Dianavan, burning is a physical action, not a chemical action. What is the point, anyway? This is an item that had no business being used as an anti-personnel weapon, it apparently was used as an anti-personnel weapon, and the US State Department, after an initial false/incorrect statement, have said so. Your calling WP a chemical weapon won't change the definition of chemical weapons, won't result in an indictment in the World Court against the US for using chemical weapons, and won't change the minds of either the rabid Bushites here or those who know anything about chemical weapons (which is definitely two separate groups). Why don't you give it a rest and go on to the next topic?

BTW, there is a link to the Schedules, which are in the Annex on Chemicals, in the Annex. There are 3 types of phosphorous listed; WP, aka phosphorus tetramer, is not one of them.