It has been classified as a chemical weapon by the news agencies and some members of A.net but infact it is an incinderary weapon. But we already beat this dead horse and the merits of this statement can be and have been debated in another thead.
Rather than having lethal concussion or shrapnel effects, WP burns people to death. I can see how using this may easily maim people rather than kill them out right. Quite painful I imagine, but WP's use is not a violation of the Hague laws and Geneva Conventions. I wouldn't be suprised to see use of WP made illegal in the laws of land warfare, much along the lines of blinding lasers and 'cop-killer' bullets.
I'm still not sure what I think about the use of WP yet. I can tell you as a combat vet that 'fighting fair' is a very poor tactic and should never be stipulated that our soldiers do so, but also I think weapons that easily maim and cause life long suffering should not be used. Yes, do I realize all weapons have such maiming capability and that we can't fight a war with nerf guns either.
Just wondering what everyone else thinks about the use of WP as a weapon.
(This is not meant to incite a US/Iraq flamefest or why any war is wrong, which I'm sure it will become one, but to debate the merits of WP in warfare.)
Pope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 739 times:
As soon as all terrorist organizations and insurgents agree to abide by a code of conduct, then we can begin discussing what is and is not allowable. But fighting a war with one hand tied behind our back while animals behead our citizen is just stupid.
If they want to bring it to us, then they need to be ready to get hit back - hard.