Comments on: Another credibility problem

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:11:50 +0000

As I understand the actual tactical use of Willy Pete, it is used as a marking round. i.e. to give a location marker so that high explosives will only be delivered to the desired targets.

So WP is a life saver when used in the ordinary way. It prevents HE from being delivered where it is not wanted.

It can be used as an incendiary - to catch things on fire - but that is not how it is generally used.

It would be really good if folks here had some actual tactical experience or defered to those who do.

Me? I learned the above from an arty blogger. It is not hard to find.

So yeah. Let us dispense with the WP and just sling the HE in the general direction. We can then more easily justify the action. Even if more people die.

After all HE is conventional. In no way a war crime.

By: probligo

probligo — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:12:37 +0000

…since the US has not signed the treaty banning the weapon, then regardless of the effects of the substance on the human body it is not correct to say that we used an “illegal�? weapon…

So, if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon - let us say a tactical artillery shell - and were then to use that against American troops it would not be illegal until such time as Iran signed up to a nuclear arms treaty?

Whereas if the US were to use such a weapon against Iran it would be illegal unless the US were to repudiate yet more ot its international treaties and agreements?

Somehow I hear the strong smell of rotting truth in the background.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:48:54 +0000

Even if the US is right on the legality, it has undoubtedly inflicted a serious propaganda blow on itself. The incendiary effect on hearts and minds.

By: Oorgo

Oorgo — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:52:26 +0000

Agreed, the initial denial is basically an admission of guilt, and guilt only happens when you did something you feel bad about. If it wasn’t illegal, why would they feel the need to deny usage?