Back in November, a good-sized chunk of the press and blogosphere got all a-twitter about the American use of “chemical weapons” — never mind that the munitions the Army used were anything but.
Now, we’ve got ourselves a new variation on the argument. This one comes from Wayne Madsen, who blogged his belief that Israeli military forces are using a dual-purpose fuel-air explosive/chemical munition in Lebanon (see his entry on July 23). Seems he’s sold on the fact that one man can pick up the munition, clearly demonstrating that it is filled with a gas and not a liquid (plus some gruesome corpse photos).
The claim was all too easy to shoot down on general chem warfare principles. But it has been joined by other news sources (see here, here, and here). Most of the reports mistakenly believe that these are phosphorus munitions, similar to the stories of U.S. forces’ use in Fallujah, mostly because of the blackened nature of the casualties’ skin. Sadly, these reports are mistaken; the munitions aren’t even phosphorus-filled.
The Defense Update has the story on this military system. It is indeed a minefield breaching system, called “Carpet,” currently in use by the Israeli army and will be fielded with the French army next year. Not much imagination as to the name and its function: the armored vehicle that is the weapon platform can fire up to 20 rockets in a rapid squence for minefield breaching. The force of the FAE blast clears nearly all mines, regardless of terrain, foliage or man-made obstacles.
Pre-programmed for automatic, semi-automatic or manual operation, Carpet is operated remotely from inside the vehicles compartment, under cover from enemy fire. The system can also be reloaded rapidly in the forward area. Unlike the Vipers, firing line charges across the minefields, Carpet rockets contain only liquid fuel which is flammable but not explosive in regular operating conditions. Therefore, if Carpet rockets are hit in their canisters, they do not cause any danger to the system, vehicle or nearby troops.
Fully loaded, the Carpet launcher weighs only 3.5 tons. It can carry up to 20 x 265 mm rockets, each weighing 46 kg. Fully functional training rockets can also be fired with the system for training exercises, safely simulating the entire operation (without fuel-air explosion). The system can be towed, mounted on the rear of the armored fighting vehicle (as shown on the IDF Puma AFV at EuroSatory 2002) or installed inside an APC. The IDF used the Carpet during the war in Lebanon, neutralizing and clearing Hezbollah strongholds near the Israeli– Lebanese border. (See video here)
Only one newspaper I found — South Africa’s Star — correctly identified the one potential violation of the international law banning the use of incendiaries against noncombatants, rather than the more popular accusation that Israel was using “chemical weapons” in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (to which Israel isn’t a party, anyway). Comment from the Israeli army? “We use only weapons and ammunition which will best hit our targets and cause least collateral damage,” said army spokesman Captain Jacob Dallal. Yep. FAEs are very powerful conventional weapons, but they aren’t toxic chemical weapons.
– Jason Sigger, Armchair Generalist
Yet again the liberals and people of that side show how ignorant they are and there true intentions; to bend facts and tell lies to make good look bad and the bad (hezballah, terrorist) look good.
What I find disturbing about this whole issue is that the powers that be are actually debating what types of killing are ‘acceptable’ or not. Think “incindiaries” are less humane than thermobaric weapons? Only to the observer. With an incindiary device, the victim burns to death. It looks worse on the outside, but in all truth, once the nerve endings are burnt to a crisp all you feel is what your brain is perceiving…which can actually be a cold feeling in burn cases. When a victim dies because of a direct hit by thermobaric weapon, they are literally blown to bits…not vaporized…blown to bits by the shockwave that results from the explosion. Which do you think is more painful? And to be honest…what difference does it make? It’s all murder. It’s all different ways of ending life. Yes, burning takes longer to end the life, but the end result is the same. To judge the technical aspects of murder acts to desensitize people in respects to it. I’m not a pacifist, but I do believe that to keep everything in perspective, life must be valued, and murder must remain taboo to society. When you start creating ‘acceptable’ types of murder, you begin the decline of civil life.
“And to be honest…what difference does it make? It’s all murder. It’s all different ways of ending life.“
DS, the difference is that civilized societies have developed laws of war, in part to ensure that we all understand the potential repercussions of our actions (be they legitimate or not) and in part to ensure that we can identify a justified war from an unjustified one (and prosecute the offenders after the fact). At the least, it allows us to imagine that we are possible of fighting a clean war for a good purpose, even if there are the outliers and exceptions to that general set of rules.
The rocket canisters are filled with liquid. The picture shows a man carrying one that is either empty or he can lift at least 250 lbs. Which is not that unusual for a weight lifter but he doesn’t have the build.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Mike, true ignorance is assuming that your point of view is the only valid one, unusually demonstrated by denigration of any opinion that conflicts with your own. The US and Israeli governments and media call Hezbollah terrorists while others call them freedom fighters. It all depends on one
“A clean war with a good purpose” will stay in the imagination I think.
To try and differentiate between humane and inhumane combat tactics is to expose perhaps our biggest liability. We generally value all human life; for this we are percieved as weak by the standards of our 9th century-minded enemies. In the West, when the most heinous and monstrous of homicidial child abusers is sentenced to death, even as the lights dim, or the syringe is pressed, there will be a constituancy objecting to the execution. It is this constituancy that our enemies will use to defeat us, to much greater effectiveness than guns or IEDs.
The day when our society values the destruction of terrorism higher than the value of life; will be the day our enemies look at each other and wordlessly know they’re living on borrowed time.
There are two improtant things to remember. One is that it only takes one side to make a war. The other is that there are some societies that are so toxic, so heinous that they must be changed.
The means to do this must be controled as much for the “good guys” as for the bad. War is a brutal thing and a guidline to what is permisable assists in the retention of the “good guys” humanity, especially since civilians will be the majority of casualties in any full scale war.
It is all too
Have you ever been in Combat? Combat so close that you had to resort to your fixed blade knife to stay alive?
My position is that ANY weapon we can develop/deploy that will save American/Human lives is a weapon that should be in use NOW!!
What if your son or daughter needed this or a similar weapon to stay alive? Would you want them to have it then? I KNOW I WOULD!
1LegMarine