Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants. General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana."The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.
"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.
Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.
"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.
11 comments:
Those poor Canadian soldiers must have felt home sick, from what I've heard about Canada.
didn't some canadian snowboarding champ loose his medal for being in the same room as someone with a spliff or something? I knew Afghan weed was top shit but I din't realise it was napalm proof.
Wasn't there a mention of white phosphorous, too? I thought that stuff was banned?
Hardy herb.
it was used in Falluja I think.
here you go
Yeah, I remember the controversy of its use in Falujah. I thought I remembered it being discussed as off-limits.
So much for the Geneva Conv.
We spend the bulk of our resources on better ways to kill. I can't help wondering at what point we'll be forced to stop classifying ourselves as human.
Peace is unthinkable until it is thought of.
This is a pretty funny story. Those are damn big mj plants, ditchweed here doesn't grow much over 5 feet.
"Hillier said dryly." LOL, I like this guy.
Willy Pete, the facts: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
Lets try that url again:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
Humbug. Too long or something.
Just go to GlobalSecurity and search for White Phosphorus. Its not banned or illegal or against the GC. Some people just like to mislead by calling it a chemical weapon.
Oral ingestion
The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage. [9] [10] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome"). [11]
[edit] Arms control status
A USAF Security Police Squadron member packs an 81 mm white phosphorous smoke-screen mortar round during weapons training, 1980.
Enlarge
A USAF Security Police Squadron member packs an 81 mm white phosphorous smoke-screen mortar round during weapons training, 1980.
Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians or in civilian areas. However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a non-binding debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.). The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Because its effects are physical and not chemical, WP was not included in the CWC's original annex listing chemicals that fell under this definition for purposes of verification.[12] However, a more in-depth analysis of white phosphorus interactions with human physiology may yet provide reasoning for its prohibition under the CWC.[13]
In 2005, interviewed by the RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (which is not associated with the UN), which oversees the CWC, publicly questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions: "No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use. If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." [14]. Despite Kaiser's assertion, the United States has not acquiesced to this view of the Convention, and is not bound by such assertions.
Some opponents have also argued that because of its incendiary effects, WP is potentially restricted by the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III), which prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [15] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. In any case, the third protocol has not been signed by the United States.[16]
[edit] Military regulations
An OV-10 Bronco aircraft fires a white phosphorus smoke rocket to mark a ground target, 1984.
Enlarge
An OV-10 Bronco aircraft fires a white phosphorus smoke rocket to mark a ground target, 1984.
According to the US Army field manual on the Rule of Land Warfare, "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law." [17] However, there is some conflicting guidance given by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. ST 100-3 Battle Book, a student text, states that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." [18] This seems at odds with other field manuals which discuss the use of white phosphorus against personnel [19]. One blog has reported that The US Marine Corps has recently issued guidance against using "flame weapons" (including white phosphorus) against personnel. [20]
wiki
People probably mislead others calling it a chemical weapon because of the strange voodoo it does by charing a body black whilst leaving the womans burkah intact.
Post a Comment