November 29, 2004
WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE'RE FLAMING IMBECILES:
FALLUJAH NAPALMED: US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told? (Paul Gilfeather, Nov 28 2004, Daily Mirror)
US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.
And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh. [...]
Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.
Cool! It's some kind of neutron napalm that melts flesh without setting buildings on fire.
MORE (via David Cohen):
Fire When Ready: Why we should consider using flamethrowers in Afghanistan. (Scott Shuger, Oct. 31, 2001, Slate)
There aren’t any news cameras trained on the caves of Afghanistan, but you can still watch U.S. soldiers battle an enemy hiding in underground tunnels and bunkers: Go rent Sands of Iwo Jima. The 1949 John Wayne classic incorporates actual combat footage of Marines attacking Japanese forces ensconced, à la the Taliban, in caves and other fortified underground positions, many of them linked by tunnels. On the Pacific island of Iwo Jima, the central command post was 75 feet below the island’s volcanic rock. On nearby Okinawa, the Japanese fought from several belts of caves and bunkers as well as from thousands of ancestral tombs. What was the weapon that enabled the Marines to take the fight in and down to an enemy this entrenched? As you can see in the movie, it was the flamethrower, which shoots a column of splattering fire that can penetrate viewing slits and air ducts and even kill around corners.Posted by Orrin Judd at November 29, 2004 4:11 PMRecent news reports have said that Osama Bin Laden has access to caves that are electrified, multistoried, and steel-fortified. So we’re prepared to use flamethrowers to clear them out, right? On several occasions, President Bush has said of the terrorists, “We’re going to smoke them out of their holes.” But why settle for smoke when there’s fire?
Well, there’s a little problem. That John Wayne movie is about the only place you can see flamethrowers these days because the U.S. military doesn’t have them anymore. Though flamethrowers were in use as recently as the Vietnam War, none of our service branches has any in their inventory now. (None of the experts and old Army hands interviewed for this story knew exactly when they were eliminated.) The field manual used by the Army and Marines states that “flame is a valuable close combat weapon” that can be “used to demoralize troops and reduce positions that have resisted other forms of attack,” but the manual dropped detailed descriptions of flamethrower tactics in the early 1990s. A 66 mm man-portable rocket launcher that fires an incendiary round is still on the books, but most experienced U.S. military folks contacted this past week weren’t familiar with it. (One retired Army officer did remember that “years ago” the rocket was used at a U.S. base in a demonstration for visitors. He says such a fire rocket would be “dandy” for caves.) As the Afghan war bogs down against opponents willing to literally go underground, one very promising U.S. weapon for going after them is missing in action.
Why? Primarily because, among civilians, fire weapons are considered inhumane. The fuel for flamethrowers is basically napalm, and napalm has never recovered from its Vietnam reputation for awfulness.
It's kept in large oil drums at Area 51, right next to the stuffed Bigfoot.
Posted by: Bart at November 29, 2004 4:28 PMNapalm is a gas?
Posted by: Mike Morley at November 29, 2004 4:34 PMOk, enough is enough. I think we should implement the PR strategy mentioned below by Bart.
You know the one where we round up all the employees of the Mirror in the middle of the night and march them blindfolded to the soccer stadium and machine gun them with 50 calibers and then bury them in a mass grave.
I realize there is a risk this could coarsen the debate, but at least the immediate impertinence will have ended.
Posted by: h-man at November 29, 2004 4:34 PM"Jet fuel," also known as "kerosene." I believe napalm is actually made with gasoline 'cause it burns better.
Do these guys get a bonus if they push the mistake:sentence ratio above unity?
The more I reflect on it, the less convinced I am that it's a bad thing to impress the Arabs with (real or imagined) brutality from American troops.
Posted by: mike earl at November 29, 2004 4:38 PMh:
It does have the advantage of justifying the soccer field...
Posted by: oj at November 29, 2004 4:41 PMI think our guys are using White Phosphorous. Commonly known in the military as Willy Peter. Dazzling explosions of silver white color. Can't be extinguished with liquid. Hence, melted bodies.
Posted by: Tom Wall at November 29, 2004 5:00 PMActually, all the Fallujah buildings are made of asbestos, which not only explains the melted bodies and intact buildings, but also means Bush sent U.S. soliders into a cancer quagmire. If the Mirror doesn't report on this tomorrow, I'm sure the CBS Evening News will latch onto it...
Posted by: John at November 29, 2004 5:02 PMI thought that this is what we had thermo-baric weapons for. Or at least quick-setting cement.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 29, 2004 5:53 PMCoincidently, speaking of soccer field and executions...
Check out the front page of the Onion this instant.
There you will find the following "statistic": Study: 86 Percent Of World's Soccer Stadiums Double As Places Of Mass Execution
Posted by: H.D. Miller at November 29, 2004 9:06 PMFlamethrowers were introduced by the Germans during World War I.
Our guys did not have them in 1942, either.
The Marines on Tanambogo, the first to encounter Japanese in caves, improvised by filling a jerrycan about half full of gasoline and taping a quarter-pound of TNT to it.
It took a man to throw one of those puppies very far.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 30, 2004 1:40 AMHarry, I forget where I saw this:
There are two problems with the flamethrower as a weapon:Posted by: Kirk Parker at November 30, 2004 3:13 AM
- You have to get too close the the enemy to use it effectively
- You have to get too close to the flamethrower to use it effectively
The flame-thrower replacement mentioned above is the M202 Multi-Shot Portable Flame Weapon. I fam-fired one in Quantico in the 70's. It sort of looks like four Light Anti-Armor Weapons stuck together, and works pretty much the same as the LAAW, with a magnesium payload vice a shaped charge.
It's pretty dramatic, and it was suppused to better against caves, bunkers and the like than the old flame thower. I don't believe that it was particularly popular with the troops, and the public has never heard of it. It was featured in the Gov. Schwartzenegger movie, Commando, in which the female lead used one to take out a paddy wagon, although the effect shown was HE and not magnesium flame. The latest version is called the M202A F.L.A.M.E. weapon. I believe it's still in the inventory.
Kirk P. is right about the drawbacks of the old flame thrower. You wouldn't want to be carrying one of those around on your back.
Likewise, is most likely that the complaints about NAPALM were WP casulties. WP is used for marking targets and for screening enemy positions. It has severe anti-personnel effects, but these are supposed to be incidential to its intended uses.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 30, 2004 12:13 PMBy late in the Pacific war, we had flamethrowing gear on tanks, which threw the flame much farther (about 100 feet v. 30, if I recall correctly).
Worked pretty well in open country.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 30, 2004 10:20 PMMessed up Quarrel pretty good too.
Posted by: oj at November 30, 2004 11:21 PMQuarrel? I'm not familiar with that.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 1, 2004 2:06 AMI believe the proper spelling is Quarle. Fleming was British.
(from "Dr. No")
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 1, 2004 9:33 PM