Originally posted by SadisticSid
Sickening in itself, but how is this any different from Saddam using the kind of small-scale chemical weapons that prompted such outrage from the US (i.e. the gassing of the Kurds)?
Hey. There is one treaty regarding inflammable weaponry, and that it's that weapons such as napalm, thermite, white phosphorous and so on are not to be used against civilian targets. [The emphasis on word "civilian" should be important, because it's basically just ID'ing your target].
Napalm - or it's many variants, which share some common components and tendency to BURN - is not a chemical weapon. It uses horrible stuff like gasoline, polystyrene and some stuff to add to the toxicity of smoke* and burning temperature, like magnesium. It's purpose is to burn stuff. I've played around with napalm - it's funny stuff, sticks to everything and burns at 3000 degree C temperature. Of course, a wet woolcloth gives you quite a protection! It's not as inhumane as phosphorous, because when once exhausted, it does not spontaneously ignite when reacting with O2.
Napalm is more an area suppression/denial weapon than a pinpoint smart bomb. A 500-kg bomb of Napalm has an effect area of roughly 100x300 meters, and it burns everything. I'd think that anyone who is willing to use such wildly inaccurate weapon with high chances for collateral damage (you just have to love the term..) should be discharged or at least warned. Against unarmoured enemy convoys and dug-in combatants in open desert, fine.
*The smoke is toxic, yep. As is everything with burning gasoline and plastic products. It does not qualify as a chemical weapon.
