Some of my progressive brethern (Heretic, Freiheit und Wissen) are up in arms about the U.S. military’s use of incendiary munitions in March and April 2003. The controversy surrounds the Navy’s description of Mark-77 Mod 5 incendiary munitions, a.k.a. fire bombs, as not being napalm devices because of their current fill.
The MK-77 Mod 5 uses kerosene-based jet fuel and a polystyrene thickener, instead of the older composition of benzene, gasoline, and polystyrene. The term “napalm” comes from a combination of the words naphthalene and palmitate, which were added to gasoline in World Wars II to create the fuel for fire bombs and flamethrowers. As technology developed, better formulas were developed, and modern incendiary munitions (Viet Nam-era and later) did not use either component. Much like the term “Xerox” has been used as a generic term for any copier, the term “napalm” has nonetheless stuck to these types of fire bombs.
The use of these bombs in Iraq is not new. It was reported in August 2003 and December 2004 prior to being reported last week. One report notes the possible use of these bombs in Afghanistan in December 2001. The controvery appears to stem over whether the U.S. military is somehow disingenuous in stating these are not napalm devices in the sense of Viet Nam or Korean conflicts because the composition changed. Second, the public controversy over the use of incendiary devices (given their past use in World War II and Viet Nam on civilian targets) draws the question of whether the U.S. military should be using these weapons at all, especially given the 1980 UN Conventions on Certain Conventional Weapons’ clause prohibiting the use of incendiary weapons on civilians. The U.S. government is not a signatory of that convention, which also addresses land mines.
While the military isn’t scoring any points by claiming these munitions aren’t napalm — they certainly are napalm-like — the point my progressive friends are missing is that, as long as the military does not attack civilian targets, they are well within legal rights to use this very effective and psychologically-impacting weapon. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a “WMD” or a “wartime horror” any more than other conventional weapon systems that are legitimately used against military forces. While the MK-77 Mod 5s may be guilty in the public court of opinion, the U.S. military should stand firm on their use, as it does currently with land mines. There are too many cases between 1942 and today where the expedient use of napalm-like munitions have saved U.S. military troops from tight situations for public opinion to relegate it to the history bins.
– Armchair Generalist
| A Rose By Any Other Name« « So How’s The Air? | R2-D2 vs. Mortar Rounds » » Leave a ReplyNOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces. By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement | |
One of ‘napalmlike’ weapons’ other virtues is that even if you miss your target, they’re real hard to ignore.
Oh yeah, and is it just me or has the military lately been steppin in the doo through what could charitably be called spin-doctoring? They should stick with the truth, it’s what they’re good at. You reading this, Rummy?
a rose by any other name…
oops, forgot to read the title of the entry.
The spin-docs will spin wheather we like it or not. Some will eat-this-stuff-up as if were served on a silver platter. If it will save one of my three sons in the military-by all means use it.
Remember the Anti-war movies thet were so prevalent after the Vietmam debacle that your polititions placed us in. One stated,erroniously, that he “loved the smell of Napalm in the morning, smells like—Victory” or something of that ilk. The napalm-like bombs use was something to see, especially if it was between the enemy and our troops, or better yet, on the enemy concentrations. If I had been a commander of ground troops, I would have used everything available to protect my troops.
I say use it and any other weapon we have at our disposal. If it brings our guys and girls home safe and sound, it is worth every cent regardless of what the nay-sayers may think, say, or do. Put them out there, let them get shot at, and then get their behind saved by an incendiary device of any kind and they will change their tune. If not, they are simply too stupid to listen to. Again, if it keeps our soldiers safe, use it often and use it well.
A question here,
Napalm is bad it burns and causes the bad guys a terriable death, but one it is done it is done.
On the other hand CBU’s are good they air burst but about 10% are duds that litter the battle area for years and can be picked up by kids and become duds no longer.
Tell me again why napalm is bad and CBU’s are not bad?
Allons,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
Good stuff. I dropped ‘napalm’ in Nam. BLU1-Bs. They were filled with straight styrene monomer so very technically and with lawyer-like spinning they were not Napalm, which was gasoline thinckened with sodium palmitate, among other stuff. I suppose the USN’s mixing the monomer with JP8 to save money. Best thing about using the stuff is 1) you can get right in their face and not worry about bomb frag getting you and 2) it’s an area weapon. As for what it does on the other end, tough. If they can’t take a joke they shouldn’t be there.
BJ — once Gunfighter 40