[StanislavPetrov]

> The other large-scale use has been in the Syrian Civil War, by the Assad regime against both military and civilian targets (but mostly civilian targets).

False propaganda unfortunately according to the OPCW inspectors who actually went to Syria, including the director of the OPCW. But you can ignore them and take the CIA's word for it instead like the author of this article did.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/02/a-and-b-resp...

>Quite frankly, we don’t use chemical weapons for the same reason we don’t use war-zeppelin-bombers: they don’t work, at least within our modern tactical systems.

Also false, we used white phosphorus extensively in Iraq and elsewhere.

[samatman]

White phosphorus is neither a war-zeppelin-bomber nor a chemical weapon.

Not sure which one you were under the misapprehension that it was. It's neither.

[StanislavPetrov]

Scientists and chemists around the world are going to be stunned to hear that phosphorus isn't a chemical.

>White phosphorus munitions are weapons that use one of the common allotropes of the chemical element phosphorus.

>In munitions, white phosphorus burns readily with flames of 800 °C (1,472 °F).[74][75] Incandescent particles from weapons using powdered white phosphorus as their payload produce extensive partial- and full-thickness burns, as will any attempt to handle burning submunitions without protective equipment. Phosphorus burns carry an increased risk of mortality due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area with prolonged contact, which can result in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[76] White phosphorus particles continue to burn until completely consumed or starved of oxygen. In the case of weapons using felt-impregnated submunitions, incomplete combustion may occur resulting in up to 15% of the WP content remaining unburned. Such submunitions can prove hazardous as they are capable of spontaneous re-ignition if crushed by personnel or vehicles.[77] In some cases, injury is limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.

>Due to the pyrophoric nature of WP, penetrating injuries are immediately treated by smothering the wound using water, damp cloth or mud, isolating it from oxygen until fragments can be removed: military forces will typically do so using a bayonet or knife where able. Bicarbonate solution is applied to the wound to neutralise any build-up of phosphoric acid, followed by removal of any remaining visible fragments: these are easily observed as they are luminescent in dark surroundings. Surgical debridement around the wound is used to avoid fragments too small to detect causing later systemic failure, with further treatment proceeding as with a thermal burn.[77]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Bur...

[samatman]

That same page makes it perfectly clear that white phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon.

My degree is in chemistry. Phosphorus is indeed a chemical, so is lead.

You are either deluded, which is unlikely, or deliberately lying in the hope of winning an argument. The latter is more likely to be the case: therefore, I have contempt for you. We won't interact again.

[StanislavPetrov]

It is a chemical and it is used as a weapon, but according to you it is not a chemical weapon. If lead was being somehow weaponized and dropped on human beings by the military with deadly effects it too would classify as a chemical weapon. I have contempt for abject stupidity, and in an ideal world would never have to interact with anyone like you, but the world is far from ideal.

[int_19h]

Lead is also a chemical and is used as a weapon, but it doesn't make bullets chemical weapons.

[free652]

That's article is absolute garbage, it doesn't convey any rebuttals of any kind. So you are just mudding the waters with he said / she said.

[StanislavPetrov]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgIDlgD_txM