Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

by **nomo** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:29 pm

Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html">www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html</a> War is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much. This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings. <img src="http://www.defensetech.org/images/smaw-ne%20sequence.JPG" style="border:0;"/> A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance." It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: "SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms." The NE round is supposed to be capable of going through a brick wall, but in practice gunners had to fire through a window or make a hole with an anti-tank rocket. Again, from the Marine Corps Gazette: "Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure." The rational for this approach was straightforward: "Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives...all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned." The manufacturers, Talley, make bold use of its track record, with a brochure headlined Thermobaric Urban Destruction." The SMAW-NE has only been procured by the USMC, though there are reports that some were 'borrowed' by other units. However, there are also proposals on the table that thousands of obsolete M-72 LAWs could be retrofitted with thermobaric warheads, making then into effective urban combat tools. But in an era of precision bombs, where collateral damage is expected to be kept to a minimum, such massively brutal weapons have become highly controversial. These days, every civilian casualty means a few more “hearts and minds” are lost. Thermobaric weapons almost invariable lead to civilian deaths. The Soviet Union was heavily criticized for using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan because they were held to constitute "disproportionate force," and similar criticisms were made when thermobarics were used in the Chechen conflict. According to Human Rights Watch, thermobaric weapons "kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area. In urban settings it is very difficult to limit the effect of this weapon to combatants, and the nature of FAE explosions makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect." So it’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide "we do/do not to use X". Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do -- not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of “covering up.” I'm undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of “chemical weapons” and “violating the Geneva Protocol.” Which doesn't really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last week’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds. -- David Hambling

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:40 pm

I wonder what other secret weapons were used in Falluja and other cities that have received a similar treatment.

by **banned** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:42 am

From the Beeb: "US used white phosphorus in Iraq US troops heading towards centre of Iraqi town of Falluja Falluja suffered great damage during the offensive The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja. "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said. The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all. Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon. White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon Col Barry Venable Pentagon spokesman US military interview Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices. Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information". The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military. 'Incendiary' The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed. Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases". "However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants." WHITE PHOSPHORUS Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) Protocol III not signed by US Rai interview And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon. It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said. "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round or rounds into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said. 'Particularly nasty' White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen. Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone." A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area. But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians. He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." When the Rai documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November, it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome." <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...440664.stm</a>

by **Iroquois** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:54 am

Chemical or conventional, white phosphorous is a horrifying, brutal weapon. I can't think of any weapon in either category, in fact, that is more cruel. And, I really don't get the point of this article. Ok, this rocket sounds like it puts a lot of power in the hands of a grunt. But, how is this worse than calling in an air strike or an artillery barrage which, regardless of what this article implies, affect a wider area and are generally much less precise even if they are "smart" ordinance. Excessive force is excessive force, regardless of how it is delivered.

by **banned** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:01 am

....considering what the survivors have to live with. More from the Beeb: --- US veterans' invisible wounds By Richard Allen Greene BBC News Nearly 2,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and tens of thousands wounded. But many have found themselves dealing with psychological - as well as physical - trauma. In the second of a five-part series, BBC News talks to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and related symptoms. Sfc Steve MacMaster (Photo courtesy of Steve MacMaster) MacMaster was overwhelmed by scenes of death and injury Iraq war trauma: Your views Steve MacMaster can't sleep without medication: "If people knew what I was thinking, they would not want to associate with me," he says. Aaron Jones does not feel comfortable without a gun around: "I lived in Iraq for almost a year with a gun on me all the time or right next to my bed." Kathy's boyfriend - who did not want to be named - had to stop watching the news: "When he sees people going to Iraq, or coming home, he can get really upset. "Whatever you say, he'll find something in it to disagree with. So we don't watch the news." All three veterans of the US occupation of Iraq are having nightmares about what they saw and did there - and they are among tens of thousands of US troops suffering from psychological trauma after coming home. Death on the road Sgt MacMaster, 42, is haunted by his memories of commanding a transport unit. Fuel convoy of the 281st Transportation Company (Photo courtesy of Steve MacMaster) A soldier under Sgt MacMaster's command fell asleep at the wheel He was in charge of 40 soldiers driving fuel tankers between Nasiriya and Baghdad - a day-long trip that "was like a bunch of safe forts with no-man's-land in the middle and everybody taking potshots at you". For the safety of his own troops, he had been ordered not to stop moving. "At the beginning of the war I was told: 'Don't stop for anybody - if they get in the way, run them over.'" And he had not been in the country long before he saw a lorry run over a little girl in the road begging for food. "I had seen dead Iraqis before, but they were fighters. These were people who were getting hit in an innocent way." He also saw soldiers under his command suffer horrific injuries. Aaron Jones of the Connecticut National Guard, in Iraq (Courtesy of Aaron Jones) Slideshow: Aaron Jones' story One fell asleep driving a fully loaded 16,000kg (35,000lb) fuel truck. It crashed and rolled over, but the driver survived. "Her face had been smashed in. I couldn't get communications to my helicopters so I decided to take this girl in my humvee and blitzed up to Baghdad as fast as possible." The stress of the mission started getting to him. "I couldn't sleep or eat. I had butterflies in my stomach attacking me." Sgt MacMaster's superior noticed the change and sent him to a psychologist, who sent him on to a military hospital where he was diagnosed with PTSD and depression. Worrying trends A lot of Iraq veterans are hearing that diagnosis these days. A study at the US Army's Walter Reed hospital in Washington, DC, found that up to 17% of Iraq veterans - about one in six - suffered depression, anxiety or PTSD. I've heard the same miserable stories time and again and I don't know what to say - he doesn't want to be consoled Kathy, Veteran's girlfriend About 425,000 US troops have served in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, meaning some 70,000 could be experiencing psychological trauma. Some early indicators are worrying. The divorce rate among US army officers has tripled in the past three years. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans says that in 2004 its affiliates helped 67 veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan - only a year or two into those conflicts. That set off alarm bells at the charity, since experts say it took traumatised Vietnam veterans an average 12-15 years to end up in shelters. "Homeless service providers are deeply concerned about the inevitable rising tide of combat veterans who will soon be requesting their support," the coalition warned. The number of veterans coming home from Iraq, it added, "is unlike anything the nation has experienced since the end of the Vietnam war". Vet Centers - community outreach counselling centres set up by the US Department of Veterans' Affairs - have seen nearly 19,000 Iraq or Afghanistan veterans to date, says Dr Al Batres, the head of the VA's readjustment counselling service. 'Intrusive and disturbing' Tim Beebe, regional director of the New England Vet Centers, says the numbers are increasing month by month. Tim Beebe, regional director of the New England Veterans' Centers PTSD rarely goes away on its own, Tim Beebe warns And his counsellors say they see the same symptoms over and over again: Sleeplessness, anger, irritability, anxiety, depression. "PTSD can be intrusive - you can be out with your family and suddenly you're thinking about an event in Iraq. It becomes disturbing to the veteran, difficult to understand," Mr Beebe says. "It's not something the veteran can will away or adapt to. And it can be chronic and lifelong if not treated." But - although pre- and post-deployment mental health screening is becoming standard in the US military - many veterans do not seek treatment. Some simply have no professional services nearby. Self-reliance Aaron Jones says many veterans think they can simply "suck it up and drive on", as the military has taught them to do. Homecoming at Fort Hood It is the unseen injuries that are worrying the Pentagon Kathy's boyfriend - a 14-year Army veteran who did two tours in Iraq and has known friends who were killed there since he came home - is one of them, she says. He doesn't even talk to his veteran friends about his experiences, she says. "He told me they have a rule that they don't talk about it - they go out to have fun, and if they talk about Iraq, they don't have fun," she says. "I'm the only one he talks to. I've heard the same miserable stories time and again and I don't know what to say. He doesn't want to be consoled." Even some of those who have had help continue to struggle with trauma. Steve MacMaster would like to stop taking medication for his condition but fears the consequences. "I don't want to go back to the way I was in Iraq, where I became reckless and thought the only way to end it was to take a bullet - and started hoping for the bullet."

Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

Re: Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

Ain't no secret no more.

Re: WP

Maybe the dead are the lucky ones...

Who is online