Talk:Mark 77 bomb

The external link to dailykos.com should be deleted. DailyKos is a political opinion site and it is inappropriate to reference it. Instead, the original news article that the DailyKos site refers to should instead be linked.

Opinions are crucial tools in presenting information. You will note that there are many wikipedia articles that quote pundit's opinions when relevant. also you can sign your name by doing four tildes (~) in a row. TitaniumDreads 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First: "Use of incendiary bombs against civilian populations was banned in the 1980" is not strictly correct. The exact quote from the CCW is:

"It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."

Second:

The CCW consists of 4 separate protocols (or rather three plus an addendum). Any nation which signs two or more of those protocols is considered a signatory. The US has signed the agreement, just not Article III on incendiary weapons.

=== Well, your statement was not 100% correct either. Here you go:

According to the Protocol III of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons governing the use of incendiary weapons: - prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (effectively a reaffirmation of the general - prohibition on attacks against civilians in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions) - prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets located within concentrations of civilians and loosely regulates the use of other types of incendiary weapons in such circumstances

Nachtrabe 10:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I removed the incorrect fact that white phosphorus is added to the bombs and that it was an oxidizing agent, but the references don't seem to support the fact that any oxidizers were used. Can anyone prove/disprove this fact?

Anonymous

The references apear to be one sided in their views, and the references used are mostly factualy inacurate. If we are using biased references, they need to be replaced. If we are using factualy inacurate references they need to be replaced. Who would ask to prove/disprove any topic using baited references? One must use all knowledge availible to gather references and facts, not trapping course of underated news castings and magazine articles comming from anti war administrations. Ask a proffessional technition as to what is placed into the bombs, not a journalist.

Gatwood

While looking for any official reference to this weapon (to deal with the really weak references currently used), I found a photo that can be used.

http://www.marines.mil/Photos.aspx?igphoto=279659

Hcobb (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to me there are a number of inaccurate statements. In 1964 and 1965 I was a young Aviation Ordnanceman in the A-1H/J Skyraider squadron in USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14). We used the MK 77 Mod 0 NAPALM bomb in Vietnam. The mixture was 95% Aviation Gasoline (115/145 Octane) and 5% Aluminum Stearate by weight. The fuze system was the Mk 13 Mod 0 igniter, which if my memory serves, was in fact a white phosphorous igniter. Air_Gunner 71Air Gunner71 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark 77 bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050728153658/http://www.publications.parliament.uk:80/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050110/text/50110w21.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050110/text/50110w21.htm#50110w21.html_sbhd6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark 77 bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109215806/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050620011336/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0617-01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517021639/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply