![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="73" height="73"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
WP was described as a chemical weapon by the US government when Saddam used it against Kurds in the 90s. Perhaps that description was erroneous, but it's not just idiots online who call WP a chemical weapon. So does our government when we're not using it ourselves.
They didn't investigate it because they legally cannot because the CW in OPCW stands for fucking CHEMICAL WEAPONS and white phosphorus isn't a CW no matter how much you feel like it is emotionally. War crimes charges for incendiary use may be possible, but NOT as a CW. Idiot.pic.twitter.com/zCGZEi8O0a
-
-
-
It is literally idiots who call it such when they know better. To include the US government. I've literally never seen the US describe WP as a CW, but I believe you *someone* did. And that someone is an idiot too.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
-
-
There’s an argument to be made that phosphorus smoke (P2O5) is incapacitating enough to lungs and eyes to be considered a CW, but only if you can prove the intent to use it for its irritating qualities. Otherwise, yea no.
-
-
-
It is possible, but far from routine, to get a CCW violation with WP. Ex.: continuously firing WP rockets into the mouth of an extensive cave complex with the intent of filling the caves with WP smoke to kill or permanently harm those inside.
-
-
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't WP used in smoke grenades
-
In some grenades. HC smoke is far more common.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Turkey and Syria aren’t even signatories to CCCW/PIW.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
