U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-01-2016, 02:07 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
35,504 posts, read 45,561,460 times
Reputation: 45950

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
Really? And who actually paid any attention to any treaty when starting a war?


As has been stated, both sides on the Western Front pretty much followed the Geneva Conventions once the war started, notwithstanding Allied prisoners at Malthausen and individual actions such as Malmedy.


The Eastern Front, and to an extent SE Asia, was a different story. The USSR was not a signatory to the Conventions and the Japanese were, well, Japanese.


The Geneva Convention - History Learning Site


Prisoners of War | HISTORY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2016, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,106 posts, read 5,324,809 times
Reputation: 2441
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosemaryT View Post
This is the only comment in this thread that I can easily believe.

After WW2, the military had the problem of dealing with the disposal of HUGE quantities of chemical weapons, and for the most part, many of these old munitions were dumped in the Chesapeake Bay.

That tells me that the US had chemical weapons, but I don't know if any were purposefully used or not.

During WW1, the United States produced chemical weapons at a shell-loading facility called "Penniman" (six miles from Colonial Williamsburg). When the war ended, those weapons were shipped to Aberdeen.

This is a great book, which tells more about the military's role in dumping chemical weapons into the Chesapeake Bay: http://www.amazon.com/Death-Chesapea.../dp/B00D42UIW6



Most chemical weapons react with water or the oxygen in air. Many are also unstable in sunlight so there is a persistence issue in their use (actually this is good for an attacker might want to occupy the contaminated ground and it simplifies the decontamination of vehicles equipment and personnel that might have been exposed to chemical agents to a simple washing with water and detergents ). Weapons were disposed at Edgewood Arsenal near Aberdeen MD by mixing the chemical agents with water and testing to make sure the agents had been fully reacted leaving only safe reaction products like phoshates in the solution. Then the effiulent could be dumped into a sewage discharge pipe into the nearby Chesapeake Bay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2016, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
15,573 posts, read 13,787,944 times
Reputation: 22937
They were only a number, Secret World War II Chemical Experiments Tested Troops By Race : NPR
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 08:17 AM
 
1,515 posts, read 1,086,798 times
Reputation: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by catdad7x View Post
It had a nickname in Vietnam... Willy Pete. As the other poster said, it was nasty stuff. I had a young Vietnamese civilian on my Dust Off chopper once that was burned by it. He had lost most of his first layer of skin. Don't know if he survived the injuries or not, hopefully he did. I can still recall the smell some 45 years later.
Was it permitted in Vietnam to intentionally use white phosphorous on people? Or had the poor person been trapped in what was intended to be a smoke screen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Elysium
7,991 posts, read 4,436,008 times
Reputation: 5680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Was it permitted in Vietnam to intentionally use white phosphorous on people? Or had the poor person been trapped in what was intended to be a smoke screen?
It was also used to mark targets so the artillery battery would fire one round to adjust range and then with the fire for effect order they would fire many rounds of less expensive types of ammo. A big show of flash and then smoke lingering in a rain forest is better then a flash and having the effects disappear in the jungle Now if the unit was on target with that first round the military personnel and civilians underneath it were intentionally targeted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 09:34 AM
 
36,194 posts, read 18,610,920 times
Reputation: 20862
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
Maybe this had some to do with it?

The German Soldier's Ten Commandments
If the Nazis had fought their war according to those rules, perhaps. But we know they didn't, so I don't think we have to pay much heed to that.

The decision was practical and political - chemical weapons are finicky like all out and their use come at a high political cost. Field commanders couldn't promise a decisive effect (because chemical warfare doctrine was untested in battlefield conditions), and so high command saw a possible tactical benefit that would come at a certain (and high) political cost.

This logic holds for first-use only, of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 10:08 AM
 
1,515 posts, read 1,086,798 times
Reputation: 2019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
It was also used to mark targets so the artillery battery would fire one round to adjust range and then with the fire for effect order they would fire many rounds of less expensive types of ammo. A big show of flash and then smoke lingering in a rain forest is better then a flash and having the effects disappear in the jungle Now if the unit was on target with that first round the military personnel and civilians underneath it were intentionally targeted.
Thanks.

I think that the use of WP for target marking when needed is legitimate as injuries caused to people are a by product, but not intentional. I would hope that the Geneva Convention forbids it from being used on people as an intentional weapon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Elysium
7,991 posts, read 4,436,008 times
Reputation: 5680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Thanks.

I think that the use of WP for target marking when needed is legitimate as injuries caused to people are a by product, but not intentional. I would hope that the Geneva Convention forbids it from being used on people as an intentional weapon.
It has since 1980
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 01:47 PM
 
Location: southern kansas
9,015 posts, read 6,696,316 times
Reputation: 20714
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Survival is highly doubtful if the extent of the burns were as you describe.
Sadly, I suspect you are right. His burns were extensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 01:55 PM
 
Location: southern kansas
9,015 posts, read 6,696,316 times
Reputation: 20714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Was it permitted in Vietnam to intentionally use white phosphorous on people? Or had the poor person been trapped in what was intended to be a smoke screen?
I can't answer that, as I really don't know. The casualty I mentioned was child around 12 years old or so. We were told he came in contact with a WP grenade that he came in contact with by accident (somehow). I have no way to know if that's what happened or not. Most of the time we had no information on how the injuries occurred, and there wasn't time to dwell on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top