it is PC and does not hurt any feelings.
Going to be a big surge in handbag sales soon to MOD as new weapon perhaps?
 
#12
Hat20 said:
Mines,WP-what ever next,soon only harsh language will be allowed in battle and then only after approval that it is PC and does not hurt any feelings.
Going to be a big surge in handbag sales soon to MOD as new weapon perhaps?
Harsh language? Where have you been? The liberal elite banned that years ago. If we can't bellow harsh language at our own what chance is there of being allowed to use it on the poor, poor enemy?

Handbags? - someone call the Thought Police - there's a sexist on this site :wink:
 
#13
As a civvy, can someone enlighten me please. I assumed that insurgent\ terrorist\guerilla forces, by their very nature are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Is this correct?
 
#14
The Geneva convention was amended in 1949 to cover guerilla/insurgent/resistance type forces with certain conditions. The motivation being to ensure that it was possible to nail Nazis for their war crimes against the French Maquis.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#15
Maybe we should change the law so that only people who have served in a war zone are allowed to stand as an MP... Might make them a bit more thoughtful about their responsibilities.
 
#16
H, bloke, I couldn't have said it better myself. How can you have a secretary of defence and an armed forces minister who have never joined the colours! How are these people meant to be able to make informed judgments on things that directly affect our lives if they haven't been there themselves?
I heard a thing on 'Johnathan Ross' on radio 2 last year when people were asked to ring in to suggest rules for selecting MPs - someone rang in saying that anyone who wanted to be an MP should be automatically banned from running. Hear Hear!!
 
#17
strut_jack said:
The Geneva convention was amended in 1949 to cover guerilla/insurgent/resistance type forces with certain conditions. The motivation being to ensure that it was possible to nail Nazis for their war crimes against the French Maquis.
Was it actually amended? I thought it was just proposed.

There were also protocols (drawn up by Eisenhower during WWII, IIRC) created detailing how said guerilla/insurgent/resistance type forces were to operate. They involved the wearing of insignia and bearing of arms openly. If they didn't want to wear insignia to sneak somewhere, fine (this is a legitimate ruse de guerre - for "green" army equivalents see Canaris's Brandenberg units - The "Nuns in Hobnail Boots"). However, fighting without insignia was the equivalent of a soldier fighting without wearing a recognisable uniform, and therefore punishable by summary execution.

Shall I use this as the geek smiley 8O ? I can't help think that we need a smiley looking over a pair of specs at you.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top