A lot hinges on definitions. What’s a WMD? Nuclear and biological are probably fairly easy to distinguish, but chemical weapons? Gunpowder is a chemical. But chemical weapons are usually identified as non-combustible. The common, layman’s definition of a chemical weapon might be simpler: drop a chemical on someone and they are injured or killed. This would fit into the non-combustible category.

One might ask, however, if the difference is really as big as we make it out. Much talk is devoted to how inhuman Saddam Hussein was for gassing Kurds. Of course, we didn’t give a damn when it actually happened–Hussein was our friend at the time, and we even helped him develop those weapons (we wanted him as a counterweight to Iran). We only saw him as a monster after he invaded Kuwait. Before then, he was our friend and ally, and we overlooked his gassing people. After Kuwait, he was a monster we had to wipe off the face of the Earth.

But I digress. Why are WMD that much more terrible than conventional weapons? Would you rather die in a millisecond at ground zero of a nuclear explosion, or be shot in the gut, dying slowly and painfully? Perhaps that’s not a fully honest question, though. WMDs can be quick and painless, and conventional weapons can be horrifically cruel–but it is probably more often the other way around. And WMDs have a greater ability to kill in large numbers. These are likely the reasons why we abhor WMDs far more than conventional weapons. In addition, of course, to the huge emphasis placed on the unacceptable nature of WMD in popular culture.

But have we used chemical weapons? What about napalm? How about Agent Orange? Would these qualify? Have we been using WMDs on people we fought for decades, and have just been hiding the fact by splitting hairs or ignoring the issue altogether?

And what about White Phosphorus? Also known as WP, or Willy Pete, it has been in the news recently, since American soldiers let it be known that it was used in Fallujah. You remember Fallujah, the really tough place that our government felt was important to get “under control” at just about any cost? We used it there.

The severity of the effects of WP seem to depend on where you read about them. It is described in Wikipedia as if it were a non-lethal weapon, though if you look closely, the article uses words such as “diluted” and “usually” less harmful than napalm. The U.S. military has been describing it publicly as a weapon used to illuminate a battlefield or to create a smokescreen–but less public documents showed that it is indeed used by the military as an incendiary, and is used in “lethal” situations. In fact, the military initially denied using it at all, suggesting that they knew it was not kosher.

The debate has been as to whether WP is indeed a chemical weapon, and therefore a WMD. The substance can burn or even melt skin, damage the eyes, throat or internal organs, and even dissolve the jaw bone. It can be lethal. It was used in shells that exploded over positions in Fallujah, and it appears that civilians were also exposed. An Italian documentary showed civilian corpses, people who evidently died in WP attacks (gruesome photos here, here and here–you’re forewarned). And the way it was used, it was not an explosive–it worked far more like a chemical weapon as defined within the context of WMDs.

But did we really use it? The Italian documentary maker presented a U.S. soldier who spoke about the use of WP. But the U.S. military denied it. Besides, they said, we didn’t sign the treaty which outlawed it.

But a report from the Washington Post at the time of the attacks kind of makes it irrefutable:

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, “The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted.”

The evidence also seems to suggest that civilians were killed by the weapon as well.

So we might return to the argument about how bad WMDs are, relatively speaking. After all, we Americans do that when we discuss Hiroshima, right? We did it to save lives, more people would have suffered a worse death, and so on. But it is hard for us to talk both sides–that it’s monstrous when our enemies use it, and justifiable when we use it. And the idea that deaths caused by conventional weapons are just as bad doesn’t help much either–we do that kind of thing far, far more often.

In the end, the use of weapons like WP seem to dissolve many of the jingoistic portraits of Saddam as a madman and we as white-hat heroes. The distinctions are less clear. We’ve had torture and rape rooms, too. We’ve likely enough killed more Iraqis than Hussein did, probably even if you only count noncombatants. And we’ve used weapons that were no less horrific and not so different than Hussein’s chemical attacks, and we’ve done this to civilians. And remember, when Hussein used his chemical weapons, we did not make a peep, nor did we call him a monster or decry the use of such weapons until it suited us politically.

WP doesn’t make us into Hussein. But it does serve to show that the lines are far, far more blurred than most would have you believe.